I love when Sirrian replies to things like this.:3
As a thirty-coughcough year old woman playing this game - who is not a mother, if it’s relevant - I have never really been much bothered with the way women are portrayed in this game. There are a few, like Atlanta, who are a bit oversexualized, and it would be nice if the twins could be tucked in a bit more, so to speak. But as even these sorts of characters aren’t given stories dripping with seduction or flimsy damsel-in-distress fluff, it doesn’t really bother me. Atlanta may have a wardrobe malfunction waiting to happen, but she is no pushover, and I’m grateful that characters like her are given skills, personalities, and flaws, and are not treated like decorations. Too many times, women are given either looks or skills, not both. (And if they have both, they are lamented as Mary-Sues, which is another problem…)
3 Likes
I never expected all these responses, and I too am pleased that we are able to discuss this in a civilised manner. 
My original intention was to share this because I really like the artwork in GoW and I think it’s a pity this splashscreen isn’t completely visible for all players, depending on their platform.
I don’t find any of the female characters offensive in any way (except maybe the already mentioned Atlanta, who is indeed rather well-equipped or at least showing it too much to some people’s taste). In fact I think all the female characters are very strong, and it shows in their artwork. Apart from that I think the Green Seer is very cute, like Faunessa.
2 Likes
As usual, Sheggra gets no love…
Ahem. I never really though any of the art was, y’know, questionable. Although, coming from League of Legends, the bar has been set kind of low in some cases… My fellow LoL players will remember how some call the character ‘Miss Fortune’ by another name…
Also, what the hell is up with Sivir? Spines don’t work that way.
2 Likes
I knew there was a reason I loved the art. The main thing I miss about my MtG days is the art and flavor text lore stories. My empty wallet however I miss not at all. 
-Razlath
Yep, am awaiting my sheggra boudoir photography damnit!
I don’t know the other name for Miss Fortune, but sad truth is that my ex girlfriend looked exactly the same as MF (with smaller bewbs, but the rest was like she was the model for designing MF). I would always be said on the loading screen when someone picked MF. . I miss her so much. .
What if the art design team designing the female characters show more cleavage not because of sexualization but because the women in the art are in areas where it is hot and like men taking off a shirt to cool down women show more bewbs and belly because they do not take off their shirts or tops. This could also explain the short skirt over pants. Spirits excluded.
This does make sense for short skirts, though from an armor standpoint you still want at least some kind of thigh / shin guard. Even if the calf / hamstring is open. However, it wouldn’t really explain Atlanta’s outfit because… well physics. Male pecs are composed usually of muscle (we are NOT discussing Elf Eater) which is relatively rigid. Female breasts are composed of soft tissues which tend to react painfully to strenuous activity unless properly supported (according to my wife, being male, I trust her on it). This is the main reason for the design of sports bras. Besides the exposure problems Atlanta would most likely have if she were to say jump backwards to dodge an arrow, she would also have some rather uncomfortable run-ins with physics if asked to be active for more than a minute or two either.
That of course all interjects “reality” into a fantasy world, which I have already expressed a distaste for. Games aren’t real and we play them to escape reality. Some grounding is fine, but they shouldn’t be slaves to real life physics. I have been playing table top games with my wife and other females for a while. Never have I had them pick out an outfit that their character wears (or a picture to represent their character) and go… yeah pretty sure that would support me correctly and obey the laws of physics. Instead they want to look awesome, powerful, and hot all at once, physics be damned (I presume based on pictures chosen). Every so often, they mention that it is also somewhat practical as well. To be fair, I do the same thing when picking my character pictures. Muscular arms and legs, strong jaws, big pecs, thick flowing hair, and abs for days (assuming you can see them since I usually play tanks). So take any injection of “reality” into a fantasy land with a grain of salt.
-Razlath
Everyone going on about Atlanta… Am I the only one thinking that female human hero is equally sexualized? :o
Female human hero is rather ugly IMO, so not much to sexualize. Also her body is exactly the same as other female heroes (just a different color), and what she wears depends completely on the armor you use (some are quite revealing, but most are not).
Agreed that female hero is rather unappealing.
The short skirt might be for more mobility and less weight to move around. If you wear armour it slows you down especially with women who have more flexibility then men. If you go rough then light armour is better as you can move faster and the same with any ranger class as they would not have to be in direct confrontation and excess armour makes it harder to fight with a bow. Also i like playing as the female cause she looks better than the guy imo.
I happen to play with my 11-year-old son. At first he was astonished by the cleavages of some female characters and asked if it was not a bit too much. And he felt rather embarrassed when he first saw the Green seer. He asked me many questions : if he was allowed to see that kind of drawings, for what age it was intended…
However GOW seems to me relatively harmless and I don’t mind if he plays (except when he asks me to play on his account instead of mine ). I am a lot more worried about what some of his friends are liable to show him.
However it is not as a mother that I was talking here.
Once again I I like the drawings and I find them beautiful. I am not judging them on the point of view of aesthetics.
I don’t think I am particularly prudish either. I even kept a blog on erotic literature with a friend a few years ago.
I was merely talking as a feminist.
Shadow hunter and Sunweaver have unexpectedly/unnecessarily oversized boobs. I was astonished by the cleavage of the Banshee when I started the game. I don’t know how Dark song’s clothes are supposed to hold. Lady Sapphira is half-naked. And as regards the Green seer, it seems to me that her creators got a little carried away.
I am sure there are many games that are a lot “worse”. I don’t consider GOW as offensive. I only regret that some of the female characters are objectified.
Besides “less worse” does not mean “fine”.
I agree that the female characters have great personalities. But I regret that the way they are dressed sometimes doesn’t fit with what they are supposed to be. Another example would be Lady Sapphira. She is the lady of a castle, living in peace with humans for a long time. She commands, receives envoys… I see her as an old-fashioned aristocrat. And that is just how the Lord vampire looks like. But she doesn’t look anything of the kind.
That is just a fallacious pretext. I totally agree with Razlath’s answer.
Precisely. When I play Crusader Kings, I expect to find the game historically accurate. I don’t mind having no women in my council because it is how it used to be. Whereas I don’t expect a fantasy game to follow any constraints, except a minimum of coherence. So there is nothing that justifies an inequality of treatment in the drawings/skills/… of male and female characters, hence a inequality of treatment of male and female players.
That being said, GOW is a great game and I love it as it is… I would only prefer to see less Atlantas and more Scarletts in the future.
I was recently wondering how you work and what inspires you. What you explain here is very interesting. Wouldn’t it be possible from time to time to share with us a little of how you work. For example where the idea of a new kingdoms and its troops come from and how it has been created?
1 Like
Oh riiiiight, Shadow Hunter… yeah that one kind of freaked me out. I know I had someone try to get me to ask why that was a thing.
I never even realized Shadow-Hunter was a girl xD
Agreed that Sunweaver has needlessly large breasts…
Bewbs aside…I for one appriciate seeing the whole intro picture. Thx
I notice there are very few devil’s advocates in this thread, and at possibly great personal risk (at least to reputation), I think I’m going to be the one.
So, I have no problem with the “sexualisation” of the women in this game.
I am going to anger a few people, perhaps, so here is my elaboration.
Firstly, I figure myself to be the “target audience” for sexualised cartoon women.
I am a male heterosexual adult.
Now I agree that if we’re going to discuss costumes in terms of practicality in combat, there will be some flaws in their functionality. But that isn’t sexualisation.
The artwork has been drawn the way it has for aesthetic pleasure. I don’t just mean Green Seer, either. I mean, Jarl Firemantle, Sheggra, and Kerberos.
So the basic level of argument I am seeing here is “OMG Atlanta has bewbs”.
I have two problems with this argument.
- All real world women - barring women who have occured personal misfortune such as cancer - have bewbs.
- It isn’t sexual. I know this, because I can look at Atlanta, or Green Seer, and there is zero sexual reaction from me.
I can look upon my partner and it’s a different story. These pictures aren’t sexual, even if they’re alluring.
So there was another argument I saw in the thread, an example was “Sunweaver has overly large bewbs”.
Again, I say, so what?
You can see a minimum amount of them, they’re armoured up quite well, and they aren’t the focus of the picture.
I didn’t even see them until this thread came up, and I look for them. (Perhaps I should have left that part out.)
Not to forget that many real world women have “overly large breasts”!
It isn’t misrepresentation if you can find real world examples, and real world women can dress how they choose.
Heaven forbid I comment that any given real world woman was underdressed, feminists would rightly eat my heart out.
Further to this, we don’t see any comments about the sexual appearance of the male characters.
We don’t see “Keghammer should cover up” or “Jarl’s arms are unrealistically HUGE”.
This seems, to me, to be overreaction.
Now, I get that some people have children, and that a children’s innocence could see these pictures with different eyes.
But if I could quote Aelthwyn (who seems to be the most active in the argument of overly sexual art
As a feminist you can have your opinions, of course, but you can also be a little prudish about it.
A feminist can have no concept of what men find sexual in graphic art.
Erotic Literature cannot compare. That is what women find sexual.
If Gems of War dev team and Gems of War artists “Tame it Down” to suit this minority, I will be somewhat disappointed.
I won’t stop playing, of course. “Sexual” art is not what attracted me to the game, nor is it what holds me here.
But the art in this game is particularly appealing and well placed, and I’m not specifically referring to the Sunweavers and Atlantas of the game.
My favourite art in the game is the landscapes.
But I find there to be a reasonable balance between the men, women, monsters, lands, armoured and unarmoured troops, and I would hate to see any of this lost due to a prudish minority.
I applaud the artists of the game (again). They’re doing a fantastic job.
So Mr Sammy raised some well versed discussion points, so I would like to discuss them.
Starting with “Women are often portrayed in a sexual manner”…
It is possible that some people here think the OP picture to be such a portrayal, but I do not.
I do not find anything sexual about it. It’s a plant woman making a plant in her hands.
But that is not all of the quote, let’s continue.
“eg dressed in revealing clothing”, which I concede, she has no clothing. She does have bark and vines which for all intents and purposes do the same thing as clothing, cover up and protect her sexual organs. Is it still “too revealing?” I know this is the fine line. I see some cleavage, and yes - that could be the only argument you can claim.
I still think it isn’t enough.
But let’s continue.
“with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness”
This definitely is not the case.
“In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized.”
I’m not sure I classify bark hands, or freakish bark shoulders or wooden hair to be a standard of physical beauty, but you can try argue this one if you like.
The rest of the definition is subjective and not on point. It’s talking about the upbringing of girls, rather than describing what is or isnt sexual.
Now, Mr Sammy describes himself as a father of two young ladies, and has explained to them that they are not required to look like some fantasy art. I say to him well done for being a good father. I wish there were more like him.
Mr Sammy’s last questions are very strong ones. I think they are quite valid in the discussion.
Would I let my teen dress like that to go to school ?
Well, like the green seer, no. But like the Sunweaver, yes. Like Atlanta, I’d think I would. Not that my teen would have bodily features like Atlanta, so it would possibly make the decision a little easier.
What would you say if the teacher dressed like that? Well, in fact, I had a teacher that dressed like Atlanta (regarding the cleavage), and of course, as young hot-blooded male students, I loved it just as much as the rest of the teen males.
But it wasn’t the ‘art’ of it, it was the motion of it, and the fantasy of it, that there was more to the way she leant forward than was just available to the eye. She was alluring in her movement, teasing somewhat.
She gave an aura of ‘readiness’ and that was VERY sexual, unlike the artwork of even the OP.
Would I let my mum dress like that? Heck, she’s her own person, she can dress however she wants to.
I wouldn’t find it attractive, that’s for sure!
@MrSammy - your post was the closest to resonate with me that there was sexualisation in the game, but I still don’t believe there is.
Well, a person needs something that communicates to the www in order to play this game, right?
Not even parental controls would stop images such as this from the globe’s image lists popping up in a search of the ‘female form’ (or any other tame search for that matter). If a person has access to this wealth of imagery, this picture (as the main topic) and all other female forms in GoW are cartoon scribbles in comparison.
Let’s not go overboard now, this ship is rocking far too much from every other media outlet.