Quote:[Khaelo:] Undercover humor is one of the things that I've missed from Nival's new darker vision of HoMM/MM. It would be nice to see it return.
I miss this too, and it's just what I find so great about Ledroits sketches. His male heroes are obviously overloaded with decoration, heroic symbols, nobility emblems and warrior trophies and I understand this as an ironic comment on the vanity of a warrior caste/nobility (and also on gender roles). They keep a delicate balance between a true heroism and this irony, the Knight being the most heroic and the Dungeon Lord being the most ironic of them.
The Leatherstocking Ranger (small pic below) keeps the balance best and I also think the Celtic-American Indian blend is seamless and works very well. The seriousness of his face is comically contrasted by the sprites fluttering around him. I also read the herb icon on the abdomen gem as an ironic comment about what the Sylvan "nature magic" really could be and what their herbalists are up to.
The Dungeon Lord goes a bit too far (especially the fairy dragon pet). It blends renaissance and musketeer allusions (sleeves, gloves, codpiece, buckled shoes with heels) with what I identify as Chinese elements (hair style, shoulder armour). I read this as an ironic comment on the cocky self-esteem of a class-conscious Dungeon slaveholder society.
The Knight is very heroic, but I sense some subtle irony even here, as the silver-gold-white "angelic" colour scheme, the helmet wings and sun emblems somehow contrast with the blood dripping from the immense sword, the sturdy attitude and boots. He is awesome as a Knight, but also fun.
There is some irony in the female heroes sketches as well: The hooves of the succubus look like a high heels parody to me and the Cleopatra Vamp seems to use her refined magic mainly to lazily zap around to relieve her boredom.
I feel it's a pity that Nival tuned this down. Now that the contrasting elements are gone, the seriousness of the Sylvan Blade Dancer looks like plain snappishness. It's more heroic, but much less fun:
Quote:it's just what I find so great about Ledroits sketches. His male heroes are obviously overloaded with decoration, heroic symbols, nobility emblems and warrior trophies and I understand this as an ironic comment on the vanity of a warrior caste/nobility (and also on gender roles).
I hate to burst your bubble, but this amount of detail might be his way to compensate his lack of real talent. Compare his style to the Blizzard concept art to see the difference.
Quote:The seriousness of his face is comically contrasted by the sprites fluttering around him.
I'm afraid all of his portraits are angry or stern, serious and frowning ... It's just the way he draws.
Quote:The Dungeon Lord goes a bit too far (especially the fairy dragon pet). It blends renaissance and musketeer allusions (sleeves, gloves, codpiece, buckled shoes with heels) with what I identify as Chinese elements (hair style, shoulder armour). I read this as an ironic comment on the cocky self-esteem of a class-conscious Dungeon slaveholder society.
I admit I'm reeeally looking forward to playing Dungeon. Analyze this!
I don't think that half-naked look of some female creatures somehow descriminate female players because all this units aren't in human fraction , they're part of another culture , another customs and norms , where such closes even could symbolize the high status of women in society . Also ALL female units have a very enjoyable and useful abilities ( archangels , matriarchs , blood furies , sprites , succubi ) , I think the developers had made us a wonderful gift !
Above all, thanks for the links, Vlaad. I enjoyed them a lot.
Quote:- Vlaad, an artist wannabe himself
Sorry, I can't compete with that, I'm no artist, not even a wannabe one. If anything, a wannabe scientist, which, I admit, I also understand as a producer (of ideas, that is). Hope this doesn't strike you as overly bubbly. I tried to express that the H5 sketches amuse me and that they do this by being ironic. Irony is difficult to trace (and achieve) in images and it would be difficult to argue if it is present or not. But since you didn't do that, we needn't bother.
Quote:I hate to burst your bubble, but this amount of detail might be his way to compensate his lack of real talent. Compare his style to the Blizzard concept art to see the difference.
"Talent" is a totally useless term to discuss artistic quality imo. In terms of quality, only the piece of art matters, not the artist. And fun (amusement) is one quality that makes me think of a piece of art as a good one. Another one is its originality (which results in surprise on my side) and yet another one the richness of contexts it involves (making me explore something new, like the connections between Celtic and American Indian culture.) And there are some more. From these - my - standards, Ledroits sketches are way better than the average of the Blizzard sketches. And though the shoulder of the Leatherstocking Ranger or his face is not optimally drawn, I find the concept far more interesting.
But even from a craftsmanship point of view, I don't find Ledroits sketches inferior to the Blizzard sketches. Comparing the picture above to the most similar one from Blizzard: I don't know about traditional or generic, but I find the drawing just - especially the body:
Quote:I'm afraid all of his portraits are angry or stern, serious and frowning ... It's just the way he draws.
Did you check the face expressions of the Blizzard concept art? You're in for a surprise! (Must be the fantasy genre.)
(Thinking loud:
Quote:Analyze this.
This is the second time I encounter this on HC. Is analyzing generally unwelcome on HC? Is it considered offensive? Offensively boring? - Of course it must be only my way of doing so. )
Quote:"Talent" is a totally useless term to discuss artistic quality imo. In terms of quality, only the piece of art matters, not the artist.
Historians of art have spent decades writing books on the matter, and you dare undo it all in just one sentence featuring an Internet abbrevation?
All right, what could you tell me about these paintings?
Quote:I tried to express that the H5 sketches amuse me and that they do this by being ironic. Irony is difficult to trace (and achieve) in images and it would be difficult to argue if it is present or not.
Ah, but it is you who fail to see the irony:
Quote:But even from a craftsmanship point of view, I don't find Ledroits sketches inferior to the Blizzard sketches. Comparing the picture above to the most similar one from Blizzard: I don't know about traditional or generic, but I find the drawing just - especially the body:
This drawing is stylized - the limbs and muscles are oversized on purpose. Even his facial expression is clearly cartoony.
Quote:And fun (amusement) is one quality that makes me think of a piece of art as a good one.
Funny that you mention it; I find Blizzard's concept art more fun.
By the way, you mean art in general, or concept art for computer games?
Quote:Another one is its originality (which results in surprise on my side)
Originality? When I saw the new Dungeon roster I thought Wizards of the Coast were gonna sue somebody!
Quote:...and yet another one the richness of contexts it involves (making me explore something new, like the connections between Celtic and American Indian culture.)
From these - my - standards, Ledroits sketches are way better than the average of the Blizzard sketches. And though the shoulder of the Leatherstocking Ranger or his face is not optimally drawn, I find the concept far more interesting.
OK, it was a misunderstanding then - you were talking about the concept, I was talking about the art.
By the way, are you familiar with Warcraft III? Its Orcs have the appearance of Golden Horde and the personality of American Indians. Don't you find it interesting that the same faction has been interpreted in two different ways?
What does Blizzard's concept imply?
Which rendition suits the sterotype of the noble savage better?
Is the latter even politically correct?
Quote:(Thinking loud:
Quote:Analyze this.
This is the second time I encounter this on HC. Is analyzing generally unwelcome on HC? Is it considered offensive? Offensively boring? - Of course it must be only my way of doing so. )
Is analyzing unwelcome on HC? On the contrary...! (In fact, I sincerely think this thread is one of the few that have deserved a QP lately ). It's just a catchy phrase - merely a thing to say, especially to a new member who already has such a reputation...
Now, hopefully back on topic, will he live up to it? ____________
Thanks for the clarification about analyzing and my share of your compliment on the thread. And since you uttered the wish to close the debate, I assume your questions are rhetorical and resist the temptation of answering, though some of them are truly challenging (like if concept art for computer games should be measured by other standards than art in general). Moreover, I have to find those countless books about Talent in the Sistine Chapel, Talent in Guernica aso (that escaped my attention so far) - and especially Talent in World of Warcraft, since I should evidently vastly extend my knowledge on that. To be honest, what strikes me as the artificial touch of the WoW design has among other prevented this so far. Having enjoyed Civilization for a long time, I know that design is hardly crucial to a game, though.
I have retroactively partly legalized our discussion by tweaking the thread's topic a little so that it covers part of it. However, since new design images pop up every day, I will wait with posting on the real topic until I get a more complete picture.
Quote:And since you uttered the wish to close the debate, I assume your questions are rhetorical and resist the temptation of answering, though some of them are truly challenging
The questions were not rhetorical, so feel free to answer them while we're waiting for the next update.
Quote:Moreover, I have to find those countless books about Talent in the Sistine Chapel, Talent in Guernica aso (that escaped my attention so far) - and especially Talent in World of Warcraft, since I should evidently vastly extend my knowledge on that.
Was this ironic...?
It's hard to tell without smileys, and your expressionless avatar didn't help much either. I can't wait to see your custom one, so that I can analyze it!
Anyway, could you please answer my first question in the previous post?
Quote:Having enjoyed Civilization for a long time, I know that design is hardly crucial to a game, though.
I couldn't disagree more, but let's not go there. ____________
Quote:By the way, are you familiar with Warcraft III? Its Orcs have the appearance of Golden Horde and the personality of American Indians. Don't you find it interesting that the same faction has been interpreted in two different ways?
To elaborate it, orcs aren't american indians, they are something like barbarian nomad tribe style of people, who care about honor, valor and shamanistic ways, the american indian prototype is the tauren race which care about elements, nature and hunt.
____________
Quote:Anyway, could you please answer my first question in the previous post?
Quote:
Quote:"Talent" is a totally useless term to discuss artistic quality imo. In terms of quality, only the piece of art matters, not the artist.
Historians of art have spent decades writing books on the matter, and you dare undo it all in just one sentence featuring an Internet abbrevation?
All right, what could you tell me about these paintings?
The answer is: yes, I do dare this. And because I can explain: Talent is a projection from the piece of art (or a collection of them) to its producer. Talent shows in pieces of arts, and it only does so by qualities that are inherent to them and by these lead to a certain value of them to a specific spectator or gamer or whatever (given by his specific interests, personality, preferences…). Therefore to say that a piece of art has talent is practically meaningless. It states only that it is a good one - under the critic's perspective. The question would then be: by what qualities does it be so? And: what is the critic's perspective? (LOL about the internet abbrev. )
And if the first question was rhetorical after all that would lead us to a problem because I'm not willing to answer the second, above all because I don't grasp its intention. I hope you don't think I wouldn't be able to tell something about them without referring to the artist or something like talent. That would be a most disappointing insult. But I don't like them. If it would be something else, I'd gladly join in a discussion. Or did you want to tell me anything about abstraction? Well, I still hope the first question was serious.
Quote:
Quote:Moreover, I have to find those countless books about Talent in the Sistine Chapel, Talent in Guernica aso (that escaped my attention so far) - and especially Talent in World of Warcraft, since I should evidently vastly extend my knowledge on that.
Was this ironic...? It's hard to tell without smileys
MOD! Penalty! He's making fun of us handicapped by insufficient language abilities! Or would you really like to tell me you couldn’t tell without smilies? I'm all confused. Anyway, the WoW lore part was not ironic, of course. I hope you do believe me. (I must master those smilies, you're right. )
Quote:and your expressionless avatar didn't help much either.
I'm afraid that moment might never come. I hate to burn my rights.
Quote:so that I can analyze it!
Please feel free all the same. I'm quite fond of attention.
Jumping back to the top of the earlier post:
Quote:Ah, but it is you who fail to see the irony:
Quote:I don't know about traditional or generic, but I find the drawing just - especially the body:
This drawing is stylized - the limbs and muscles are oversized on purpose. Even his facial expression is clearly cartoony.
Either it is a misunderstanding or I really fail to see the irony: I meant that the way it is drawn is substandard. I wasn't referring to the size of the muscles, but to their blackberry appearance because of the childish shading. The same applies to the reflexes on the sword. I'm not tremendously interested in cartoons, but many of those I know have better shading. And what would be the irony?
Quote:Funny that you mention it; I find Blizzard's concept art more fun.
It's difficult to argue about fun. Just as much: For me, the fun here lies mainly the irony.
Quote:By the way, you mean art in general, or concept art for computer games?
This is a very puzzling distinction, as I already stated, but too complex to be discussed here. It would deserve its own thread.
Quote:Originality? When I saw the new Dungeon roster I thought Wizards of the Coast were gonna sue somebody!
I concede this quality might in fact not be there and that my surprise is due to a lack of knowledge. This is a private value then that can make no claim for objectivity. I don't care for myself, really, but I grant you this one.
Quote:
Quote:And though the shoulder of the Leatherstocking Ranger or his face is not optimally drawn, I find the concept far more interesting.
OK, it was a misunderstanding then - you were talking about the concept, I was talking about the art.
No, I was referring to the concept as an important aspect of art. If the concept is good, the whole piece of art can still be bad because the drawing is bad and this may matter more. But it is a value, nevertheless.
Quote:By the way, are you familiar with Warcraft III? Its Orcs have the appearance of Golden Horde and the personality of American Indians. Don't you find it interesting that the same faction has been interpreted in two different ways?
What does Blizzard's concept imply?
I only know some of what can be seen on Blizzards homepage. The concept itself doesn't seem undisputed (as Lich Kings post implies). But we were anyway talking about sketches, and the game personality must not be visible on those. And I think you're using the term "concept" now referring to the game and not only to the art. It's interesting, yes, but it doesn't make the sketch better.
Quote:Which rendition suits the sterotype of the noble savage better?
Is the latter even politically correct?
I think we can safely apply this to the Celts or the Golden Horde (or the Orcs). It's a nice idea and I don't see a reason not to implement it if nobody suffers from it. It's not mandatory, though. If the question aims at Ledroit vs. Blizzard, however, I'd vote for the first. And if anything was politically incorrect, it was the personality of the American Indians.
And since I now have answered many questions and grow quickly tired of shoot-and-hide tactics in discussions, I think you could improve your statements/questions-ratio a little and answer me one question. If you feel like, that is:
Do you dispute that Ledroits sketches are ironic? And if you want a real challenge, you could explain on what ground.
Oh, and I'm only a floating librarian and there's no need for a scholar like you to fight for the bookshelves. (Certainly not in a "Male and Female" thread.) I appreciate knowledge wherever I find it.
And now the happy ending of an awfully long post:
Quote:
Quote:Having enjoyed Civilization for a long time, I know that design is hardly crucial to a game, though.
I couldn't disagree more, but let's not go there.
YOU ARE RIGHT and I was wrong. … Well, at least partly. (This would deserve a thread of its own too, but since you don't want to go there … )
My opinion on this is that you are all taking it much too seriously. It is just a fantasy game that has little connection to reality. I couldn't care any less If the dungeon heroes have full suits of armor on them or just a bikini. This is only sexist and insulting if you chose to treat it that way. Neither do I believe that such representaion of women is a problem for society at large. As long as we treat our girlfriends, fiancees or wives with the respect and love they fully deserve then all is well. I know this works fine for me, even if I am bombarded daily by sexist and demeaning images of women.
About all the sexy women being evil: the inferno only has succubi as the female unit. Does that mean that mostly men go to hell? why are devils male and angels female. Do men have a monopoly on evil?Isn't this insulting? Im just going over the top here as many of you are. These are meaningless conclusions that occur if you seek to much sense in something that obviously hasnt been given too much thought. The designers have used a lot of stereotypes, I do admit that.
OK, so we have sexy semi-naked women in this game. Well there are plenty of exceedingly muscular naked/half-naked male characters/monsters in the game too
just my 2cents. I equiped my flameproof suit so don't bother flaming
If you do insist on realism then here you go: there is a good reason why the vast majority of warriors were male. The female body is not as strong or as tough as a male's. Try convincing your girlfriend to wear a 20kg suit of mail armor and run around all day wielding a sheild and sword that add up to another 20.Hence if you insist on realism you should drop the female warrior idea. What other roles are left: hmm, archers, medics, magicians I guess. Do those require heavy suits of armor?not at all.Infact it is more likely that some femal mistic or druid would wear more revealing clothes than not.
There is another reason why male warriors are dominant. They are dispensible. You can have 20 women and one man and the population could rebuild itself Try having 20men and 1 woman. Where would that lead us?
____________
Quote:Talent is a projection from the piece of art (or a collection of them) to its producer. [...]
Actually, I was referring to this statement:
Quote:In terms of quality, only the piece of art matters, not the artist.
That's why I posted the three pictures...
Quote:And if the first question was rhetorical after all that would lead us to a problem because I'm not willing to answer the second, above all because I don't grasp its intention. I hope you don't think I wouldn't be able to tell something about them without referring to the artist or something like talent. That would be a most disappointing insult.
I simply wanted to point out the importance of the context of any work of art.
In brief, these paintings look alike if one isn't familiar with the authors:
This is a drawing of a bull by Picasso. I like the way he reduced the animal's body to its basics.
This is a piece of folk art by a self-taught painter from India.
This is a child's work.
Quote:
Quote:Was this ironic...? It's hard to tell without smileys
MOD! Penalty! He's making fun of us handicapped by insufficient language abilities!
No, it's posters like you who scourge this forum with expressionless avatars and messages devoid of emotion! I say BAN!
Quote:Either it is a misunderstanding or I really fail to see the irony: I meant that the way it is drawn is substandard. I wasn't referring to the size of the muscles, but to their blackberry appearance because of the childish shading. The same applies to the reflexes on the sword. I'm not tremendously interested in cartoons, but many of those I know have better shading. And what would be the irony?
At this point it's essential we define irony in art. So, what is irony? Is it something like bronzy or goldy?*
Quote:If the concept is good, the whole piece of art can still be bad because the drawing is bad and this may matter more. But it is a value, nevertheless.
I agree.
Quote:[...] And if anything was politically incorrect, it was the personality of the American Indians.
There! You did it again! A completely wrong choice of the smiley!
Quote:Do you dispute that Ledroits sketches are ironic?
Yes!
Quote:And if you want a real challenge, you could explain on what ground.
No.
Seriously though, my opinion is based on his comics. We can bash him in our Comic Book Club thread, though - not here.
Quote:Oh, and I'm only a floating librarian and there's no need for a scholar like you to fight for the bookshelves.
Nah... Been there, done that. I consider this spamming, but with style.
___________
* Sorry for that Black Adder quote; I couldn't help it!
____________
@Vlad :'it is you who are taking us to seriously'
Lol, you are right.
I tend to be opinionated on stuff like this because my fiance is a psychologist and we have frequent discussions on such topics. Anyways time for me to finish work and go home.
P.S
thanks for all the informative posts on various topics. Most helpful.
Drogoth
Welcome and thanks for honouring this thread with your first post. Vlaad is right, it's not that anyone would be upset by a flagrant sexism in H5. But I still feel that in terms of gender awareness, H5 is a step backwards.
I don't think that gender stereotypes are by themselves sexist. And it's obvious that there are many gender clichés that are widely enjoyed (this is how I understand Dungeonians "wonderful gift"), and I enjoy them too. It's an attraction of a fantasy setting that you can play stereotypical, exaggerated roles - good ones and evil ones alike (and sex roles are fun, too ).
But an uneven constraint on the variety of roles among both genders may count as a sexist tendency. For example, while the male heroes cover various age groups, all female heroes look young. There are no mature female might and especially magic roles (stereotypes) in the game (up to now, that is). I know my stereotypical reaction on this should be , but I loved playing Andra in H3 and there seems to be no equivalent for her in H5. It seems that instead of widening female roles in H5, they have narrowed them. I find this above all a pity, and though it certainly has a low social impact, it happens to match a common line of feminist thought.
I find realism quite important in a fantasy game (though less so in a strategy game). Not so much as a match to reality, but as the consistency and liveliness of the made up world. It's part of the fun that I can actually watch the medusa realistically petrify its victim and that it looks like real stone afterwards, partly just because the medusa cannot be found in reality. I agree that this also means that the roles in a fantasy game needn't match those in reality. This would actually allow a broader spectrum of roles than in reality, an utopian gender construction (using a big word).
ComradeX
Known Hero
Demands raising new Titan's HP
posted April 07, 2006 06:25 PM
Hey there Drogoth, welcome to HC, and thanks for choosing this thread to be your first! hope you'll enjoy our fine community!
I agree with both you Drogoth and with Loknar.
There is no need to be upset by the "sexism" of the game, and I don't think that many of us are. There are things that have nothing to do with gender, as many creatures are genderless. You said Drogoth, that men have a monopoly over evil (I know you said this with humor), but this is not actualy so. Let's check the Inferno:
Female - Succubi, Nightmare (it's a mare, not a stallion)
Male - Devil, Pit lord (lord makes it male)
Genderless (has both genders: they have to breed somehow, don't they?) - Imp, Cerberus (can you see what's between it's legs? I can't so I think it can be both a dog and a snow, no offense in this turm), Horned Demon (may be male, but you can't be certain).
So you can't realy say that only males are from hell, and that females are from hell. both are!
And another anigma: the Angel. some say it's a man, some say it's a woman, no body knows! it looks like both IMO.
Anyway, the Angel is genderless (the don't breed as they are devine and immortal, they can take human shape of both genders, and the Nival Angel is just in the middle between male and female).
There are things that are just in your subconcious, that are male or female when you just hear the word. This are just cliches that we all enjoy, and non of us are sexists (I hope!). For example: When you think of Devils, the image in your head is of a scary, winged, red, male figure with a pitchfork, right? and when you think of a pixie you think of a tint, gentle, young girl looking creature with butterfly like wings, don't you?
There are many more examples of that kind.
So, IMO, the game just uses existing images and ideas, and doesn't mean to be sexist! it's just a fantasy, it's not real (although many things are based on reality).
So just be cool about it!
____________
The frozen land of red Titans wishes you luck in your journeys
Well, im no religous perosn-head, but from what I know Angels are asexual, and devils are angels (long story short, lucifer and god got in an argument, some angels stayed with god (angels), some agreed with lucifer(devils), so devils are asexual too.)
Also:
Quote:Main Entry: suc·cu·bus
Pronunciation: 's&k-y&-b&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural suc·cu·bi /-"bI, -"bE/
: an imaginary demon assuming female form and formerly held to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep
(from dictionary.reference.com)
I would like to emphasize the word assuming, the succubuses aren't female (sucks for all you guys dreaming about them), theyre assuming female form!
P.S: since devils are angels, why are they always portrayed a durastically different biengs (usualy opposite)?
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
This thread is pages long: 
posted March 22, 2006 07:48 PM
The seriousness of his face 
is comically contrasted by the sprites fluttering around him. 
I also read the herb icon on the abdomen gem as an ironic comment about what the Sylvan "nature magic" really could be and what their herbalists are up to. 
posted March 26, 2006 05:34 PM
- especially the body:
However, since new design images pop up every day, I will wait with posting on the real topic until I get a more complete picture.
posted April 06, 2006 05:42 PM
