@Riot A serious discussion about gender. Please read

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Alsonia

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gespens View Post
Taric sells to gay guys.

And if you think that all the beef cakes don't ell to hetero women...

the hell are you smoking? I want it.
I see women swooning over Jayce and Twisted Fate; hell even Ezreal.Cute sells almost as well as sexualized for the people theyre mentioning.... why do you think Teemo is popular. Hey and Armor of the Fifth Age Taric is the most fantastic and awesome skin in the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Panzerfaust

Emissary of the League

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
True story: There's a champion in the pipeline which I saw a prime example to make into a strong, non-sexualized, and heroic female because it was fertile ground.
Fertile... motherhood/childbearing... SPIDER QUEEN!!!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeleii View Post
Has the OP played ANY of Leona's skins? She is a strong; unsexualized champ who boasts her strength and will in combat and hell outside of her obligatory Valkyrie skin; she is a heavily armored monster.
The OP gave Leona a passing grade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeleii View Post
Tristana; Lulu; Poppy. Not sexualized
Nobody expects even the crassest publisher to sexualize childlikes. I'm frankly surprised that they went as far as they did with Tristana's mostly-tame lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeleii View Post
Fiora; while she is curvy she wears attire appropriate for her kit.
What about Lux? She is certainly not sexualized; if anything she is overly cutified. Point here is; there is variation.
The issue with Fiora and Lux (at least her new default) is their impractical poses that are only good for showing off their curves. Remember, Lara Croft was designed as a strong female character, but because she was marketed as a bimbo, that's how the culture remembers her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeleii View Post
Remember your Vayne skin the ONE you pointed out? It's one of her 4 skins and the only sexualized one.
Here I agree; calling out Heartseeker Vayne, Battle Bunny Riven, and other skins explicitly specialized for fanservice is rather silly. It's when the default skins are posed, costumed, and endowed like pinup models that it becomes a problem.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DJ Shyvana

Senior Member

10-08-2012

How many guys are actually considering Fiora and Lux default skins fanservice? I literally had to reopen LoL and go to the character screen just to remember their default splashes. The only skin that even sticks in my mind as fan service (As far as default skins) in Sona. But, even after playing her/reading her lore I've erased that opinion. The first thing I notice on Lux is how her head doesn't seem to line up with her neck, and Fiora always perplexes me on how to get that much bend in your wrist when flipping it over like that.

I dunno, maybe it's just my lack of trying to find sexual reference in splash art about a fictional character or maybe people are just grasping at straws. But provacative pinups are really the last thing that comes to mind when I'm buying new skins for my characters.

Edit: Also, that armor on Fioras arms make her look she has some guns. I bet her bi's and tri's are flipping buff.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsúpport

Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
Actually most female armor is pretty much identical to male armor from a functional perspective--the aesthetics may differ, of course.

But I digress. Point isn't that female armor should be identical to male armor, or that the borderline cases are/aren't actually fanservice. None of that actually affects the main point that there is way too much blatant, exaggerated, and/or nonsensical fanservice in the game.

To criticize us for 'jumping' from cleavage to posing to body types to outfits is entirely missing the point. They are different aspects of the same problem, not unrelated issues that can be evaluated and dismissed separately. That would be like taking the evidence for evolutionary theory and dividing it up into tiny little bits that can be individually dismissed as not proving the entire of evolutionary theory--which is a common creationist tactic, BTW.

Why does it matter to me? I criticize the things I enjoy so that they can be improved. That's the heart of it.
Just create more fanservice for females then.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ricklessabandon

qa analyst

10-08-2012
59 of 61 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emailsúpport View Post
The problem really is that we don't have any female monster and not as many slútty males as slútty females.
that's not it. it's not an issue of preserving a balance among the existing models we've already created (and how they're categorized, aesthetically).

the topic is a very large web of issues, so simplifications are more 'dangerous' than usual—personally i tend to avoid using them due to how inherently loaded they are. i think if we really wanted to make a broad assessment of the topic at hand, and a sort of 'consensus of predilection' to go along with it, i think ironstylus's comment of 'we need more variety' is the least egregious possible. he has been working in the midst this for a while, and his heart is certainly in the thick of it. he has a good sense of things.

i'm not an artist, but as someone very strongly invested in character creation i believe the idea is that when we create, we endeavor to do so with purpose. the individual pieces of our champions/skin need to make sense, and making the same body with the same treatment ad nauseum becomes senseless and stale. if there aren't other body types and treatments to be used as a contrast, characters can lose identity and we can lose the ability to appreciate more deeply.

that is to say, the harder it is to neatly place all of our champions into groups by similar body type and treatment, while preserving other aspects (easy to read, strong silhouette, has character/personality, etc), the better off everyone is.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Balderdinger

Senior Member

10-08-2012

What I have trouble determining when these discussions come up is this ... are you upset because there is oversexualization of champions? Or because you want more of it ... just with better balance?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsúpport

Member

10-08-2012

Why is fanservice a bad thing? I really like fan service, however, I do agree that we need more fan service for females, but it's hard since all of you have so much different taste.

More fan service! I can't see why good looking characters would be a bad thing, but there need to be a balance between male and female champions.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emailsúpport View Post
Just create more fanservice for females then.
Was there anything anywhere in my post that gave any indication that making fanservice for females would do anything to solve the problem as I presented it? -_-


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsúpport

Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balder1718 View Post
What I have trouble determining when these discussions come up is this ... are you upset because there is oversexualization of champions? Or because you want more of it ... just with better balance?
I wonder this too because I really don't have a problem with sexualization but I do agree there should be a balance. There need to be variety when it comes to clothes and bodies, sure.
It's just that some of you are mad because the female champions look too good and not in your opinion like real females and I can only tell you that it's the exact same problem with males, it's a fantasy game, characters are supposed to be exaggerated.