Lara Croft gets a "realistic" redesign from eating disorder support group
377 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SheikYabouti;48315748]Do you seriously believe we have achieved complete equality between women and men? Do you seriously believe we do NOT live in a world dominated by men?
And here you are wondering if [B]I[/B] am a troll.
Jesus Christ. I'm at a loss for words.
Somebody please ban me for a few days before I smash my screen over how much of a fucking self-righteous ignorant fool you are.
[editline]28th July 2015[/editline]
God fucking dammit, are you really so fucking dense or are [B]you[/B] the troll here?
Where's the difference between "defining what's attractive" and being the person who gets to bloody choose the "most attractive" people they can find? What do you think by whose definition they are attractive then?[/QUOTE]
You know, I'm a big believer in the power of marketing and how infulential that can really be to a person.
But to me, you're pretty much going a few steps further, and removing all agency from all people in these "male dominated societies"(dominated by males, but exclusively beneficial to them? I don't think so) and removing all capability they might be capable of some semblance of intelligent thought on what they personally find is attractive.
[QUOTE=SheikYabouti;48315748]Do you seriously believe we have achieved complete equality between women and men? Do you seriously believe we do NOT live in a world dominated by men?[/QUOTE]
Where do you think we are unequal?
[QUOTE=SheikYabouti;48315748]God fucking dammit, are you really so fucking dense or are you the troll here?
Where's the difference between "defining what's attractive" and being the person who gets to bloody choose the "most attractive" people they can find? What do you think by whose definition they are attractive then?[/QUOTE]
What is attractive is defined by market research and biology. No one defines what is attractive on a whim.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;48313219]are you implying that most women today are capable of doing that
I mean most men aren't either but still[/QUOTE]
It's more of an endurance and a bodyweight thing than a test of strength. You can't do that if you're 130 pounds period, and if you've been going to school and maybe doing a sport for a year or two, you aren't going to be used to farm life.
Farmsfolk were hardcore.
I'll just post this here.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48340141]I probably should post this on the SH post, but I'm on a roll and it's on my mind, I'll post it here for now.
Why would they create such a site?! I mean, I think you don't want those people to feel good about having that, You want to encourage them to get help and shit. Like hell, if somebody cookiecut a character for me so they gave them autism or anxiety for little to no reason so they could make me feel safe, I would honestly be kind of offended. Plus, what about people with eating disorders that make them STARVE. Oh wait, that's not in the media right now, so they don't have to do that. Both are equally bad. and you shouldn't be a dick trying to help them either way.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;48311516]This isn't for helping fat people be okay with being fat, it's about helping anorexic/bulemic people to stop thinking they have to keep starving themselves.[/QUOTE]
Anorexia/Bullemia are mental disorders and changing videogame character proportions aren't going to make anorexic/bullemic people suddenly "snap"out of it, just like changing all sad songs to happy ones won't do squat to get people out of depression.
I always had the idea that video game characters were at their physical peak in most cases. Kind of like super heroes.
[img]http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/A/angelinajolie2.jpg[/img]
Yeah guys, look at how unrealistic she looks. Everyone knows real women can't look like Laura Croft.
Why must every female character look like "an ordinary [sp]American[/sp] woman"?
Why can't a character just look like the creator wants it to look.
There is never a problem with this with male characters,nobody wants them to look like "an ordinary man".
If the creator wants the character to look like a porn star it's the creator's choice,not all fictional characters are representatives of the general population.
Learn to differentiate fiction from reality.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;48340697]Anorexia/Bullemia are mental disorders and changing videogame character proportions aren't going to make anorexic/bullemic people suddenly "snap"out of it, just like changing all sad songs to happy ones won't do squat to get people out of depression.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is expecting these people to suddenly 'snap out of it'. It's a 'baby steps' thing.
Personally I don't see it helping a whole lot, but I don't see a downside beyond "THEY MADE MY FAVOURITE CHARACTER FAT OMG WHAT HAVE THEY DONE". Please, it's no worse than anything you see on Deviantart.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;48342964][img]http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/A/angelinajolie2.jpg[/img]
Yeah guys, look at how unrealistic she looks. Everyone knows real women can't look like Laura Croft.[/QUOTE]
That's a supermodel. I mean, I hate these designs, but really though, she's literally a world class model actress. Kinda irrelevant in the body image discussion, unless you want to talk about how it's unhealthy to want to strive to look like a model (lol).
[QUOTE=Idzo;48343540]Why must every female character look like "an ordinary [sp]American[/sp] woman"?
Why can't a character just look like the creator wants it to look.
There is never a problem with this with male characters,nobody wants them to look like "an ordinary man".
If the creator wants the character to look like a porn star it's the creator's choice,not all fictional characters are representatives of the general population.
Learn to differentiate fiction from reality.[/QUOTE]
I second that to day in general, why can't art just be art, not a statement or imposition on society?
[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;48344670]Nobody is expecting these people to suddenly 'snap out of it'. It's a 'baby steps' thing.
Personally I don't see it helping a whole lot, but I don't see a downside beyond "THEY MADE MY FAVOURITE CHARACTER FAT OMG WHAT HAVE THEY DONE". Please, it's no worse than anything you see on Deviantart.[/QUOTE]
If it's something that actually has an influence on people's mindset then making those characters overweight is just as unhealthy as making them too skinny isn't it? I'd say that's a pretty blatant downside.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48346411]I second that to day in general, why can't art just be art, not a statement or imposition on society?[/QUOTE]
Because a frightening amount of people are too ideologically driven for that to happen. They got to a point where they don't see works on their own merits (Is it fun? Is it a compelling story? Is it well written? etc.) but rather just how well it scales up to their beliefs. "Is it Feminist" or "Does it glorify god" ends up superseding all other merits so you end up with people just totally writing these things off simply because it disagrees with their beliefs.
-Snip-
This is not the Deviantart Appreciation Station, dude.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48346411]I second that to day in general, why can't art just be art, not a statement or imposition on society?[/QUOTE]
Nothing exists in a vacuum, art both drives and is created by the current society it exists within. Almost every piece of art is a statement of something because that is the nature of art. You don't create a painting with the intention of "whatevs lol", you don't compose a song "becuz lol".
And? In the end people's interpretation of it is theirs alone, you can't hold artists responsible for how their pieces are understood. In the end trying to be the art police doesn't serve much of a purpose really.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48347267]You don't create a painting with the intention of "whatevs lol", you don't compose a song "becuz lol".[/QUOTE]
Yes, you can actually, can't I paint a dragon just because I like dragons?
Aren't there songs specifically just made for dancing?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48347293]Yes, you can actually, can't I paint a dragon just because I like dragons?
Aren't there songs specifically just made for dancing?[/QUOTE]
You painted a dragon because you liked dragons. Kinda implies you want to show how fucking awesome dragons are no?
You created a song for dancing. Kinda implies you want other people to dance to your song and experience some kind of emotional response (who dances when they're crying their eyes out) and express themselves no?
You can say you created something "becuz lol", but that just means you haven't thought about why you created it enough to me. That's besides the point though, art still doesn't exist in a vacuum, what you make can inspire others to make or do things themselves after all. If I hear a particularly good song, I sometimes think "damn I wish I could even song at all".
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48347267]Nothing exists in a vacuum, art both drives and is created by the current society it exists within. Almost every piece of art is a statement of something because that is the nature of art. You don't create a painting with the intention of "whatevs lol", you don't compose a song "becuz lol".[/QUOTE]
This afternoon I drew a picture of three disembodied cocks
I drew it because I like cocks; you could conceivably ascribe a measure of ideological expression to it, however. THAT is the nature of art - society shapes the viewer's response to the piece, not the artist's intention. Or rather, society shapes the only thing that matters, being the response.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48347326]You painted a dragon because you liked dragons. Kinda implies you want to show how fucking awesome dragons are no?[/QUOTE]
No no, god no. Stop this nonsense. I draw a dragon because I like dragons. I don't want to show anything. I felt like drawing and I liked dragons so I drew a dragon. That's it. There is no implied deep meaning behind it. This isn't literature class where blue curtains is an expression of writer's depression. Art can have meaning but at the same time it can be created just for fun with no meaning behind it. Forcing a meaning on something that has none is disrespectful to both the artpiece and the artist himself.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48347267]Nothing exists in a vacuum, art both drives and is created by the current society it exists within. Almost every piece of art is a statement of something because that is the nature of art.[B] You don't create a painting with the intention of "whatevs lol"[/B], you don't compose a song "becuz lol".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48347326][B]You painted a dragon because you liked dragons. Kinda implies you want to show how fucking awesome dragons are no?[/B]
You created a song for dancing. Kinda implies you want other people to dance to your song and experience some kind of emotional response (who dances when they're crying their eyes out) and express themselves no?
You can say you created something "becuz lol", but that just means you haven't thought about why you created it enough to me. That's besides the point though, art still doesn't exist in a vacuum, what you make can inspire others to make or do things themselves after all. If I hear a particularly good song, I sometimes think "damn I wish I could even song at all".[/QUOTE]
I am almost 100% certain you don't draw or paint.
[QUOTE=Thlis;48348381]I am almost 100% certain you don't draw or paint.[/QUOTE]
I doubt he creates anything at all. You don't need an agenda or a deep reason to create something.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48348580]I doubt he creates anything at all. You don't need an agenda or a deep reason to create something.[/QUOTE]
If you call "I think they look cool, I wanna show how cool they look" deep then damn you're easily impressed. Nowhere did I mention your reason for making something has to be "to explore the darkest depths of the human condition" or "to prove Obama is in fact a socialist commie muslim" or something. Just that beneath your surface level "becuz lol" you might have a reason you just don't really give enough of a fuck to use.
But that's a pretty big assumption to make that I don't create anything at all. Paint? No, I'm not great at that. Draw? I can draw a mean dick but that's about it. Music? Already said I suck at that. But there's other things you can create. Until programming started taking up a fair bit of my time and before I started my degree I spent ages learning how to create levels for games and shit like texture work. Sure shit I do in my spare time barely fits in the classical definition of "art" (let alone actually meet the definition of "finished" or "good") but that doesn't mean I don't create things.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48346411]I second that to day in general, why can't art just be art, not a statement or imposition on society?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48347293]Yes, you can actually, can't I paint a dragon just because I like dragons?
Aren't there songs specifically just made for dancing?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48348580]I doubt he creates anything at all. You don't need an agenda or a deep reason to create something.[/QUOTE]
I feel like you guys are either arguing semantics or deliberately ignoring the point. Shakespeare set out to write entertaining plays. They were meant to make him money by being performed for commoners, not effect social change. But that doesn't stop people from analyzing the plays and using them to talk about the social situations they depict. A lot of ink has been spilled about whether the Merchant of Venice humanized Jews or villainized them, but that doesn't necessarily imply that Shakespeare intended to do either. You can complain that 'it's just a story', that Shakespeare should be just read for fun and you can't talk about what implications it has for society, but people tend to recognize that for the narrow-minded, anti-intellectual viewpoint that it is.
So backing up a bit, because videogame character waistlines are hardly Shakespeare, nobody's saying that game artists have any social intent beyond making game art. But as has been said, art does not exist in a vacuum. The whole idea of body image in media is that nobody's deliberately trying to depict people in unrealistic ways, it just happens that when ideal rather than average figures are used as a standard in media it leads young people to have skewed perceptions of what's normal. You don't need to assume greater intent on the part of the author to talk about the societal implications of their work.
So yeah, art can be art, it doesn't need to be created with an ulterior motive or meaning. But that doesn't put it off-limits for discussion, and a lack of intent doesn't mean a piece of art has no contextual significance. If you draw dicks all day 'because dicks lol', even if you profess no deeper meaning or significance, you bet people are gonna have lots to speculate on why you're doing it and what it means.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48347255]This is not the Deviantart Appreciation Station, dude.[/QUOTE]
I just realized that. FUCK.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48349208]...stuff...
So yeah, art can be art, it doesn't need to be created with an ulterior motive or meaning. But that doesn't put it off-limits for discussion, and a lack of intent doesn't mean a piece of art has no contextual significance. If you draw dicks all day 'because dicks lol', even if you profess no deeper meaning or significance, you bet people are gonna have lots to speculate on why you're doing it and what it means.[/QUOTE]I don't think most art, especially videogame art, should be bashed because some fat sjws found it offensive. Analyzing art is one thing, bashing it because it does not fit your twisted morals of equality and righteousness is a totally different thing. I think doing that is simply unfair to the game and the artists and people who enjoy said media. If you don't like it, that's fine, move on. But instead we get stupid crap like shopping characters to make them fat to send some sort of idiotic social message. Armchair feminists are going too far by causing such a huge uproar about something like games or comics. I see it as nothing but trying to ruin the media because it sure as hell does nothing good for anyone.
My view point is no matter what people say these characters are works of fiction fabricated from a business mindset, and has made a shit ton of money because of it. Developers don't make girls in shape because THEY want a hard on, they make them fit because being fit is what the majority of people want and it makes them money. It doesn't matter who the developer is, trust me if you're making a game it's going to take a huge part of your life to finish it which means you need $$$ to support that time spent, and especially when it comes to companies who write paychecks to said developers. Every detail matters and can either appeal to the majority audience or take the risk and somewhat appeal to all audiences and [I]hope[/I] it is successful.
Who the hell should care? All of these characters are surrounded by a huge immersive world around them and shouldn't be singled out to be made a big deal lol.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48354574]...because some fat sjws found it offensive. Analyzing art is one thing, bashing it because it does not fit your twisted morals of equality and righteousness is a totally different thing.[/QUOTE]
Can you point me to where this is happening? Because if you take, like, thirty seconds to read the OP, that's not what's going on here in the slightest. The link in the OP is showing examples of game characters if they had average proportions as opposed to the idealized figures we're used to in gaming, and it's for a bulimia support group. It's not accusing the developers of being insensitive to fat people or something, it's giving visual examples of what these characters would look like if they were reflective of the average. That's pretty meaningful in trying to talk about a disorder that stems in part from the prevalence of unrealistic standards in media.
But Facepunch is being reactionary and triggered as usual because how [i]dare[/i] they imply that videogame characters tend not to be representative of real people. Something something feminists something something SJWs.
So basically take any femaly character and make them fatter?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.