[eriq]

You Better Work That Curtain Hari! Work It Good!

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by eriq

Or do you think they should have taken a more subtle, smarter approach? Perhaps drawing her with a trenchcoat on and a "hint" of a high-heel or sexy leg showing mysteriously peeking out?

Kind of like this, you mean?

Originally Posted by Squinky

As I argued in the blog post I linked to earlier, I believe that with this kind of advertising, you are limiting your audience rather than broadening it. As a woman, if I saw the cover of this game and didn't know anything about it, I'd assume that looking at nearly naked ladies was a core element of the game, and would therefore feel uncomfortable buying it. And judging by the demographics of these forums, a lot of women play adventure games, so you'd essentially be excluding a large chunk your audience.

I actually agree that it's not a great cover for selling the game. I think it's fairly well established that the core audience for most adventure games is middle-aged women (Dave Gilbert was not the first adventure developer to discover that). But even as a twenty-something male, I can't say that image would make me inclined to buy the game, or even check it out. At first glance, it does indeed look like some Vegas girl posing in front of the casino floor (possibly in a 19th Century-themed casino, given the costumes of the guys behind her), so I'd assume that it was some sort of poker or roulette game. Given the generic pose and scene, it's not at all clear that the woman in the foreground is the character you play as, much less the nature of the game.

For my money, the above cover is better, not because she's wearing slightly more clothes (Really. In either case they're using sex appeal, and making the necessary concessions to modesty, so what's the difference? Does it matter whether or not you can see her bellybutton?), but because it presents a much clearer game premise. It communicates violence, intrigue and even sex much more strongly than the cover for the newer game.

To take another example, compare the cover for So Blonde:



As far as I can tell, this game is promoted just as much on sex appeal (her bikini top is hanging from the mast of the raft!), and is arguably even more sexist than the cover for the new Mata Hari game ("the blonde girl is doing her nails while attacked by pirates lol!"). But it certainly presents the premise for and tone of the game pretty effectively. I haven't been particularly interested in So Blonde, despite being a Steve Ince fan, but if I saw this cover in the store I might definitely pick it up for another look, and perhaps buy it.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

You are using the same argument that film companies use. "It's just a movie. It's not reality". Well, you are wrong. When you use historic persons in a movie/game/novel you HAVE to give the true portrait of them. Eitherwise it's forgery.

Actually, you DON'T have to do that. That's called "fiction".

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Squinky

As a matter of fact, I happen to loathe such advertisements, and am more than willing to argue that they're just as sexist, if not moreso. Ubiquity is no excuse to continue being sexist if you can avoid it, however.

Couldn't you argue that when advertising a film, TV show, book, or game that includes sex as a significant part of its story, using sex in the advertisements is nothing more than accurate product representation?

Going further, isn't the same true of products that are about sex, or sexiness? Perfume, underwear, jewellery, cosmetics, fashion clothes/shoes, and trendy liquors, at least, have that excuse. Maybe deodorants, too, though I have to say I loathe those Axe commercials.

You could argue that selling products that exploit people's sexual urges is objectionable in itself, but by that logic, wouldn't you also have to condemn restaurants for exploiting people's hunger?

Advertisements that use sex to sell a completely unrelated product (chewing gum, say; a friend of mine memorably summed up the moral of one commercial as "Chew Extra, have sex with random strangers!") are another matter.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Squinky

As a matter of fact, I happen to loathe such advertisements, and am more than willing to argue that they're just as sexist, if not moreso. Ubiquity is no excuse to continue being sexist if you can avoid it, however.

I didn't ask you if you loathe them. I asked you if you buy the products in these ads (in relation that you won't buy the game). If you don't you are either not honest or you live naked in a cave (with WiFi access) and eat roots. Because such ads are in every good and in every product

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Actually, you DON'T have to do that. That's called "fiction".

Of course you have. Otherwise you should state it in the beginning of the i.e. movie and not in small letters in the final credits.
Maybe in the US there is no such interest and care due to the lack of great historic persons, but do know that in the other part of the world such attitude (of forgery) is highly unacceptable

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

You are using the same argument that film companies use. "It's just a movie. It's not reality". Well, you are wrong. When you use historic persons in a movie/game/novel you HAVE to give the true portrait of them. Eitherwise it's forgery.

There is no single movie, game, or novel in existance that give a true portrait of a historic figure. Some are just more close to the truth than others. Yet there are no clear criteria for comparing works of fiction in that aspect - it's always just speculation.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Couldn't you argue that when advertising a film, TV show, book, or game that includes sex as a significant part of its story, using sex in the advertisements is nothing more than accurate product representation?

Yes. In which case, it'll be more a matter me leaving it alone rather than complaining about it.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

You could argue that selling products that exploit people's sexual urges is objectionable in itself, but by that logic, wouldn't you also have to condemn restaurants for exploiting people's hunger?

Oh, definitely, particularly if it's fast food joints you're thinking about. My arguments still stand... though they're starting to get a bit off-topic, so I hope no one minds terribly.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I didn't ask you if you loathe them. I asked you if you buy the products in these ads (in relation that you won't buy the game). If you don't you are either not honest or you live naked in a cave (with WiFi access) and eat roots. Because such ads are in every good and in every product

All of them? Really? Even the no-name brands you buy at Costco?

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

There is no single movie, game, or novel in existance that give a true portrait of a historic figure. Some are just more close to the truth than others.

I mean the major aspects of his/her character and the major achievements, actions, beliefs. If they change minor characteristics that doesn't alter the plot, this is of no importance

Originally Posted by Squinky

All of them? Really? Even the no-name brands you buy at Costco?

It's no use...
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy...

[Henke]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

You are using the same argument that film companies use. "It's just a movie. It's not reality". Well, you are wrong. When you use historic persons in a movie/game/novel you HAVE to give the true portrait of them. Eitherwise it's forgery.

Since it's fiction you have no obligation to do that. But if you go way out of line it can often feel wrong. But if you're making something that occured long ago you have to alter certain things so an modern audience can understand it. So the fact that she looks slightly different from the real Mata Hari on the cover isn't even close of being out of line if you ask me. If she was wearing a couple of Nike shoes then I would agree with you.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I mean the major aspects of his/her character and the major achievements, actions, beliefs. If they change minor characteristics that doesn't alter the plot, this is of no importance

Major characteristics? Are Mata Hari's garments one of her major characteristics? They may be to you, but not to somebody else.

Besides, lots of historians base their whole careers on surprising the world with new, controversial takes on major (and minor) characteristics of famous historical figures. And their evidence is good enough not to be easily dismissed by the mainstream. You can question anything if you dig deeply enough.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I didn't ask you if you loathe them. I asked you if you buy the products in these ads (in relation that you won't buy the game).

You really won't buy the game just because of the box art, Squinky? What good will that do?

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Major characteristics? Are Mata Hari's garments one of her major characteristics? They may be to you, but not to somebody else.

Besides, lots of historians base their whole careers on surprising the world with new, controversial takes on major (and minor) characteristics of famous historical figures. And their evidence is good enough not to be easily dismissed by the mainstream. You can question anything if you dig deeply enough.

Of course they are (not the most major but surely great). Otherwise you should accept with no frustration Mata Hari in Nike shoes (Henke words), Napoleon wearing a robe in the battles and Ceasar wearing sunglasses in the Coloseum

As for the research, we can't deny everything that is considered correct today in condition that in 10 years a new historian will come up with something new.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

Of course they are (not the most major but surely great). Otherwise you should accept with no frustration Mata Hari in Nike shoes (Henke words), Napoleon wearing a robe in the battles and Ceasar wearing sunglasses in the Coloseum

As for the research, we can't deny everything that is considered correct today in condition that in 10 years a new historian will come up with something new.

And the consequence of what you're saying is that what the storytellers can only really aspire to is to make the historical fiction plausible for the audience. The accusation of forgery can't really stand in such cases. Personally, I loathe the movie RKO 281 for presenting completely distorted and repulsive (to me at least) versions of the original events and people, but I won't claim that the movie is doing something much more unfair to the truth than most others - I'm just more sensitive in that specific case.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

It's no use...
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy...

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

You really won't buy the game just because of the box art, Squinky? What good will that do?

My point was that I wouldn't feel inclined to buy the game if all I saw was the box art and knew nothing else about it. If I do wind up buying the game (and to tell you the truth, I've been having second thoughts about doing so... it could be the case that this game isn't for me after all) it would be in spite of the box art, rather than because of it.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

Of course you have. Otherwise you should state it in the beginning of the i.e. movie and not in small letters in the final credits.
Maybe in the US there is no such interest and care due to the lack of great historic persons, but do know that in the other part of the world such attitude (of forgery) is highly unacceptable

Whether it's Richard III (or the Henries, Antony, Cleopatra, or any other historical character) in Shakespeare or Cardinal Richelieu in Dumas' Three Musketeers, there's never been any requirement for accuracy in historical fiction. It is sometimes attempted, but even then nearly always secondary to dramatic necessity. Many of the traits now seen as iconic for many famous people are pure inventions by writers like Shakespeare, Dumas, Walter Scott, Fenimore Cooper and others. Let's not even get into the gross distortions by highly biased writers and historians in antiquity. If you assume the depiction of a historical person in a work of fiction is accurate unless there's some disclaimer in big letters up front, you're pretty naive.

And I'm not American, so you can spare the anti-Americanism.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Squinky

My point was that I wouldn't feel inclined to buy the game if all I saw was the box art and knew nothing else about it. If I do wind up buying the game (and to tell you the truth, I've been having second thoughts about doing so... it could be the case that this game isn't for me after all) it would be in spite of the box art, rather than because of it.

Ah, OK, that's entirely reasonable.

In my case, it's really Hal Barwood and Noah Falstein that are tempting me to buy the game, not Mata Hari.

[jp-30]

And, as the guy from the publishing company said earlier, it's German box art and will probably change for other territories...

[eriq]

and I will be featured on the US front cover in a snake-like playboy pose with jewels covering my nip nips.

[jp-30]

I'll buy two!

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I'm sorry, I don't follow

The correct verb is can't not don't

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Whether it's Richard III (or the Henries, Antony, Cleopatra, or any other historical character) in Shakespeare or Cardinal Richelieu in Dumas' Three Musketeers, there's never been any requirement for accuracy in historical fiction. It is sometimes attempted, but even then nearly always secondary to dramatic necessity. Many of the traits now seen as iconic for many famous people are pure inventions by writers like Shakespeare, Dumas, Walter Scott, Fenimore Cooper and others. Let's not even get into the gross distortions by highly biased writers and historians in antiquity. If you assume the depiction of a historical person in a work of fiction is accurate unless there's some disclaimer in big letters up front, you're pretty naive.

I didn't write what the condition is, I wrote how it should be.
Go ask a Scottish his feelings about "Braveheart". Or a Greek about "Alexander". I wish I was there when you pose them the questions

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

And I'm not American, so you can spare the anti-Americanism.

Anti-Americanism???
Spare me from this argument

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by eriq

and I will be featured on the US front cover in a snake-like playboy pose with jewels covering my nip nips.

O_O

*_*



...you're crazy!