[AndreaDraco83]

Men can be seductive as well as woman: obviously not in the pin-up, cheap sex club's stripper's position Mata Hari showed on this awful cover, but they surely can extremely sensual. Think, for an example drawn from the same contest, at the art design of Dracula for Dracula: Origin. Horrible game, but awesome art design: here Dracula is seductive without being trivial and vulgar, and I don't think that this cover is aimed only at gay men. Oh... and as for the record: not all men in all gay magazines try so desperately to feel so seductive, thus resulting in being nothing more than petty, nor they indulge in some of these contrived poses: always beware of the stereotypes.

Perhaps you're right, but I hope you don't think that every representation of a woman behaving seductively in a womanly fashion is somehow depreciative for women in general?

A woman behaving seductively in such a distasteful, coarse way - at least in my opinion - is somehow depreciative, and a cheap shot to allure, always in my opinion, horny adolescent to the game, thus perpetuating the old stereotype of women = sexual objects.

[Henke]

Regarding the box art, I think some of you are missing the point about the myth regarding Mata Hari.

[eriq]

She's wearing next to NOTHING - just like the photographs. So she's posing all sexy. What's the big deal? She looks hot. She looks strong and in control. I love it. It's not what I would have imagined for the cover art but it's really beautiful in my opinion.

I don't get why people are so turned off by human beings being sexy. If you've got it, use it. Use it while you have it! And if you've got brains too, more power to you. That's even sexier.

I can't wait to play this game.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

A woman behaving seductively in such a distasteful, coarse way - at least in my opinion - is somehow depreciative, and a cheap shot to allure, always in my opinion, horny adolescent to the game, thus perpetuating the old stereotype of women = sexual objects.

There rarely is a man who sees every single woman as an sexual object by definition - too many women around which are not attractive to him.

By looking down at women which behave like you describe you perpetuate a much more dangerous stereotype than the one you dislike - a stereotype that some cheap, blatant expressions of sexuality are to be condemned. In other words, you unwittingly encourage men that are attracted by these kinds of allures to treat the women they find attractive as whores and sinners which is a very common hypocrisy in men.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

In other words, you unwittingly encourage men that are attracted by these kinds of allures to treat the women they find attractive as whores and sinners which is a very common hypocrisy in men.

If a man treats a woman whom he find attractive as whore or a sinner, he's worse than a hypocrite, and believe me there isn't a person as alien to the concept of sin as I am.

Sexuality is a very important aspect of human nature - beware, I'm not talking about romance/love in relation to sex. I'm talking about pure sexual instinct, without any emotional involvement: the kind of instinct that attract one's eyes toward another one, even without words between them. Can I say that I don't find this kind of art - which I'm quite disgusted to call this way - not at all neither attractive or seductive? I think it's not only cheap and corny but also offensive, because it makes a commercial, trivial and slimy use of the most abused of the stereotypes. Come on, we're not talking about a cover depicting a seductive woman who served as a spy! We're talking about a cover where a (badly depicted) woman wiggles her whips for the drooling of some adolescent!

Think about this: some of Nicole Kidman's costumes from Moulin Rouge were inspired from Mata Hari. Even when she's wearing next to nothing, she had a class, an elegance and a brightness that this piece of art can only dream of, between an episode of Penthouse and a Playboy Late Night Show. That was an intelligent depiction of an attractive and intelligent woman... this is, to say the best, idiocy.

I'll try to clear a thing a second time, before being accused of moralism: I've nothing against strippers, pin-ups, Playboy's blondes, Baywatch's lifeguards in tight red costume and so on... I only find very distasteful this kind of marketing/advertising and this *artistic* design is, in my humble opinion, vulgar, cheap and petty.

Originally Posted by eriq

I don't get why people are so turned off by human beings being sexy. If you've got it, use it. Use it while you have it! And if you've got brains too, more power to you. That's even sexier.

Believe me: I'm turned on, by my type of sexy human beings, with my very personal opinion on what is a sexy behavior and on what is nothing more than a tacky, sexist stereotype.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Let me say it like this: man who aren't posing for magazines targeted at gay men, but behaving like they were, and thinking while doing it that they are sexually attractive to women and role models for other men are ridiculous.

Right. So, what makes you think women don't look ridiculous when contorted in such a way?

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Perhaps you're right, but I hope you don't think that every representation of a woman behaving seductively in a womanly fashion is somehow depreciative for women in general? Actually, this is probably the core of the sexism problem - men (and women too) looking down at women who are able to be attractive.

No, the core of the sexism problem is far deeper than that. There's a very long history of women being considered lesser than men, as little more than vessels for their pleasure, with the same worth as an animal. It's only in the last hundred years or so that women have started being considered as human beings rather than objects, and even then, that's not true in all parts of the world.

Originally Posted by eriq

She's wearing next to NOTHING - just like the photographs. So she's posing all sexy. What's the big deal? She looks hot. She looks strong and in control. I love it. It's not what I would have imagined for the cover art but it's really beautiful in my opinion.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using sex to sell things. (I personally don't find it to my taste, but whatever floats people's boats, you know.) The big deal, as I said, is that no one would ever attempt sell a game in this way if a man were playing the title role.

[After a brisk nap]

I don't get it. She's a stripper and a prostitute, and a byword for sexy. For once there's actually a good excuse for having a scantily clad woman on the box cover.

[eriq]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I don't get it. She's a stripper and a prostitute, and a byword for sexy. For once there's actually a good excuse for having a scantily clad woman on the box cover.

My thoughts exactly. There's much more brewing underneath that sexy! But she WAS a dancer. She looks very powerful and commanding.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I don't get it. She's a stripper and a prostitute, and a byword for sexy. For once there's actually a good excuse for having a scantily clad woman on the box cover.

I'll quote Squinky.

Let's say that our protagonist is a male stripper, do you think that the publishers would have seen that as a good excuse for having a hot, attractive man in an arousing pose on the box cover?

I highly doubt that, and we all know this. So let's not say it isn't sexist. It is sexist and, furthermore, tacky and corny, if you're up for an aesthetic evaluation of the art design itself.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I don't get it. She's a stripper and a prostitute, and a byword for sexy. For once there's actually a good excuse for having a scantily clad woman on the box cover.

Well, unless I'm completely mistaken, most of the gameplay consists of spying rather than stripping. If the in-game depiction of Mata Hari spent more time doing the latter, the cover would be justified... and I would therefore decide that the game isn't for me and move on.

[eriq]

You know us ridiculous gay men just love strong women.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Let's say that our protagonist is a male stripper, do you think that the publishers would have seen that as a good excuse for having a hot, attractive man in an arousing pose on the box cover?

I highly doubt that, and we all know this. So let's not say it isn't sexist. It is sexist and, furthermore, tacky and corny, if you're up for an aesthetic evaluation of the art design itself.

I actually think that's quite likely, if they ever made a game like that.

I don't think the art, pose and costume are all that, personally, but let's keep things in perspective, here: Mata Hari was not some oriental courtesan. She was a Dutch circus artist turned hooker, and all the exoticism and glamor was completely fake in the first place. Arguably, the depiction of her as some Vegas dancer is as authentic as it gets.

You can be as offended by or disappointed in the presentation of this game as you like, but it's hard to argue that it's not true to Mata Hari.

[AndreaDraco83]

OK. Given that I like Madonna a lot, can I also say that us ridiculous gay men have a slightly better taste than other men?

I'm only joking on stereotypes, nothing serious. But I still think that that cover is of very doubtful taste, not to mention - as Ascovel rightly said - that it surely is poorly executed. Madonna's Mata Hari-inspired photo is far more classy and intriguing than the cover we're talking about.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

You can be as offended by or disappointed in the presentation of this game as you like, but it's hard to argue that it's not true to Mata Hari.

I'm not offended. A bit disappointed, yes; perplexed even. And my aesthetic taste is surely wounded Most of all, I still think that this brunette pin-up is anything but faithful to the historical Mata-Hari. If I have to look to something true to her, as I said, I will look at Nicole Kidman's Satine, certainly not at this cover.

[eriq]

So you are opposed to the fact that she is contorting her body all snake-like and sexy? Or are you opposed to the clothing - or lack thereof? I agree that she looks like a "playboy" pinup but Mata Hari WAS an exotic dancer. If she was drawn less "sexy" but still as an exotic dancer would that change your opinion?

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? LOL. I mean... did she even wear a trenchcoat? What kind of a spy was she? From what I've read, she was quite simply a sexy, exotic dancer who happened to also be a spy.

[Ascovel]

Andrea, I agree with you on this cover art being ugly. But I can't see it as offensive. Perhaps it's because I don't see any real allures in how Mata Hari is drawn here beyond similar amount of naked body as every person shows when spending time on a beach.

Originally Posted by Squinky

Right. So, what makes you think women don't look ridiculous when contorted in such a way?

I don't know exactly what makes me think like that. Stereotypes, or something more?

What makes some people think someone slipping on a banana peel is funny? And are they right or are they wrong?

Anyway, such contortions seem harmless to me. And if men contorted in such a way would appeal to a similarly large number of people then I would have to get used to seeing them often, and I wouldn't really start a war about it. It isn't something that matters too much.

Originally Posted by Squinky

No, the core of the sexism problem is far deeper than that. There's a very long history of women being considered lesser than men, as little more than vessels for their pleasure, with the same worth as an animal. It's only in the last hundred years or so that women have started being considered as human beings rather than objects, and even then, that's not true in all parts of the world.

Well, I was thinking about modern western civilization. True, the remnants of the "deep" reasons behind sexism are still present - mostly connected to religions. Yet I think that plenty of people don't care about history and are sexist for the shallow reasons I gave. Those different reasons can be also combined together.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by eriq

So you are opposed to the fact that she is contorting her body all snake-like and sexy? Or are you opposed to the clothing - or lack thereof? I agree that she looks like a "playboy" pinup but Mata Hari WAS an exotic dancer. If she was drawn less "sexy" but still as an exotic dancer would that change your opinion?

I think I'd be happier with something like the early teaser rendering that jp-30 posted, where she's still dressed provocatively but her body language is more commanding and dominant, which, as I take it, is more in keeping with her character.

[eriq]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I think I'd be happier with something like the early teaser rendering that jp-30 posted, where she's still dressed provocatively but her body language is more commanding and dominant, which, as I take it, is more in keeping with her character.

Ahh but the thrill in this.. the magic and irony of this whole cover is that she's actually what you LEAST expect. To everyone watching her, she's an exotic dancer... a pin-up girl, a seductress... whatever you want to call it - and however she's posed.. does it really matter? It's unexpected. Look behind her.... the chaos she's brought upon the masses. The angry men, the billowing airship... all firey and angry while she, quite daintily, parts the curtains and gives you a little bump and grind. She has, by all points, used her sexuality to trick them all.

I'M SO JEALOUS! I WANT TO BE HER!!!

[AndreaDraco83]

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? LOL.

Ehehehe... This actually made me laugh. A lot

Originally Posted by eriq

So you are opposed to the fact that she is contorting her body all snake-like and sexy? Or are you opposed to the clothing - or lack thereof? I agree that she looks like a "playboy" pinup but Mata Hari WAS an exotic dancer. If she was drawn less "sexy" but still as an exotic dancer would that change your opinion?

One thing is the sexist stereotype of naked woman on cover = sales assured. One thing is my personal aesthetic taste. As I said a million times , I found this portrait tacky, poorly executed and distasteful. If you want to know what I'd surely have found appropriate and fitting, I can point you at this,or this. Don't you think that they look powerful and in control, even without being so corny and clichéd?

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Andrea, I agree with you on this cover art being ugly. But I can't see it as offensive.

What I find offensive is that someone, even today, September 2008, actually thinks that snake-like contorted pin-up with barely nothing to cover her huge forms = sales assured. It's this kind of assumption that is sexist.

PS: I'm off to bed. Good night everyone

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by eriq

I'M SO JEALOUS! I WANT TO BE HER!!!

Okay, then be her.