Why does WoTC keep doing stuff like this?
Original
>>98732191>>98732192branding, graphic design, etc., shit happens.but they changed the art itself...why?i know why. we all know why. but WHY why?
>>98732191I'm surprised they're even printing the old books. I think I still have an old copy somewhere.
>>98732198do you have any idea how female bodies like this make trannies and fat women feel?
>>98732201>>98732210Crazy thing is there is an in book justification and description for why she has that armor
>>98732191Probably an AI retouch. I'd swear the 1950s were less puritan than today.
>>98732191You can actually see the seam where they added it.
>>98732247...go on.Genuinely curious. If there's an explanation why her pants have slits down their sides that'd also be appreciated.
>>98732280It's not that today is more Puritan it's just that people are more sioled. Part of the problem is that gen z are a bunch of people afraid of sex. They don't want to bang a girl then have her change your mind the next day and accuse them of rape.
>>98732210They need to seethe more, not less.
>>98732192I read that as "curse of the azure boobs"I guess we know what the curse did Very disrespectful to the artist but we know WotC has only slightly more respect for D&D's fluff than it does for MtG's.
>>98732453This. A few months ago I turned down a chick at the bar because although she was cute she was very drunk and I knew if I took her home she would regret it the next day so I didn't.
>>98732191Modern diversity and inclusion initiatives are built on the defacement of art.
>>98732280>>98732453According to people in entertainment this is a result of overexposure and easy access to porn and lewds. Because it's so common more people find it simply unnecessary and gaudy when just strewn about places where they aren't specifically looking for it.
>>98732533According to journalists you mean
>>98732191Huh, remember reading that series over 20 years ago
>>98732542
>>98732564Will Gluck should share his long pages of empirical data then, so far its just "some director said trust me bro"
>>98732483>I didn't take advantage of a very drunk girl, obviously this is a bad thing.If the only thing keeping your from taking advantage of sloppy drunk women is fear, you're a bad person and you should probably reflect on that.
>>98732210Anon...Both of my trans friends love hot babes because they want to a) look like that and b) fuck that
>>98732533>Tiktok zoomers with no attention span want more tiktok micro-content to share with their "friends" that isn't problematic instead of seeing sexy womenWow!
>>98732564I don't want sex and nudity when I'm watching with someone else, but I want it when I' watching by myself. Now that kinoplexes are dead and we watch streaming services, I think it's time to have multiple cuts. Imagine how good it would be if we had 'fade to black' cuts for watching movies with friends and family and 'uncensored' cuts to watch by ourselves.
>>98732564>people are too bitch-ass to see titties in movies
>>98732191Only women read books now and certain types of women bitch about "sexualization" and the "male gaze". It's just WoTC catering to the modern audience.
>>98732842your friends sound basedwhy can't they be running our culture instead of the jealous ones?
>>98732443NTA, and please bear in mind I'm dragging a memory from DEEP out of the vaults here, and I never played it, just read magazine articles, but it's something to do with that titular curse; I believe that the boob window is actually an "in case of emergency please stab here" panel for if/when it finally takes her over.
>>98733826That is unexpectedly stupid and I was already expecting it to be dumb, but it at least being interesting makes me not hate it.
>>98733826>>98733844We all know the real reason was to put a sexy picture on the cover, because that used to sell fantasy books.Having it not only be acknowledged in the book, but giving an excuse as well is significantly more justification than I expected.
>>98732564young people are trained to have tulpas of black men and women smugly judging them for any horny thought, after having been bombarded since childhood with gifs and aave memes about how they are diddy blud ahh
>>98733972The pendulum swings. Licentious great-grandparents to mouth-pursing grandparents to libertine parents to puritan children. 'Twas ever thus.
>>98732191Hasbro. Why does Hasbro keep doing stuff like this?Hasn't been Wizards of the Coast for years.Learn your hobby.
>>98733950>>98733844It always frustrated me when people pointed out how it wasn't unrealistic. Because we all tacitly understood it. It wasn't meant to be real. It was meant to be, and this will be a shock, fantasy. People also used to understand that even if the armor WAS realistic she;s probably not going to get stabbed in the first place if the author didn't want her to and if when he did no amount of armor in the world would save her. Because it's fiction.
>>98733950Oh indeed. And it wouldn't be surprising to find out what the author wrote was intended to be a bit smaller and less obvious than what the artist painted, but that's just basic marketing.Equally though, I do miss those over-the-top hair metal album cover days. In some ways they were actually a lot more ... innocent than now. Certainly simpler.
>>98734146I hate unrealistic, and I hate the bikini armor. If you wanna show skin, just use some leather or cloth piece that make some sense.That said, the "puritan" version is no more realistic. A female wearing a chainmail wouldn't use it like that, leaving that cleavage. Any blade that goes there would kill her, that's why chest plates were designed to be concave, so they deflect the blade towards the sides. She would bind the chest, then would add some thick clothes and then the chainmail, and she would present the chest as flat as possible.
>>98734249>concaveConvex>as flat as possibleKeeled or cylindrical
>>98734146This always seemed like a cope mindset to me. If your thinking is that meta in regards to the story then it is questionable as to how you can enjoy it or be engaged with the characters or world even as just entertainment because you're already pre acknowledging how fake it is and how worthless and arbitrary the actions and struggles within the narrative and world are.
teenage boys don't want to see scantily clad women any more, by their own admission/agency. this belongs in the past every bit as much as your grandma popping out 8 kids.
>>98734340>Old things aren't as good as new things. 13 year old detected.
>>98732201Putting the idpol death cult in charge of anything leads to Harrison Bergeron in real life. These people worship ugliness and failure. Beauty, sensuality, etc. enrage them.
>>98734343NTA, but porn of any variety you can imagine being a few button presses away at all times would have put a damper on the allure of a lusty cover when I was a teenager. I think the world was better then, but I can see the mechanics of why teenagers today don't want it.
>people talking about how gen whatever doesn't want to see sex and nudity>in relation to a cover that is just a bit of cleavage>not nipples, not pussy, not even a bikini>literally just a bit of cleavage is considered "sex and nudity"nah, I'm not buying it.People wear outfits with more cleavage every fucking day, don't try to use the excuse about how gen z doesn't want to see sex SCENES to justify censoring a bit of cleavage on small boobs.
>>98734752What does it meaningfully add besides looking silly? Think about it. Consider how you can always instantly tell furfag designed animal characters from classical designs because of the fetishy nature of it and how much it makes you recoil or look down on it because the intent is so balatantly on the nose. If you're someone who likes it you are typically numbed to how off and unnecessary it looks to regular people but that is not really relevant to actual perception and necessity of the design.
>>98735985>Generic sexyness like boobs is a fetish Holy shit lol
>>98736071Except one easily can see the "censored" image falls into generic sexiness. What people are complaining about is it not being even more overt. Even your reply attempting to reframe what I said is just trying to shift the overton window in your favor because you know I am right but are trying to exaggerate and weasel my view into looking less sane than yours.
>>98735985Go outsideyou'll see women showing more cleavage RIGHT NOWYou're fucking insane if you think that is some fetish thing
>>98736121So now you are suddenly widely accepting of blatant modernity in fantasy?
>>98736114>"censored" image falls into generic sexinessholy shitthe censored image is literally just a womanthere's nothing sexy about it beyond that it's the picture of a female who is not ugly.What happened to you to make you like this? This is not normal.>>98736136So now you're just spouting completely unrelated nonsense? If you want to argue with whomever it was that told you that, go to another thread that is about that shit, I have no time to deal with your hallucinations.
>>98736136Sure. We've been doing pesudo-medieval fantasy for almost a century now and it's getting really stale. Even Ars Magica, set in the actual high middle ages, is way more interesting than most sword and sorcery settings. A little modernity is, creatively handled, well worth it to escape the endless grind of "dark fantasy" mud ages bullshit.
>>98736152Chain/ringmail doesn't deform enough to show the full shape of a woman's breasts to that degree. And see, there you go again, faux concern, trying to frame yourself as the sane impartial one while championing your biases because you are too numb to see normal.
>>98736194>anon unironically thinks he is normalyou're so gone you can't even tell.Reminder, for the non insane peopleThis anon, unironically thinks that pic in the op is "sexy" when it's just a normal woman wearing a sleeveless shirtand that the original on the first post is some feitsh thing when it's just a woman with cleavage, which anyone can just look outside and see.And he thinks he's normal."the full shape of a woman's breasts" he saysfucking crazy
>>98732191>>98732201Post-modern feminists genuinely believe that sexualization of fictional women causes more rape of real women in real life.
>>98736294You may think because you're on 4chan you have run of the asylum, but you aren't gaslighting me.
>>98736306>Post-modern feminists genuinely believe that sexualization of fictional women causes more rape of real women in real life.Which ones?
>>98736306>>98736493>Violent murder in video games does not cause violent behaviorAnd yet,>Sexual violence in video games encourages sexual assault
>>98736512Both things can be wrong when it's portrayed so over the top. A big breasted woman isn't overtly sexualized because she has big breasts, it's when the designers put her in skimpy clothes and slowly zoom in on her cleavage in cutscenes.Same thing with violence. Slaying an enemy with a sword showing how the enemy falls down and a puddle of blood appear is expected, but slow down the speed and zoom in when the head gets chopped off while splashing blood all over the area and the lead character as though it were some erotic vignette and the line is crossed.This isn't hard. The only reason some people can argue against such distinctions is because they are unwilling to specify where the lines exist because it will hold them to a standard.
>>98736527Who gets to draw these lines?
>>98736527>but slow down the speed and zoom in when the head gets chopped off while splashing blood all over the area and the lead character as though it were some erotic vignette and the line is crossed.This happens all the time, it's even the selling point of some games like Mortal Kombat.
>>98736530The Epstein class, of course.
>>98736531No it doesn't. Mortal Kombat is such a specific case that even its designers and animators felt revulsion and sickness while creating those animations.
I mean, politics aside you gotta admit the original was pants on head retarded in terms of armor design.
>>98736537Yeah, I heard about that. I think the biggest issue was that they were using a lot of real photos from police reports and medical textbooks and stuff for reference. Most people just can't look at real gore for very long without paying a price.
>>98732191>>98732192>>98732198The only time I would agree with the change in art design from Hasbro.Chainmail boob window is asking to be stabbed in the heart.
>>98732192>>98732198I feel like that would pinch the fuck outta yer nips.
>>98737849It doesn't bother the nipples at all. If you have long chest or belly hair, it will pluck out hairs though. You don't need to shave to stop that, just trim down. t. have worn reproduction mail shirts over skin>>98737493>>98737301>muh armor designIt's meant to be evocative, not a textbook on armor protection.
>>98736114Cleavage is generic anon. It's fucked you are so repressed and distanced from desire and your fellows while using that ignorance to claim sainthood as an enforceable motivation.
>>98736194>Muh realism >In relation to fantastical sexyness wew lad
>>98740959lol, it's hilarious how you lot always cry about how everyone else isn't as broken as you are and try to reframe it as though it's everybody else that is in the wrong for not being as needy as you.
>>98740969What happened to claiming it's"just a woman" and not sexy at all akshually?
>>98738221Do you have titties?
>>98732191they don't want to trigger /tg/, but are only willing to go so far. Boob armor remains, but at least the boobs themselves are fully armored. It still won't save her soul from the inevitable ricochet of an arrow off her tits straight into her heart. Still the Council of Fa/tg/uys must take its victories wherever it can.
>>98741004Not that anon. Thinking cleavage is sexy is normal, not a fetish. Putting a boob burka in there for the cover art is absurd. Trying to say something like >the boobs aren't realistic so it can't be sexy! is even more retarded. Pinup fantasy art isn't supposed to be realistic.
