The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[Lauront]

I'd consider the Eden version of Titan to be at least somewhat attractive. A big, muscular guy in a loincloth hits many the right notes for me. Now, if only we could see more of that with regular human-like enemies and allies...

There's also Byakko, although he lacks some critical male components by virtue of exposing a bit too much and bringing attention to that lack... this is why loincloths were invented.

[Iscah]

...but how else do you work in its gender into its visual design?

Do they need to work its gender into its visual design in humanoid terms? So far we've seen plenty of Sahagin - they're lean and scrawny and then we're told "hey, you're about to meet a female one" and she's big and bulky.

I don't think "that must be a female because she has feminine characteristics", I think "ah, that's what a female Sahagin looks like and how they're different from the males. That adds up with the 'hive queen' setup they've established."

Male and female forms for other creatures don't need to follow human rules for telling them apart. Just establish within the story how you do tell them apart instead, and that's all you really need.

[Amnmaat]

Last time I looked at fish in real life they didn't have arms and legs. After arms and legs anything goes.

[Melichoir]

Titan straight up looks like Thanos. Last time I checked, Thanos was not the stereotype of male attraction. Also Ifrit is a lipless demon. Surprisingly, the nakedness is not the only qualifier for if someone is hot or not. Go figure.

Innocence, Byakko, and Seiryu are the closest to traditionally attractive and even they have no comparisons to the nakie females. Innocence is fully armoured, Byakko has a weird tiger arm, and Seiryu is snake centaur.

Now sure, you could think they are perfectly attractive, but you can't ignore the fact there is basically only three bosses in the whole game (that I can think of off the top of my head) that are traditionally attractive and don't look like monsters or aliens, while you can list off dozens of sexy humanoid females.

Edit : I totally did not quote the wrong person first time around.

Well theres a fwe aspects here.

First, what do we define as 'attractive' is gonna be somewhat subjective. You are forgetting that Omega M exists, so does Kefka, and Technically Neo Exdeath (even though he is quite literally a wierd eldritch abomination, the upper half of the torso is quite defined and 'classical' male.) But what is the metric by which were gauging attractiveness. There are plenty of men and women who do not like the Bulked out body builder Titan, but swoon for the more elegant Omega M physique.

Which then also brings up what we define as ideal traits. You cant simply say "Well the aspects of what makes a female attractive is the same as a male." The 'classical' interpretation of female with the more hourglass figure, long legs, gentle features, conventionally attractive face, etc are all traits that work on the feminine form,or rather are traits that define the feminine form. However, the defining traits of the classical interpretation of male form and attractiveness is different. It's a lot more about the physique, the strength, ruggedness, or power behind it. Most men and women do not find a man with extreme effeminate qualities as being ideally attractive, much the same way that most men and women dont find a woman whos got hyper masculine traits to be attractive.

So the request here isnt "Well we need more men to dress and look like women" but acknowledge what male forms are 'attractive' and whether theyre on display. Raktapaksa, depsite being a demon, has definable male characteristics that are seen as attractive. Odin Centaur has the same, so does Titan. Then you also have Omega M. But these are disqualified because...? Theyre 'grotesque' or Monstrous?'? So if you are saying "Well we need more male characters like Shiva", you need to define what aspects outside of the feminine are being requested - You want to show more skin? More bulky beefy masculine bodies? Less monster and more Chippendales with fantasy armor?

Then there's the flip side - why arent we implementing more ugly and horrific monster women? A way to reach the parity that is being complained about is to just have more monster like female bosses. Or the, of course, tried and true thought process of "objectifying" things. If you create more bosses that are fantasy chippendales, then that falls under the same scrutiny people have about bikini plate vs functional armor. Or does that point just up and disappear the second it's on a male character.

For me it would be perfectly fine without any female body parts. They could show that its a female without that. Voice, small changes between the genders like color. Stuff like that.

And honestly the ugly character part for JRPG mostly seems to be about the females, because we have lots of monstrous male as bosses.

Different voice, as you give for an example, is a biological construct of what we view to be female. This is not really all that different from fish boobies in that regard if were talking about this from a 'quick read' design standpoint. We naturally associate higher pitched voices as being female, whether that's true or not.

The game, if we consider something, actually does distinquish not only body shape, but size for helping assist in determining female. While we dont have any specifics on if all females are larger than males, in this case, you get that.

[Roda]

Youre making a subjective critique of what you think they should be like based on your aesthetics but passing it off as objective of how they should be (or in the least that is how you are coming across to me).

And this is where I stop engaging with this discussion.

Just because I have solid reasoning supporting my critique does not mean I'm declaring objectivity.

You have a problem with me taking inspiration from the natural world to inform my critique of creatures that take aspects from animals.

Art, especially commercial art has to take elements from sources to make a complete product. You can't just throw darts at a list and roll with whatever random combination of features it lands on with no thought afterwards (unless you're looking to create some obvious chimera).

And I'm going to ask you to not strawman my views with your pegasus argument, you know I'm not asking SE to take away her legs and arms "cause she's just a fish and fish don't have limbs."

[Melichoir]

And this is where I stop engaging with this discussion.

Just because I have solid reasoning supporting my critique does not mean I'm declaring objectivity.

You have a problem with me taking inspiration from the natural world to inform my critique of creatures that take aspects from animals.

Art, especially commercial art has to take elements from sources to make a complete product. You can't just throw darts at a list and roll with whatever random combination of features it lands on with no thought afterwards (unless you're looking to create some obvious chimera).

And I'm going to ask you to not strawman my views with your pegasus argument, you know I'm not asking SE to take away her legs and arms "cause she's just a fish and fish don't have limbs."

No, but Im asking you to explain why you are favoring the fish aspect while ignoring the simian aspect completely. Your point of view hinges on "they are fishlike, therefore should not have fish boobs," and pointing to real life nature of fishes as the reason why it should be, while ignoring the other side of the equation. If you have a bipedal humanoid with a body configuration very similar to humans, why is it suddenly outside the scope of realism that females may have a structure that is analogous to breasts? Cliche? Maybe sure. Better more interesting ways to demonstrate a female? Why not. But 'incorrect'?

My issue was simply the fact that you took umbrage and then said "Well theyre more fish so boobs are stupid" and completely ignoring the clearly humanoid aspects of the design. The Pegasus is not a strawman, its me using your train of thought - Fictional creature that is composed of two different animals is 'unrealistic' cause one of the animals does not have the trait of the other in real life nature. I dont assume you would want to remove the legs and arms, but that it's strange you are allowing for those factors among others but 'fish boobs' - thats to much.

[sarehptar]

However, the defining traits of the classical interpretation of male form and attractiveness is different. It's a lot more about the physique, the strength, ruggedness, or power behind it.

Wasn't there literally a study done where they asked female participants to rate male bodies, and they assumed the most bulky, powerful body would be the highest rated but then the highest rated ended up being the one who looked generally fit but also significantly less imposing?

There is such a huge difference between "the classical ideal male has muscles" and "the classical ideal man is a guy so jacked he looks like he eats nothing but protein powder and drinks nothing but his own gym sweat." Male characters who are swollen beyond all reasonable limits aren't designed to be attractive to female viewers; they're power fantasy figures for male viewers. (Someone link that Hugh Jackman on a men's magazine vs. Hugh Jackman on a women's magazine post, I'm too lazy.) I agree with your point that most women wouldn't find a very effeminate male character as attractive (although the millions of K-pop stans around the globe might beg to differ), but let's not create a false dichotomy that suggests the only two possible male figures are "ripped as fuck Byakko" at one end and "looks like a girl" at the other.

In between those two is the far-more-common "yeah he works out, but he also doesn't look like he could crush my head between his bulging pecs, oh and look he has a nice face too" male image that I'd wager is far, far closer to the stereotypical "attractive male" image for average women. I mean... give random women on the street a picture of Byakko and then a picture of Thancred and then ask them which one qualifies as "attractive" and we all know what the answer will be. Take a picture of Eden's Ifrit around to a crowd of women on the street and I'm pretty sure 3/4s of them wouldn't even be able to identify it as male, let alone sexy.

I'm sure there are plenty of monster fuckers playing this game, and your post did just force me to admit that some people in this world find Kefka attractive, but trying to act like Byakko, Kefka, and Neo Ex-Death are remotely close to "stereotypically attractive male" in comparison to how closely Shiva, Sophia, the Ruby Princess, and many other female bosses align to "stereotypically attractive female" is really, really silly.

"I don't want to see any more bosses like Omega-M" is a totally fair opinion a person can have, but "There are plenty of attractive male figures in this game already; just look at Raktapaksa!" is utter nonsense.

If you create more bosses that are fantasy chippendales, then that falls under the same scrutiny people have about bikini plate vs functional armor. Or does that point just up and disappear the second it's on a male character.

So are you for covering up the female bosses or just against male bosses showing any skin? Don't shift the goal post here; there will always be people complaining about fanservice designs, male or female, but that has nothing to do with those who merely want to see a better balance in the amount of fanservice aimed at female versus male players when it comes to boss design.

(And lord, I was staying out of the fish boobs debate because y'all are too into it, but...

No, but Im asking you to explain why you are favoring the fish aspect while ignoring the simian aspect completely. Your point of view hinges on "they are fishlike, therefore should not have fish boobs," and pointing to real life nature of fishes as the reason why it should be, while ignoring the other side of the equation. If you have a bipedal humanoid with a body configuration very similar to humans, why is it suddenly outside the scope of realism that females may have a structure that is analogous to breasts?

Breasts are literally designed to produce and feed milk to young. Even taking into account simian aspects like legs and arms, what would an egg-laying species where the mothers do not rear the young need breasts for? Like, from a strictly scientific perspective here, is there some alternate function to the fish boobies that would validate them being there?)

[linayar]

Breasts are literally designed to produce and feed milk to young. Even taking into account simian aspects like legs and arms, what would an egg-laying species where the mothers do not rear the young need breasts for? Like, from a strictly scientific perspective here, is there some alternate function to the fish boobies that would validate them being there?)

To be fair, we don't know whether those lumps serve the same function as breasts on mammals. Maybe they secrete some other substance than milk or serve some other purpose.

(And now I question why I'm even giving a thought to this.)

[sarehptar]

To be fair, we don't know whether those lumps serve the same function as breasts on mammals. Maybe they secrete some other substance than milk or serve some other purpose.

I can't wait for the third volume of Encyclopedia Eorzea to explain to me all about the substances secreted by the lady Sahagin's fish boobs.

[linayar]

I can't wait for the third volume of Encyclopedia Eorzea to explain to me all about the substances secreted by the lady Sahagin's fish boobs.

Maybe it'll be an aphrodisiac used by the nobles of Eulmore, a delicacy.