For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

[Desdichado]

I own a copy of the book the Tarim mummy archeologists wrote. I took a course at the Smithsoanian about Chinese archeology. China has a very rich and diverse history and culture. But, dude, find me the reference where ANY woman in the area we know as China or historical China dressed like the woman on the cover of Jade and Steel.

Actually, I'm not claiming that it is all that accurate -- it's much too modern in it's conception of the bikini.

However, if you look at a book I once read called 5000 Years of Chinese Costumes by Zhou Xun and Gao Chunming (edited by the Chinese Costumes Research Group of the Shanghai School of Traditional Operas) you'd be surprised to find that a number of traditional "Chinese" clothes would probably qualify as cheesecake if we were to see them today.

But in reality, I was more complaining about the fact that the lady wasn't "Asian" enough, and just arbitrarily extending my point (somewhat) to cover costume, not really defend the picture, which I do not like.

 

[hong]

Granted.

However, those boobs weren't there to say, "HELLO, big boy!" They were part of a demon who likely doesn't care what we think of her and is more than likely going to rip out our hearts given the chance. That, to me, is a far cry from the Avalanche covers, which basically have a "Screw Me" pose.

Besides, the marilith does have some sort of historical accuracy to it, being obviously based on representations of Kali in Hindu myth.

 

[chatdemon]

I don't by Avalanche stuff. Not now, not ever. And I chime into threads like these to make it clear that there are people who find it offensive, silly, and misrepresentative.

Understandable, and I don't mean to come off as the sexist pig defending such marketing. True, it doesn't bother me, but I can see how some (or possibly most) women would take offense. My point was more that threads like these are probably defeating their point by drawing attention to the thing they want to go away.

 

[pontus]

Mariliths are supposed to be naked! Clothes are for succubi, and armor for soft-skins. So there.

 

[Wolfspider]

To be blunt, it seems to me that King Stannis started this thread not to elicit discussion and reasoned debate, but just to stick his tongue out at the critics of Avalanche's cover art policy and go "Nah, nah," proving his superiority over all of the "hypocrites" here who are able to see the difference between the two covers and, more importantly, the two marketing techniques. I don't think that anything that I say or that anyone else says will even come close to making King even question his stance for moment.

He's too busy congratulating himself on being a "lone voice in the wilderness"-- a cheescake Moses making a path for a Boris Vallerjo savior.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: There's two sides to this story

I pay more attention to authors than to publishers. Who wrote that? I bet it wasn't Jim Lai.

I can't tell. Avalanche's website seems to think that saying their covers are by noted Heavy Metal artist Lorenzo Sperlunga is more important than saying who wrote the book.

But I really think that you should judge a products content on the merit of the content, not on the merit of the cover or (especially) another product's content.

Well, considering that I can't buy every d20 product that comes out, I have to make the judgement in some way. I tend to do that on a publisher's track record. I've got a good idea of what I'm getting when I drop money for a product from Green Ronin, Malhavoc, or Mongoose. I'd rather give them my money for something I know will have a certain level of quality, instead of to Avalanche, who might have that level of quality even though they didn't in the last book I got from them.

J

 

[Furn_Darkside]

To be blunt, it seems to be that King Stannis started this thread not to elicit discussion and reasoned debate, but just to stick his tongue out at the critics..

Salutations,

Well, I can't speak to King's motivation, but I am glad he did start this post- it is always enjoyable to watch people rationalize away their hypocracy-

"but this is an action scene.."

"that one was a demon and doesn't care if she is a sex object"

Right..

FD

 

[King_Stannis]

To be blunt, it seems to be that King Stannis started this thread not to elicit discussion and reasoned debate, but just to stick his tongue out at the critics of Avalanche's cover art policy and go "Nah, nah," proving his superiority over all of the "hypocrites" who are able to see the difference between the two covers and, more importantly, the two marketing techniques. I don't think that anything that I say or that anyone else says will even come close to making King even question his stance for moment.

He's too busy congratulating himself on being a "lone voice in the wilderness"-- a cheescake Moses making a path for a Boris Vallerjo savior.

aww, trying to start a flamewar when the talk has been pretty civil up to this point. you're my sweetie.

and my opinion is my own. i'm not trying to advance the cause of cheesecake, though i kind of like it and see nothing wrong with it. but whenever anyone brings up avalanche press the buzzards start swarming and people start taking shots at them not based on the content of their books but the cover of those books. to me, that is wrong.

i wanted to see if people's standards would hold up when a beloved member of the RPG community used the same tactics as some small d20 outfit that people like to dump on. unfortunately, i've found out that many people's standards are situational.

as far as "thumbing my nose", well, i'd hardly say i've been rude. i know it's hard for "enlightened" people such as yourself, but try not to second guess why i ever start a thread. indeed, these new boards have a wonderful "block" feature.

i suggest you put me on yours.

 

[Ashtal]

*rolls eyes*

Don't call me a hypocrite, because I'm not.

There IS a difference - and the difference is the context. If you can't tell the difference between a bad-ass demon who is as she is presented in mythology in context with the scene and a chick wearing next to nothing with the "screw me" pose of every Avalanche cover girl to date, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. With your stance, every time a woman of a native culture is photographed and put into a National Geographic magazine is pornagraphic by default.

It's not all one extreme or the other. There are gradients here, there are issues of context and exploitation here, and ignoring them makes the discussion nothing more than pointless attention-seeking, time-wasting, arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Holden MaGroin]

A guy's buttcheek...?

Checking out the Avalanche covers, they seem pretty straightforward to me. They are pictures of girls.

The Malhavoc cover is a picture of girls in D&D.

Don't know if that makes a difference.

Anyway, checking out some of the other S&S covers, we've already noted the "almost" breasts with Necromancer and I remember the kafuffle with PC's adventure, but looking at this cover:


COVER

We see another half-naked warrior amazon -- but, I think I can see a guy's buttcheek there too. In fact, the other dude is wearing little as well. Doesn't his armor chafe? Ouch

Not sure if this qualifies as beefcake or not - anyone have any other examples?

- HM