Marvel Puzzle Quest R275 Release Notes (04/10/23)

DAZ0273

The thing is it doesn't matter if there are kids playing or not. If the Devs got MPQ an E10+ rating they are bound by what that means. It would only take one "concerned parent" to make a complaint and they have a headache they don't need. My earlier point was never about whether the cover was inappropriate by my standards, it was whether the cover would potentially fall foul of the games age rating category. I don't know if it would or not but it certainly flags up one of the criteria that the guide brings up as being a red flag.

I definitely find it an interesting situation that games seem to have a far stricter definition of what is appropriate for a teenage audience than other mediums such as comic books do. The Uncanny X-Men had plenty of "obscured nudity" in it during Chris Claremont's run (maybe to the point where you wondered what these guys clothes were made of as they fell apart so easily) and was seemingly published without too much concern even during Jim Shooter's tenure and his restrictive view of what you could do with the characters in terms of pushing adult themes.

BriMan2222

@DAZ0273 said:
It's bad from the stance if you are attempting to not display a sexualised image of a female comic book character. I doubt there are many good options for evil Madelyne though, as the costume was little more than rags from it's debut in Inferno.

What's the difference between that comic cover and these? Why is it perfectly fine for namor to go running around in just a speedo, but a woman wearing what basically looks like a bikini is "sexualized". The only difference is the perception of the viewer.

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

DAZ0273

@BriMan2222 said:

@DAZ0273 said:
It's bad from the stance if you are attempting to not display a sexualised image of a female comic book character. I doubt there are many good options for evil Madelyne though, as the costume was little more than rags from it's debut in Inferno.

What's the difference between that comic cover and these? Why is it perfectly fine for namor to go running around in just a speedo, but a woman wearing what basically looks like a bikini is "sexualized". The only difference is the perception of the viewer.

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

I think maybe you should have read a bit further along because I don't disagree at all that the standards may well be blurred. Go jump on the guy who brought it up to begin with, lol!

Once again - this is not my view. I simply responded to a comment that said the game was rated E10+ and commented based upon those boundaries. Looking at those guidelines it seems that cover might be considered inappropriate. It might also not.I don't know which brings up the question how far you can push this. Seems game wise not so far given the type of games they consider E10+ worthy.

So once again - what MY personal views on this are not the same as what a E10+ rating expectation is. So you can save the self righteous indignation!

If you are trying to paint me as some sort of crusading church going prude, wrong poster I am afraid.

BriMan2222

@DAZ0273 said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@DAZ0273 said:
It's bad from the stance if you are attempting to not display a sexualised image of a female comic book character. I doubt there are many good options for evil Madelyne though, as the costume was little more than rags from it's debut in Inferno.

What's the difference between that comic cover and these? Why is it perfectly fine for namor to go running around in just a speedo, but a woman wearing what basically looks like a bikini is "sexualized". The only difference is the perception of the viewer.

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

I think maybe you should have read a bit further along because I don't disagree at all that the standards may well be blurred. Go jump on the guy who brought it up to begin with, lol!

Once again - this is not my view. I simply responded to a comment that said the game was rated E10+ and commented based upon those boundaries. Looking at those guidelines it seems that cover might be considered inappropriate. It might also not.I don't know which brings up the question how far you can push this. Seems game wise not so far given the type of games they consider E10+ worthy.

So once again - what MY personal views on this are not the same as what a E10+ rating expectation is. So you can save the self righteous indignation!

If you are trying to paint me as some sort of crusading church going prude, wrong poster I am afraid.

Lol, I wasn't trying to do anything of the sort, nor did I intend to sound"self righteous" or indignant. I only meant exactly what I said, that an outfit that reveals some skin is not sexualized in and of itself. You referred to the comic as "a sexualized image of a female comic character". All I was saying is that lots of comic characters wear revealing outfits, and there's nothing wrong with that imo.

No offense was intended, and I only chose your quote because of that phrase. I could have quoted any of the other similar posts, just happened to pick that one.

hygge_hound

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

Oh lord, here we go again.

There's a distinct difference between objectification of women in comics, and men such as you posted above that are strictly male power fantasies and absolutely not intended to arouse women. Aside from the last, say, 20 years (and pre-code), comics were almost exclusively written and illustrated by and for men. Men are drawn in powerful, dominating stances where they control the frames and all around them. Female characters, when not fridge entirely, are drawn in provocative, sexually subjective poses (butts up, head down, eg), and ridiculous outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

There's a reason Marvel and DC have made marked efforts to tone this **** down.

Also, from a societal stand point, it's a fascinating discussion to have of if it's possible for men to be sexually objectified at all. It almost never, ever is. It's incredibly rare. But some people [see above] confuse 'finding a person attractive" with full-on objectification. But we live in a patriarchy, so why should most men bother caring about the distinction anyhow.

A great conversation about a potential cover for a potential new 4*, all of which is speculation anyhow.

DAZ0273

@BriMan2222 said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@DAZ0273 said:
It's bad from the stance if you are attempting to not display a sexualised image of a female comic book character. I doubt there are many good options for evil Madelyne though, as the costume was little more than rags from it's debut in Inferno.

What's the difference between that comic cover and these? Why is it perfectly fine for namor to go running around in just a speedo, but a woman wearing what basically looks like a bikini is "sexualized". The only difference is the perception of the viewer.

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

I think maybe you should have read a bit further along because I don't disagree at all that the standards may well be blurred. Go jump on the guy who brought it up to begin with, lol!

Once again - this is not my view. I simply responded to a comment that said the game was rated E10+ and commented based upon those boundaries. Looking at those guidelines it seems that cover might be considered inappropriate. It might also not.I don't know which brings up the question how far you can push this. Seems game wise not so far given the type of games they consider E10+ worthy.

So once again - what MY personal views on this are not the same as what a E10+ rating expectation is. So you can save the self righteous indignation!

If you are trying to paint me as some sort of crusading church going prude, wrong poster I am afraid.

Lol, I wasn't trying to do anything of the sort, nor did I intend to sound"self righteous" or indignant. I only meant exactly what I said, that an outfit that reveals some skin is not sexualized in and of itself. You referred to the comic as "a sexualized image of a female comic character". All I was saying is that lots of comic characters wear revealing outfits, and there's nothing wrong with that imo.

No offense was intended, and I only chose your quote because of that phrase. I could have quoted any of the other similar posts, just happened to pick that one.

No offense taken, hey the last guy threw in an insult (since deleted by the Mods) so I'm having a fun time here! 😂 I should possibly have expanded on why I considered the cover would be considered hyper sexualised in the context I was framing it in.

I'll try and sign this off with a real life example - back in the day I was head Moderator for a website. One day somebody posted the old tennis player scratching her bum image. I am sure you have seen the one. My fellow moderator felt it was OK to leave it up. I overruled him. Why? Not because I found it offensive but because we were there to do a job and one part of that job was making sure the content fitted the site owners requirements. He didn't want that sort of thing because he felt it would conflict with an image he had through his real life job position.My personal thoughts on it are irrelevant. Likewise if Broken Circle and 505 have to comply with E10+ ratings they don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate. If there is doubt then you should avoid it by a country mile.

I will also add that both my children have played MPQ and I would not have stopped them doing so because of that Madelyne cover but if other parents did and made complaints then the Devs have a problem entirely of their own making because what I find sexualised and Bob McCross the church leader find sexualised only matter in terms of what the rules we are playing by are. We all know that society has uneven rules when it comes to male and female bodies and what is appropriate - hence why Namor can wear his battle panties and it is fine but Maddie might need a bra there. I showed my wife Maddie and she was more concerned about her **** being anatomically incorrect than anything else! So it isn't even a women would hate this thing - some might, some might not care but does it pass muster for the regulators? Might do, might not. I would probably not risk it.

I did mention Namora - now that cover I don't like. Personal choice, it makes no sense to me and I found it tacky but she looks like she was wearing enough. Bad rules but not mine.

Bad

There are permisive societys and others less ones, but we are in a global world and most of all in tge 21th century.
Comics have ALWAYS depicted perfect women and perfect men in tights. Why? Because the customers demand it. It sells better.
You can't censore comics because now they are in a game rated. Because that is what they are.
Now you will save your innocent children to see some nude meat in a game.
But in real life they will see fashion adds.
Or how Miley Cyrus or Dua Lippa are dressed.
Or they will go to a beach. Or a nudist beach.
You can't save them forever!

Punisher5784

@hygge_hound said:
There are plenty of younger people, and girls, who play this game, so I 100% appreciate the devs not sexualizing and objectifying the characters.

Have you not seen Moonstone?? She's oozing digital sex

jffdougan

@Punisher5784 said:

@hygge_hound said:
There are plenty of younger people, and girls, who play this game, so I 100% appreciate the devs not sexualizing and objectifying the characters.

Have you not seen Moonstone?? She's oozing digital sex

And it’s something that the old crew has been called out on. She’s not a character I’m familiar with outside this game, and there may not have been options for that version of the character outside what they used, but before he left Demiurge, Anthony mentioned they’d had trouble finding potential Emma Frost covers that fell in the guidelines.

HoundofShadow

Returnal Flame:

4* Surtur?

GrimSkald

Madelyne fits so long as you consider "flame" to be a reference to her relationships with the Summers boys. But a lot of other Marvel characters fit as well, particularly if you take "flame" to be more literal. Dormammu springs to mind, I feel fairly certain he's "died" and come back several times.

I saw something on FB that Human Torch was "killed" in the Negative Zone by Annihilus It was regarding this image.

Someone in the comments said he wasn't actually dead, which I know, is very shocking.

BriMan2222

@hygge_hound said:

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

Oh lord, here we go again.

There's a distinct difference between objectification of women in comics, and men such as you posted above that are strictly male power fantasies and absolutely not intended to arouse women. Aside from the last, say, 20 years (and pre-code), comics were almost exclusively written and illustrated by and for men. Men are drawn in powerful, dominating stances where they control the frames and all around them. Female characters, when not fridge entirely, are drawn in provocative, sexually subjective poses (butts up, head down, eg), and ridiculous outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

There's a reason Marvel and DC have made marked efforts to tone this **** down.

Also, from a societal stand point, it's a fascinating discussion to have of if it's possible for men to be sexually objectified at all. It almost never, ever is. It's incredibly rare. But some people [see above] confuse 'finding a person attractive" with full-on objectification. But we live in a patriarchy, so why should most men bother caring about the distinction anyhow.

A great conversation about a potential cover for a potential new 4*, all of which is speculation anyhow.

That's all very interesting, but isn't relevant to this specific character that I was talking about. Yes, female characters have been drawn in suggestive poses, but this particular cover that was shared and that I was talking about has nothing like that, it just happens be a bit revealing. My point was that there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

GrimSkald

@BriMan2222 said:

@hygge_hound said:

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

Oh lord, here we go again.

There's a distinct difference between objectification of women in comics, and men such as you posted above that are strictly male power fantasies and absolutely not intended to arouse women. Aside from the last, say, 20 years (and pre-code), comics were almost exclusively written and illustrated by and for men. Men are drawn in powerful, dominating stances where they control the frames and all around them. Female characters, when not fridge entirely, are drawn in provocative, sexually subjective poses (butts up, head down, eg), and ridiculous outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

There's a reason Marvel and DC have made marked efforts to tone this **** down.

Also, from a societal stand point, it's a fascinating discussion to have of if it's possible for men to be sexually objectified at all. It almost never, ever is. It's incredibly rare. But some people [see above] confuse 'finding a person attractive" with full-on objectification. But we live in a patriarchy, so why should most men bother caring about the distinction anyhow.

A great conversation about a potential cover for a potential new 4*, all of which is speculation anyhow.

That's all very interesting, but isn't relevant to this specific character that I was talking about. Yes, female characters have been drawn in suggestive poses, but this particular cover that was shared and that I was talking about has nothing like that, it just happens be a bit revealing. My point was that there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

I don't know - the "Hellions" cover is, IMHO, so-so. I've definitely seen worse, but it's not great as far as the cheesecake factor is concerned. You get some big contrast right there on the cover - Havok is in a very strong position with his legs out and arms in - his stance reads "building power," and is very structural, it looks strong. Meanwhile Madelyne has a weird sort of bend to her waist and hips, her whole body forms a kind of a gentle curve and her arms are kind of half-outstretched as if she is going to grab something. She also looks like she is moving forward (particularly with the cape out like that,) but that's not a factor one way or another. Her pose is definitely more alluring that Havok's, no doubt about it, but at least she's not contorting herself in ridiculous ways.

I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but it's something to be aware of, particularly when men and women are portrayed in radically different ways on comic book covers. Too may people focus on the costume which is only a part of the problem.

An interesting contrast, actually is the "Dark X Men" cover below. In that, despite the fact that she's in a very skimpy costume, her shoulders are square and while it looks like one of her legs is at a bit of an angle that cant doesn't carry past her hips. She's in a fairly strong pose so she reads more "imperious" than "alluring."

Bowgentle

@GrimSkald said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@hygge_hound said:

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

Oh lord, here we go again.

There's a distinct difference between objectification of women in comics, and men such as you posted above that are strictly male power fantasies and absolutely not intended to arouse women. Aside from the last, say, 20 years (and pre-code), comics were almost exclusively written and illustrated by and for men. Men are drawn in powerful, dominating stances where they control the frames and all around them. Female characters, when not fridge entirely, are drawn in provocative, sexually subjective poses (butts up, head down, eg), and ridiculous outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

There's a reason Marvel and DC have made marked efforts to tone this **** down.

Also, from a societal stand point, it's a fascinating discussion to have of if it's possible for men to be sexually objectified at all. It almost never, ever is. It's incredibly rare. But some people [see above] confuse 'finding a person attractive" with full-on objectification. But we live in a patriarchy, so why should most men bother caring about the distinction anyhow.

A great conversation about a potential cover for a potential new 4*, all of which is speculation anyhow.

That's all very interesting, but isn't relevant to this specific character that I was talking about. Yes, female characters have been drawn in suggestive poses, but this particular cover that was shared and that I was talking about has nothing like that, it just happens be a bit revealing. My point was that there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

I don't know - the "Hellions" cover is, IMHO, so-so. I've definitely seen worse, but it's not great as far as the cheesecake factor is concerned. You get some big contrast right there on the cover - Havok is in a very strong position with his legs out and arms in - his stance reads "building power," and is very structural, it looks strong. Meanwhile Madelyne has a weird sort of bend to her waist and hips, her whole body forms a kind of a gentle curve and her arms are kind of half-outstretched as if she is going to grab something. She also looks like she is moving forward (particularly with the cape out like that,) but that's not a factor one way or another. Her pose is definitely more alluring that Havok's, no doubt about it, but at least she's not contorting herself in ridiculous ways.

I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but it's something to be aware of, particularly when men and women are portrayed in radically different ways on comic book covers. Too may people focus on the costume which is only a part of the problem.

An interesting contrast, actually is the "Dark X Men" cover below. In that, despite the fact that she's in a very skimpy costume, her shoulders are square and while it looks like one of her legs is at a bit of an angle that cant doesn't carry past her hips. She's in a fairly strong pose so she reads more "imperious" than "alluring."

The Realm Of X is good, too - strong poses.

BoyWonder1914

Sorry for the random comment but "cheesecake factor" made me lol quite a bit. Don't think I've heard that one before

jffdougan

@BoyWonder1914 said:
Sorry for the random comment but "cheesecake factor" made me lol quite a bit. Don't think I've heard that one before

The male equivalent would be “beefcake.” But cheesecake in this context has been around for at least 20 years.

GrimSkald

@Bowgentle said:

@GrimSkald said:

@BriMan2222 said:

@hygge_hound said:

If Hercules can run around half naked and Ka-Zarr can wear nothing but a small piece of animal pelt, then why can't a woman wear something that shows a little skin too?

Oh lord, here we go again.

There's a distinct difference between objectification of women in comics, and men such as you posted above that are strictly male power fantasies and absolutely not intended to arouse women. Aside from the last, say, 20 years (and pre-code), comics were almost exclusively written and illustrated by and for men. Men are drawn in powerful, dominating stances where they control the frames and all around them. Female characters, when not fridge entirely, are drawn in provocative, sexually subjective poses (butts up, head down, eg), and ridiculous outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

There's a reason Marvel and DC have made marked efforts to tone this **** down.

Also, from a societal stand point, it's a fascinating discussion to have of if it's possible for men to be sexually objectified at all. It almost never, ever is. It's incredibly rare. But some people [see above] confuse 'finding a person attractive" with full-on objectification. But we live in a patriarchy, so why should most men bother caring about the distinction anyhow.

A great conversation about a potential cover for a potential new 4*, all of which is speculation anyhow.

That's all very interesting, but isn't relevant to this specific character that I was talking about. Yes, female characters have been drawn in suggestive poses, but this particular cover that was shared and that I was talking about has nothing like that, it just happens be a bit revealing. My point was that there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

I don't know - the "Hellions" cover is, IMHO, so-so. I've definitely seen worse, but it's not great as far as the cheesecake factor is concerned. You get some big contrast right there on the cover - Havok is in a very strong position with his legs out and arms in - his stance reads "building power," and is very structural, it looks strong. Meanwhile Madelyne has a weird sort of bend to her waist and hips, her whole body forms a kind of a gentle curve and her arms are kind of half-outstretched as if she is going to grab something. She also looks like she is moving forward (particularly with the cape out like that,) but that's not a factor one way or another. Her pose is definitely more alluring that Havok's, no doubt about it, but at least she's not contorting herself in ridiculous ways.

I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but it's something to be aware of, particularly when men and women are portrayed in radically different ways on comic book covers. Too may people focus on the costume which is only a part of the problem.

An interesting contrast, actually is the "Dark X Men" cover below. In that, despite the fact that she's in a very skimpy costume, her shoulders are square and while it looks like one of her legs is at a bit of an angle that cant doesn't carry past her hips. She's in a fairly strong pose so she reads more "imperious" than "alluring."

The Realm Of X is good, too - strong poses.

I agree, they both look pretty good, nothing wrong with any of those poses.

DAZ0273

@AnkhWarrior said:
Madelyne Pryor! No doubt about it. The resurrected clone of Jean Grey and the Black Queen of the Hellfire Club. Very strong possibility she'll feed Emma Frost as well. I'm super excited for them!

Well this ended well.

ThisisClemFandango

Yeah, always good to get the same character repackaged again. Shame it hasn't been another spider-man, I don't like the 17 iterations we have at the moment

Bowgentle

Be glad we haven't had a Wolvie in a while.