+Female elvish archer units

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » November 11th, 2005, 1:42 am

The female version of the elvish archer units, is easy to confuse with the male, (if your not looking too hard). Because of this, the female archers get annoyed and sometimes die too quickly just to spite me.

I strongly believe the fem version should be readily recognisable as the same unit, but why have female graphics if they aren't noticed? I realize that it's a tough balancing act, but i think i can improve things without too much work.

As you see in the animated gif below, my new version simply changes that female unit's stance to something sterotypically more feminine. Only the basic standing frame need be changed.

An improvement?

Post by **Kestenvarn** » November 11th, 2005, 2:07 am

Edit is well done, although the new stance seems slightly awkward.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » November 11th, 2005, 2:17 am

Hmmm... make the female archer show her back so you can notice the hair more easily?. Getting a pose right to show the features in a good way is also a part of art, if i can make an assumption.

dtw · Post by **dtw** » November 11th, 2005, 10:40 am

Dude, change her head gear - it is the most obvious differentiating feature

Post by **Thrawn** » November 11th, 2005, 11:24 am

dibblethewrecker wrote:Dude, change her head gear - it is the most obvious differentiating feature

Maybe make the cap/hood thingie higher up, more hair shown

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » November 11th, 2005, 12:35 pm

You are missing my point. I'm not asking for suggestions on what to do for a more substantial edit. I'm not capable of doing a major redo of this unit. I also don't think it's a good idea to change it too much, since it's more important that it be recognised as the same unit as the male archer than the female look distict.

I just want to know if my edit is an improvement.

dtw · Post by **dtw** » November 11th, 2005, 12:59 pm

No it's not - it's realistically inaccurate and sterotypical - how's that? You can't fire a bow with your legs together and propagating sterotypes should be avoided.

scott · Post by **scott** » November 11th, 2005, 1:26 pm

I have never heard of the legs-together-when-girls-fire-a-bow stereotype. You must live in a very insensitive part of the world if you live around all these stereotypes, and you are a very remarkable person to have become so sensitive rather than buy into them.

It's not stereotypical to portray men as masculine and women as feminine. They are. They all are, in the typical case. It's nice to be sensitive, but you don't have to go too far in political correctness space before you cross over into stupidity.

I don't have any personal experience firing a bow in combat, but I imagine it would be just as hard firing with your legs as far apart as the male elf has. He looks like he's going to field a ground ball.

Here's a male elf firing a bow, and his legs aren't that far apart.
http://www.myblog.fr/albums/photos-orla ... /60709.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/image ... 791630.jpg

I think the stances for both versions should be narrowed. Changing the head covering for the female is also a good idea.

dreampilot · Post by **dreampilot** » November 11th, 2005, 1:29 pm

I think it looks alot more female and is easier to tell as one. I think you did a good job.

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » November 11th, 2005, 2:08 pm

dibblethewrecker wrote:No it's not - it's realistically inaccurate and sterotypical - how's that? You can't fire a bow with your legs together and propagating sterotypes should be avoided.

This is not the frame of the elf shooting the bow. I don't intend to change those. I'm dealing with the "main" frame where the elf just holds the bow.

What i mean by stereotype: "a widely held... oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing" -Tiger's dictionary.

"Stereotypes" in art are useful ways to evoke certain concepts or groups. Stereotyping becomes bad when one believes that all members of a group (without exception) match the stereotype or when the stereotype isn't accurate even on average.

So far we've used at least 2 common stereotypes to differrentiate female units. 1) Females are not flat-chested. 2) Females have fancier/longer hair. Why are additional visual stereotypes evil?

Actually i don't think this objection would even have come up if i hadn't used the word "stereotype." If you don't like my definition, let's just forget i used that word, and go on from there.

dtw · Post by **dtw** » November 11th, 2005, 4:05 pm

El: All fair enough.

Scott: so you think movie stars use bows with a realistic combat draw weight?

Oh, but here we go, they are elven bows maybe the draw weight is less with same power...well, maybe yes but it's a moot point.

I think the changes are good based on what EL has now said

Post by **Darth Fool** » November 11th, 2005, 4:10 pm

I think the changes are not a good idea because I consider that the stance of the unit is one of the things which make them identifiable. Changing the stance makes them look more like a different unit than it makes the unit look more feminine. Consider what makes a unit identifiable when stoned or to someone who is color-blind.

Hisquiter · Post by **Hisquiter** » November 11th, 2005, 5:33 pm

I tnink the idea is good, because the legs aren't too closed if she is just holding the bow

dreampilot · Post by **dreampilot** » November 11th, 2005, 5:38 pm

Darth Fool wrote: Consider what makes a unit identifiable when stoned or to someone who is color-blind.

I don't see how this is relevant at all...

If you compare the images of the elf archer he posted you can clearly see it is the same unit type even without colors, the fixed version is much easier to tell it is female.

scott · Post by **scott** » November 11th, 2005, 5:38 pm

I don't feel an obligation to be any more realistic than the unofficial source of BFW's inspiration, mythology, and ideas... even if it's just the film version.