IC Forum Archive

Baines · Posts: 906

After all, you would never find women fighting in their underwear in movies, comics, anime, pro-wrestling, TV programs, pen&paper RPGs, action figures, or anything else.

And while the chainmail bikini may not be the most practical outfit for the stereotypical fantasy female warrior, neither is the fur loincloth for the male...

Talbain · Posts: 628

Baines wrote:

After all, you would never find women fighting in their underwear in movies, comics, anime, pro-wrestling, TV programs, pen&paper RPGs, or action figures.

Because everyone knows these are excellent indicators of reality.

ReroRero · Posts: 2148

I wasn't aware that DoA was trying to emulate reality.

Talbain · Posts: 628

ReroRero wrote:

I wasn't aware that DoA was trying to emulate reality.

Yes, because with human-like physicality, appearances and movement, the characters in DoA are exceptionally unlike reality. The environments which are all related to those that can be found in different parts of the world are exceptionally unlike reality. A scenario set-up with science as a dangerous tool is exceptionally unlike reality.

Yes, nothing at all in this game touches upon reality.

This will immediately lead to all people saying "well all games do that!" So I'll counter now, before the bitching begins, which it probably will anyway.

Yes, all games do that, but they do so with a premise that is unrelated to reality. Valkyrie Profile for example, has human-like characters, but they are set in fantastical situations. Persona has human-like characters, set in fantastical situations.

Metal Gear Solid however, has a character who is human-like and is also set in a human-like situation that might happen in the real world. The primary difference is that the character is also equipped - in terms of appearance, thought processes, abilities as well as actions and equipment - as a character might be in the real world. The characters in Dead or Alive are not, yet they exist in this world that is similar to one of reality. Thus, the pretense of a character doing something such as the DoA characters in the real world is unrealistic, given their scenario.

ReroRero · Posts: 2148

So a game which is based around a fighting tournament where characters can break limbs butstillk have the function of a working arm, throw each other off high places and still be alive on impact with the ground, life bars and has female characters that look like supermodels is trying to emulate reality?

Talbain · Posts: 628

ReroRero wrote:

So a game which is based around a fighting tournament where characters can break limbs butstillk have the function of a working arm, throw each other off high places and still be alive on impact with the ground, life bars and has female characters that look like supermodels is trying to emulate reality?

Ugh, and I thought I was splitting hairs. Anyways; a life bar is something that is related to all fighting games, the only one I haven't seen a life bar in is Bushido Blade, and it was probably one of the most enjoyable fighting games I've played. Also, breaking limbs (I don't know what the function of a working limb is in reference to - dislocating one maybe, but it's REALLY hard to break a limb, no matter how strong or trained you are) and falling off high places and surviving is not as uncommon as you might think. Of course, the places they fall off of aren't more than one story, as far as I'm aware, and most anyone can survive a 10 foot fall (I fell out of trees all the time when I was a kid, so I do have quite a bit of experience with this) and still be able to do most anything a normal person can do - and if these are "fighters" they'd be conditioned to take falls anyways.

As for female characters that look like supermodels, isn't that what we're arguing about in the first place?

ReroRero · Posts: 2148

I thought it was about games emulating reality.

Talbain · Posts: 628

ReroRero wrote:

I thought it was about games emulating reality.

It is. I've been arguing that if a realistic situation such as the one in DoA were to happen, supermodel females wouldn't be the ones doing the fighting, thus, while the game attempts to emulate a realistic situation in realistic settings, it fails to do so because it puts unrealistic characters in the realistic setting and situation created.

Krabjuice · Posts: 114

Lets tone this down a notch. From what I see, we could agree that DOA simulates a desired reality.

Red_venom · Posts: 338

I dont think fighting underneath huge waterfalls or on rooftops or wherever those gals fight is all that realistic.

I mean come on now. Its not even a realistic depiction of fighting to begin with(Unless you are a kid who hasnt yet learned that Kung Fu isnt how real fighting is done), as a real fight gets taken to the ground rather quickly and remains there. No one is doing spin kicks or summersaults or whatever.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

You know guys, Mario does a really poor job of emulating the experience of eating mushrooms.

Also, here's a tip that we're not dealing with reality: submission fighters don't let you get back up.

stotelheim · Posts: 414

Does it really matter wether we're dealing with reality or not? I mean, really, why is this of any importance to the subject at hand? They're games, not graduate papers on gender roles in post-feminist society.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

stotelheim wrote:

Does it really matter wether we're dealing with reality or not?

Yes. Nobody's asking you to care about it though.

stotelheim · Posts: 414

Maybe I didn't get my point across, why is it less sexist for a story to take place in world 2-4 than new york? It shouldn't matter what it portrays, but how it portrays it.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

stotelheim wrote:

Maybe I didn't get my point across, why is it less sexist for a story to take place in world 2-4 than new york? It shouldn't matter what it portrays, but how it portrays it.

Because the context of the portrayal is important. DoA is like Russ Meyer, in that it has some sort of framing (traditional narrative in Meyer films, the genre of fighting games in DoA) around the experience of being tittilated by women with obscenely huge boobs.

In other words, I find explotation for the sake of explotation less sexist than exploitation appearing out of context.

So, it's not so much reality versus fantasy as it is "what is this text trying to do and what role does this exploitation play in that".

Lobst · Posts: 96

Talbain wrote:

First, I am jaded (I like cynical more though). Secondly, how is it that exploitation can be done right? Isn't that like saying insider trading has its place if it's done right?

I don't see the argument for justifying exploitation. Sexuality is ok, but just having a character baring their breasts or wearing skin-tight clothing because some programmer needs a hard on isn't justification for either.

If sexuality has its place, it's certainly not in something like a fighting game, where the entire purpose of armor and weapons is functionality, not sexuality or comfort; yet it's obvious that the characters are the way they are because they're selling to a pre-defined audience.

While I used the word "Chicksploitation" in the topic, I meant it as a mocking summarization of games journalism's attitudes toward seeing polygon meshes of bikinis in a place where it's actually appropriate -- and if you'll CTRL+F the page for the word "exploit", you'll see that it's never come up in any of my posts.

I came in here to argue that female nudity in videogames didn't necessarily mean that the game's author was insulting your intelligence. Being a hefty dude with an admittedly also hefty penis, I can't argue whether or not games like this are exploitative to women in general. I'd say it's doubtful (they're fictional people), though in case of FAKK 2 (mentioned earlier), the protagonist is a model who loves to show her fantastic body off to serve the end of tittilating huge nerds. Want proof, without suffering the indignity of having to see anything she's been in?

Wikipedia wrote:

Strain, who stands 6'1" (1.85 m), is married to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles creator Kevin Eastman. Eastman is also the Editor in Chief of Heavy Metal magazine. Julie often appears in the magazine in photos or pictures painted by her close friends Artist Olivia and Simon Bisley.

A nubile female protagonist who enjoys the position she's in? Gradually increasing nudity which is incidental to (and hardly the focus of) the gameplay, but greatly enhances the atmosphere the creators are trying to express? No blatantly pornographic elements whatsoever? Hell, I'll just say it: This is videogame sexuality done right. And in an action game, no less! Third-person shooting in murky alien environments! Swinging from vines! Opening treasure boxes! No contextual justification for Julie losing her clothing aside from "Oh, my skintight jumpsuit's ripped from the fall? I should change into this belt with a thong underlay and matching spiked bikini top that I keep in my satchel for just such an occasion!"

(Side note: The Ritual team based their ingame iterations of Jessica and Elexis on two similar consenting models, though obviously not with the same reputation.)

On the other hand, I can't cite a decent example of an act of "exploitation" executed the wrong way. Fear Effect 2's "These girls put the ASS in ASSASSIN" kind of threw me for a loop, but that's Eidos' marketing department for you; sex and violence is all they seem to know.

...Hmm. Does The Guy Game still count?

(Edit: Messed up a crucial word combination.)

dhex · Posts: 2963

stotelheim · Posts: 414

That makes a lot more sense than I thought it would, initially I found the distinction completely arbitrary but I guess that was pretty dumb of me.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Scratchmonkey wrote:

stotelheim wrote:

Maybe I didn't get my point across, why is it less sexist for a story to take place in world 2-4 than new york? It shouldn't matter what it portrays, but how it portrays it.

Because the context of the portrayal is important. DoA is like Russ Meyer, in that it has some sort of framing (traditional narrative in Meyer films, the genre of fighting games in DoA) around the experience of being tittilated by women with obscenely huge boobs.

In other words, I find explotation for the sake of explotation less sexist than exploitation appearing out of context.

So, it's not so much reality versus fantasy as it is "what is this text trying to do and what role does this exploitation play in that".

Would it be correct to assume that you find exploitation with context ok, but exploitation out of context is not?

Anyways, going from this assumption I would say that's somewhat close to my idea; though not completely. As I've said before, the only time I really have complaints about exploitation is when characters are put in situations and environments that emulate reality. Dead or Alive emulates reality in a variety of ways from this standpoint, as do many other games. My complaint about these is that the characters, first, do not react in a realistic manner towards the situation given, and secondly, do not appear as a character most likely would, given the situation. I'm not saying they should have no sexuality at all, but it's far too blatant; they're not trying to seduce their enemies, as far as I'm aware.

As for fighting - most barehanded fights don't last more than 3-5 seconds, in reality. Also, most fights in reality involve a knife or a gun, so this is another distortion thereof. However, these distortions are not huge. I have seen fist fights go on for some time, and while they may not be "Kung Fu" masters, kicking, biting, punching, throwing and grappling are all a very real part of fighting.

Lobst, I'm not a games journalist. As such, I don't know how to discuss what "games journalists" are thinking when they write their articles. That aside, I've never said that anyone was insulting anyone's intelligence by putting women in suggestive clothing. They're simply attempting to sell a product to a largely male audience - and this is fine, if they can do so in a manner that makes sense.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Talbain wrote:

Would it be correct to assume that you find exploitation with context ok, but exploitation out of context is not?

I'm saying that the context that the exploitation occurs in is important, which is a slightly different concept from the above.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Scratchmonkey wrote:

Talbain wrote:

Would it be correct to assume that you find exploitation with context ok, but exploitation out of context is not?

I'm saying that the context that the exploitation occurs in is important, which is a slightly different concept from the above.

I suppose that slight difference causes some deal of discrepancy in my understanding. I pretty much agree with that though.

Krabjuice · Posts: 114

What we're talking about here is the difference between the Halle Berry Catwoman and the Michelle Pfeiffer Catwoman. They're both ludicrously sexual beings, but Pfeiffer's not used to attract an audience whose sole intentions are to gawk at her ass.

100Proof · Posts: 74

I think what's being overlooked here is that DoA has always just been a poor, horny man's Virtua Fighter. Arguing over semantics and invoking the name of the late Russ Meyer is giving this series far more credit and consideration than it deserves. It's mindless titillation with a hollow, chocolate fighting game shell. Or a half-assed lesbian dating sim with a volleyball mini-game.

Seriously... while I would agree that titillation has its place (though why the idea of almost seeing a nipple is intriguing is beyond me), I think the reason DoA pisses a lot of people off is that, in addition to not being very good, it's an easy target for anyone outside of the gaming community to point at and say "this is gaming... 13-year-olds masturbating to chicks with big boobs". It's difficult to take the medium seriously with Japanese porcelain doll porn clogging up the works.

Should that piss people off? I guess it depends on whether you think gaming becoming an accepted medium of expression matters. Or whether you care what other people think.

Shit... I just contradicted myself by wasting 3 paragraphs talking about DoA. Oh well. I'll take hypocrisy for $1000.

Talbain · Posts: 628

In my mind, every game starts out seriously. Whether it decides to be serious or not is up to the game (or, more accurately, those behind the game), and whether or not it descends into being ridiculous is given by the game's premises. I actually enjoy a game that can take itself seriously, because then the narrative can (emphasis on can) actually be interesting. The problem is, most games that choose a serious situation typically have extraneous circumstances that lead them to being ridiculous. Grand Theft Auto's probably the quickest example I can think of for this.

However, the premise of DoA as a serious game - at least in terms of story and environment - is hard to imagine because for some reason the characters are completely ridiculous. This irks me immensely. A game like Soul Calibur, while using somewhat realistic settings, has a ridiculous storyline and equally ridiculous characters. I expect this from a game that gives me such a situation. I expect a game like Darkstalkers, where the characters are succubi and demons, to potentially have fairly ridiculous settings and situations, and they do. I don't expect it from Dead or Alive, where everything about the game attempts to emulate reality (though it does so poorly).

dhex · Posts: 2963

Baines · Posts: 906

Talbain wrote:

In my mind, every game starts out seriously.

Talbain wrote:

However, the premise of DoA as a serious game - at least in terms of story and environment - is hard to imagine because for some reason the characters are completely ridiculous.

Who said DoA was supposed to be a serious game in terms of story and environment? The characters are absurd. The stories are half the time absurd, unless you limit yourself a few inter-character rivalries. The bosses half the time are absurd. The action is absurd, and was even before they started jumping off of waterfalls to follow someone knocked off a stage. The only "serious" bits take place within a world of absurdities, and that is how the series has always been. This is a game where a Dennis Rodman knock-off can dress like an alien, a teletubbie, or a sperm cell, depending on your imagination...

Which is to varying degrees true for other series. Street Fighter 2 was a world of cartoon absurdities as well. Comical endings in cases, a face-painted sumo guy fighting in a bath-house, a girl spinning upside down across the screen, Dhalsim's extreme limb stretching, Zangief, Blanka, a guy stabbing people through with a claw that at worst makes them barf, etc.

Many games never intended to be serious from the start. Some intended to straddle a line, serious in some areas and not serious in others. Others intended to be nearly completely absurd.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Baines wrote:

Many games never intended to be serious from the start. Some intended to straddle a line, serious in some areas and not serious in others. Others intended to be nearly completely absurd.

This "straddling the line" is what annoys me when it's put into a game that emulates reality - either in part or in full. I think if games are going to be fantastical, the game creator should be aware enough to understand that the game is fantastical. Almost every game I've seen that takes place in a "present day" situation fails in some aspect (character, environment, scenario).

I could argue about you with DoA, but read my above posts for further argument, I'm tired of rewriting the same thing over and over again.

Baines · Posts: 906

DoA isn't and never was trying to emulate reality. "Reality" is present mainly to anchor the absurd into something acceptable, familiar, and desireable.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Talbain wrote:

Scratchmonkey wrote:

What makes you think that the real world is what is being emulated? Here's a hint: it's not.

We're dealing with realms of fantasy here and that applies as much to the "fighting" as the skin-baring costumes. If we want to try and match up DoA against reality, we're going to be running into massive problems well before we get to the "do women fight in their underwear" aspect.

The "appropriateness" is not being measured against the real world, rather, it's being judged entirely within the context of the game.

And if the context of the game seems similar to real world situations, time periods, and locations, we're just supposed to assume it's all fantasy anyways and accept it? No.

Saying that it's within the "context" of the game doesn't suddenly make it acceptable. Even if you're arguing context, the context of women fighting in their underwear (or something damn clost to it) is ridiculous as it is, just as Lara exploring ruins in skimpy shirts and shorts is equally ridiculous.

ReroRero · Posts: 2148

You could argue that real world locations could add to the absurdity of some games. Like Katamari for instance.

Talbain · Posts: 628

That's true, but while the environment may be realistic, the characters and scenarios are certainly not. Granted, this is just in the case of Katamari, I'm not sure how it would hold up against other games (though I think it's pretty solid).

ReroRero · Posts: 2148

There are people going about their business and doing things that they would do in real life. It's stylised to an extent (mainly due to the graphics) but they are doing real-world things.

Talbain · Posts: 628

I was referring to the playable character, but you're right. I would like to say that "characters" apply to playable characters, but that doesn't fit; a game is more than just the PCs, at least, when there are NPCs. I would say that a more accurate description is that the scenario and the playable characters, then, are just so ridiculous that it's hard to really picture the game as anything more than a fantasy. Even so, this deviates only slightly from my original argument, and doesn't really change the argument for DoA, as I've been talking about the playable characters in DoA all along.

So, I apologize for this discrepancy.

Baines · Posts: 906

DOA *is* a fantasy. So is Tekken. So is Street Fighter (more so post-SF1.)

Whether you've got Paul Phoenix fighting a Law in a back alley, or Epon fighting an emperor rabbit on an alien planet, both Tekken and Tobal are fantasy.

Which is only tangental to the original sexually presented designs issue.

Chaco's design in Tobal 2 stands out more than Kasumi in DOA, despite Tobal 2 being a much more fantasy-based presentation of a world than DOA. (Chaco stands out because Tobal No 1 wasn't about chicks in skimpy clothing, even if you could color-edit away Epon's shorts or nearly all of Mary's outfit. Then they introduced a blatant fan-service girl, who even gets to be nude in her video.)

Whether Mario is fighting koopa troopers in a New York sewer or in the mushroom kingdom, to be SMB it will be a fantasy game of absurdities. Rampage has giant monster ravaging real world cities, with panicking citizens and military response, including a scored earth policy if everything else fails. It was never meant to be seen as "real." Any more than if the game had been reversed and you played the military responding to a monster attack.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Baines, if we were to get really technical, yes, every game is a fantasy. The reason for this is simply because it's a game. However, these fantasies almost always attempt to emulate something that is "real" (or something that is based in reality) in some way.

The question then, is to what extent, and is it on purpose? The answer I have derived for DoA is that a greater part of this game attempts to emulate reality than not, and it is on purpose. At this point I ask myself, did they do a decent job convincing me? Perhaps to the extent that the characters are emulating potentially real people, places and scenarios - but it seems absurd that this emulation of reality is then skewed by the potentially "real" people seeming extensively unreal - while the scenarios and places they are set in seem extensively real.

Takashi · Posts: 820

Can you explicit the points in DOA that you belive to "emulate reality"?

Because, you know, I find the people and settings in Rumble Roses more realistic.

Talbain · Posts: 628

My basic idea of a game is a triad of three elements; character, environment and scenario. Character defines who and to what extent playable and non-playable characters fit into their environment and scenario. Environment is the world that envelopes the characters. Scenario is the context for which the characters take action within their environment.

Thus, while I believe DoA to emulate potentially realistic scenarios and environments, I do not believe the characters placed within the scenario to be realistic. Yet, two out of the three elements are potentially realistic. I do not understand, then, why the characters should not also be realistic. It's simply impossible for me to accept the premise that a woman with next to nothing in terms of clothing is going to save the world from biological warfare, whereas someone like Solid Snake is easily believable, because he fits both the environment and scenario he is set in.

As for Rumble Roses, I'm not arguing its case till DoA is done. If you want to argue about it at that point, I will gladly debate.

Takashi · Posts: 820

Talbain wrote:

Thus, while I believe DoA to emulate potentially realistic scenarios and environments, I do not believe the characters placed within the scenario to be realistic.

Can you please name the realistic scenarios? The middle of the african savannah is hardly a place for a fistfight.

Baines · Posts: 906

Attempted summary:

So far, there are two sides of the DOA debate. Talbain is on one side, while everyone else is on the other side.

Talbain believes all games start out serious. He believes DOA is trying to be serious, but fails due to its character design, in particular the outfits the women wear. (He has also mentioned GTA being an attempt at a serious situation that was brought into ridiculousness by extraneous circumstances.) He accepts weird characters in Darkstalkers, because it is a game with demons and succubi in ridiculous settings and situations. He accepts Soul Calibur, which despite having somewhat realistic settings, is firmly in the fantasy realm with its storyline and characters. They are far enough into the realm of fantasy that unrealistic bits do not bother him. But to him, DOA is attempting too hard to be realistic to have such fantasy elements present.

(Most of the Talbain comments above come from one of his posts.)

Everyone else seems to be more along the lines that DOA never intended itself to be taken seriously. (And GTA never intended itself to be taken seriously.) If there is some sort of fixed universal "reality" line, DOA never tried to be on the opposite side than Soul Calibur.

Talbain saying DOA is trying to emulate reality, as it is mostly realistic. Everyone else says DOA isn't realistic and isn't trying to be realistic. Talbain's perceived clash isn't an issue, either in the case of DOA or indeed in many other games, at least not at Talbain's definition.

At least that is my summary.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Baines wrote:

(He has also mentioned GTA being an attempt at a serious situation that was brought into ridiculousness by extraneous circumstances.)

Sweet Fancy Christ. I'm kind of glad I stopped reading this thread now.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

So Talbain, do you think Demolition Man was meant to be realistic?

You have an extremely skewed view of fantasy. Just because something uses realistic settings and human characters doesn't mean it isn't completely nuts and 100% in fantasy land. Videogames have warped your expectations of what "realistic" means.

I've seen this when people call Metal Gear Solid a "realistic" series as well. I mean, what the fuck?

Lobst · Posts: 96

Scratchmonkey wrote:

Sweet Fancy Christ. I'm kind of glad I stopped reading this thread now.

Yeah; it appears to have been turned into a makeshift discussion of what one person's words mean to everyone else. Way off the trail I intended to forge for us to all merrily march upon -- the one lined with talk of female stereotypes from anywhere from Rockstar Games to Nippon Ichi Studios, creative intent with regard to what "vibe" the authors are going for, and what constitutes "respect" in terms of a touchy subject like this one, dotted and punctuated with outrageous examples of misogynistic idealization found in games like Magna Carta or God of War, and brief, heartwarming anecdotes of past reactions to oversexualized game characters. We could have even ended it with a crashing deluge of Tron Bonne cheesecake fan art, for absolutely no reason! It could have been legendary.

As another aside, one of my worst college memories comes from the first day of an American Culture/Civilization class, in which the teacher -- a woman in her mid-forties with short, graying hair -- told us as she was passing out syllabi that she liked to teach this subject "through gender". I won't bore you with the details of the months ahead, suffice it to say that I've been wary of any such discussion ever since.

...I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe the derail was a good thing?

dhex · Posts: 2963

zebadayus · Posts: 672

Talbain · Posts: 628

sethsez wrote:

So Talbain, do you think Demolition Man was meant to be realistic?

You have an extremely skewed view of fantasy. Just because something uses realistic settings and human characters doesn't mean it isn't completely nuts and 100% in fantasy land. Videogames have warped your expectations of what "realistic" means.

I've seen this when people call Metal Gear Solid a "realistic" series as well. I mean, what the fuck?

Yet people wonder why no one takes video games seriously. I used to not understand what people like Roger Ebert meant when he said "Games aren't art." But I think I do now. Deep down, almost no one actually takes games seriously, even those who have been ingrained into the culture surrounding video games. What's worse, is that the video game genre has accepted its own ridiculous stature - both those who play them and those who make them. I take video games seriously because I want them to be a serious subject; I want them to be as developed and intelligent as art, as movies, as books. But I suppose that's still a long way off, given that people at large won't even consider them in the realm of reality yet.

I think I'm done arguing. There's no point with you guys anyways.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

What?

There's a difference between taking something seriously and claiming that it's realistic. Do you seriously not understand this?

I take Shadow of the Colossus seriously. It is not realistic. I take Metal Gear Solid seriously. It is not realistic.

By the same token, I take 8 1/2 seriously. It is not realistic. I take Brazil seriously. It is not realistic.

Equating realism with seriousness is just retarded. I don't have to claim that something is realistic to justify taking it seriously, and if you do, that's a mental barrier you need to get over. Using the fantastic and exaggerated to cast light on reality is an extremely common approach in cinema and literature, so your whole "if it's not realistic then it's not serious" approach is... well, as I said, retarded.

And again. Just because you want to claim DoA is realistic doesn't mean it is. It's got exaggerated characters in bizarre situations with a fantastic plot. It isn't realistic no matter how much you kick and scream about it on the internet.

thatbox · Posts: 816

Talbain, Ebert's thing about games not being art focuses on the fact that you're affecting things too much for them to be presented to you by a director/artist/designer/composer/etc. as an idea to be consumed.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Yeah, I can't imagine Ebert claiming a lack of realism being the main factor in their lack of artistry. Look at his "great films" list and you'll find a whole hell of a lot of fantastic (as in, not realistic) movies.

Then again, I guess if your only requirement for being realistic is "stars humans that aren't drawn like anime" then I guess Groundhog Day is realistic.

Talbain · Posts: 628

By the same token, seth, I could say your lack of ability to perceive the fantastical as reality is a mental barrier as well.

thatbox, you're right, Ebert wasn't a very good example, in any case.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

By the same token, seth, I could say your lack of ability to perceive the fantastical as reality is a mental barrier as well.

Fantastic stories can be, and usully are, used to better explain aspects of reality. That doesn't make the stories themselves realistic. You apparantly can't tell the difference between these two, and then can't tell the difference between "serious" and "realistic."

And no matter what way you interpret this, Dead or Alive is not realistic in any possible sense aside from, perhaps, having realistic looking graphics (that exists to portray unrealistic art design).