372 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Riona45 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Why is that offensive?

I have the feeling I'm wasting my time, but...

Showing skin isn't in itself offensive.  But in the context we're talking about (the less armor, the better), it can imply that the point of a woman's body is to satisfy the male gaze.  Of course, I understand from experience that most men don't see their privilege--a woman explains why something is sexist, the man either gets defensive or brushes it off as "not a big deal" because it's not a problem he has to face.  This scenario plays at all the time (on these very boards, too).

I guess I might understand your point.
Please tell me, though: Do you wear revealing clothing and / or try to look desirable to men?

If not, you win. But if you do, it seems hypocritical to call the portraying of women as sexually attractive to men offensive.


Edit for the sake of fairness: Of course, men do the same and try to look attractive to women, too. The only difference is that either men in metal tangas do not seem attractive to women, or the gaming industry hasn´t realized they do. Otherwise they, too, wouldn´t wear realistic armour.

Modifié par Tirigon, 17 juillet 2010 - 03:04 .

[Koffeegirl]

I think we will be able to make our Lady Hawke look much like Bethany. I wonder if the default Lady Hawke is a warrior ,mage or rogue......

Do you think Bioware will let us download the character creator prior to release like they did with origins?

[Koffeegirl]

Also as someone pointed out that female character might attract male players....I think they are going for more of a marketing where the PC is big tough guy type thing, and will probably have a sexy female LI for them.......kind of like they did with DAO with Morrigan being the love interest.

While they say male PC or dragons are the icon of DA I think it is actually.........the beard.

[Soruve]

Koffeegirl wrote...

I think we will be able to make our Lady Hawke look much like Bethany. I wonder if the default Lady Hawke is a warrior ,mage or rogue......
Do you think Bioware will let us download the character creator prior to release like they did with origins?

I don't see why not, that would be nice.

[Saibh]

Tirigon wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Um...because armor is supposed to be a practical form of protection, not a metal bustier? Because women are being objectified for the sake of male lust?

I never said I liked it. In fact, I almost vomit when i see mods introducing such armor in DAO and I always put my female chars in the heaviest armor available. Nevertheless, such is how it is.

How sexist to think women "LOVE" to show skin. Some women do, if they want that kind of attraction. Many do not. It does not even remotely add any type of realism. You look in a crowded room full of women of various ages, social class, race, and what not and tell me how many of them are half-naked.

It is not sexist, it´s reality, and believe me, it saddens me.
please note that I said "most", not "all", and that i added "in my experience".
To answer your question: if the room is in Germany where I live, and with the current temperatures, a vast majority of the women in the room wears hotpants or short skirts, armless tops and shows a good part of their breasts.

Maybe it´s different where you live, though.

You outright said that it would make it more realistic and that it wouldn't offensive if warrior women wore skimpy outfits. I can't believe you say you'd want to "vomit" when this happens yet think it's realistic.

Alright, maybe it's where you live. Where I live, in upstate New York, the temperature of the summer stays around the mid-90s F, and women still wear clothes that are mostly modest.

Tirigon wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Why is that offensive?

I have the feeling I'm wasting my time, but...

Showing skin isn't in itself offensive.  But in the context we're talking about (the less armor, the better), it can imply that the point of a woman's body is to satisfy the male gaze.  Of course, I understand from experience that most men don't see their privilege--a woman explains why something is sexist, the man either gets defensive or brushes it off as "not a big deal" because it's not a problem he has to face.  This scenario plays at all the time (on these very boards, too).

I guess I might understand your point.
Please tell me, though: Do you wear revealing clothing and / or try to look desirable to men?

If not, you win. But if you do, it seems hypocritical to call the portraying of women as sexually attractive to men offensive.


Edit for the sake of fairness: Of course, men do the same and try to look attractive to women, too. The only difference is that either men in metal tangas do not seem attractive to women, or the gaming industry hasn´t realized they do. Otherwise they, too, wouldn´t wear realistic armour.

Listen, she didn't say that women trying to look sexy is offensive. She said that women shown wearing clothing exposing vital parts of their body only to please the male eye is offensive, since it essentially says her body is there to be viewed by men, rather than allow it to be covered for the sake of, you know, survival. She directly said "in the context we're talking about".

Modifié par Saibh, 17 juillet 2010 - 03:16 .

[TuringPoint]

 I'm male.  I don't actually understand why the guy is the icon.  There could easily be more than one interchangeable icon, male or female or many of each.

[Riona45]

Saibh wrote...

Listen, she didn't say that women trying to look sexy is offensive. She said that women shown wearing clothing exposing vital parts of their body only to please the male eye is offensive, since it essentially says her body is there to be viewed by men, rather than allow it to be covered for the sake of, you know, survival. She directly said "in the context we're talking about".

Thank you--you understood the spirit of my post.

[Dick Delaware]

Great screenshot, the Male Hawke preset looks superb - I doubt I'll be making my own PC, since this one looks dead-on.

Saibh is correct here. Now, as a male, you may not realize it, and for a while I didn't, but a lot of the stuff you take for granted really doesn't occur to you, because you're so used to it. I love seeing a beautiful girl in a sexy outfit, I'm a man, but it all depends on context here.

In a setting like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, watching Jeanette in her pigtails and schoolgirl outfit made sense because that's what the character was like (sort of emotionally needy and horny) and it ties into the whole vampires as creatures of irresistible sexual attractiveness thing that's part of the whole vampire mythos for god knows how long. Velvet Velour is like that too, and she's only got a thong, high heels and a corset on her because she's a stripper and you meet her in her strip club. That, I'm fine with, and I can imagine so are the female posters here - the context makes sense.

What doesn't make sense though, is that you might have a character that's regular girl who's supposed to be a hardened soldier in a medieval fantasy setting. However, instead of wearing chainmail covering her whole body like any other soldier would, she's just wearing a chainmail bikini. Stuff like this is just designed for cheap titillation and is completely retarded from an internal consistency perspective.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 17 juillet 2010 - 03:50 .

[Tirigon]

Riona45 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Listen, she didn't say that women trying to look sexy is offensive. She said that women shown wearing clothing exposing vital parts of their body only to please the male eye is offensive, since it essentially says her body is there to be viewed by men, rather than allow it to be covered for the sake of, you know, survival. She directly said "in the context we're talking about".

Thank you--you understood the spirit of my post.

Well, to be honest if I was a well-trained swordsman I would prefer as little armor as possible instead of a heavy armor; the reason being that agility is much more important. If you wear a plate armour weighing about 60 pound you are dead as soon as you stumble or are pushed to the ground, because you can´t stand up again. If you wear little to no clothing you can simply evade or parry the enemies´attacks and get in their back, push them down and finish them in total safety.

Of course, it is different for a soldier in an army. But for a warrior with only 3 or 4 companions (as Lady Hawke will be) light or no armor makes much more sense.

On the other hand, high-heeled boots don´t. I hope amazon Hawke won´t wear that.

What I´m trying to say is that the woman doesn´t "expose vital parts of their body" to please the male eye, but to increase her survivability in a fight.

[Naughty Bear]

Koffeegirl wrote...

I think we will be able to make our Lady Hawke look much like Bethany. I wonder if the default Lady Hawke is a warrior ,mage or rogue......
Do you think Bioware will let us download the character creator prior to release like they did with origins?

Would'nt Beth and Hawke be apostates? They are illegal mages, that's naughty.

[Koffeegirl]

Yes I'm hoping they are apostates....Kirkwall is run by templars so it could make for an interesting scenario.

[Saibh]

Tirigon wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Listen, she didn't say that women trying to look sexy is offensive. She said that women shown wearing clothing exposing vital parts of their body only to please the male eye is offensive, since it essentially says her body is there to be viewed by men, rather than allow it to be covered for the sake of, you know, survival. She directly said "in the context we're talking about".

Thank you--you understood the spirit of my post.

Well, to be honest if I was a well-trained swordsman I would prefer as little armor as possible instead of a heavy armor; the reason being that agility is much more important. If you wear a plate armour weighing about 60 pound you are dead as soon as you stumble or are pushed to the ground, because you can´t stand up again. If you wear little to no clothing you can simply evade or parry the enemies´attacks and get in their back, push them down and finish them in total safety.

Of course, it is different for a soldier in an army. But for a warrior with only 3 or 4 companions (as Lady Hawke will be) light or no armor makes much more sense.

On the other hand, high-heeled boots don´t. I hope amazon Hawke won´t wear that.

What I´m trying to say is that the woman doesn´t "expose vital parts of their body" to please the male eye, but to increase her survivability in a fight.

I said it would be offensive if her armor "magically shrunk". You said it would be more realistic. I have a hard time believing you meant she should wear light, flexible armor.

In any case, that's the point of a rogue vs. warrior. A rogue sacrifices protection for agility, a warrior sacrifices dexterity for defense. Besides all of this in a real-world setting the fact of the matter is: more armor = better armor stats.

[Nerevar-as]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Wait.
Lady Hawke?
Lady...Hawke?



HOLY SH*T.

Can´t believe it took so long for someone to get this. Hope default Lady Hawke looks like this too.

[rexil]

They could make everyone happy...

[Wishpig]

SirOccam wrote...

I don't think I'll customize Hawke's appearance. Personally I love that above picture. I think that is a great look. I love the hair, I love the tattoo (which you can't see in that pic but can elsewhere), I love the skin tone and the dark eyes and how well they match between the two characters.

With ME I didn't customize Shepard, but that was more because only the default seemed to look somewhat natural. I dunno, anything else just seemed...off. But with this...it's because I specifically want my Hawke to look like that.

I know right? Unlike you I did customize my Shepard. I dunno, I just didn't dig his default look... and I wanted to kinda make him my own.

BUT Hawke looks f*in awesome, in no small part because he somewhat looks like duncan. Honestly, if I tinkered with the custimization I just don't think I could top the default look.

I'm just hoping the make femhawke look equally cool.

Modifié par Wishpig, 17 juillet 2010 - 09:19 .

[Tamyn]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Is it just me, or does Lady Hawke sound really hot? As for the topic of concept art for Lady Hawke: Yes, let's see it.

Of course LadyHawke is hot.



Edit: Reading back, I see this has already been referenced.

Modifié par Tamyn, 17 juillet 2010 - 09:38 .

[WilliamShatner]

Let's hope their not cheap enough to use the same animations for both male and female Hawke...

[Tragick Flaw]

Golden-Rose wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I imagine she'll look similar to Bethany (assuming that the one in the picture is indeed Bethany):


I don't think I'll customize Hawke's appearance. Personally I love that above picture. I think that is a great look. I love the hair, I love the tattoo (which you can't see in that pic but can elsewhere), I love the skin tone and the dark eyes and how well they match between the two characters.

With ME I didn't customize Shepard, but that was more because only the default seemed to look somewhat natural. I dunno, anything else just seemed...off. But with this...it's because I specifically want my Hawke to look like that.

I too love this picture. The texture, the angle... everything. It reminds me of a renaissance painting. Let's hope all conversations look this good.

Where is the screenshot from?

[Daerog]

rexil wrote...

They could make everyone happy...

But it would confuse the stupid people who will believe that Hawke will look like that in game, a hermaphrodite (sort of, can't imagine someone being born being in half like that, but maybe?). With half of those people crying out that they can't just play male or female, with a bunch of sarcastic people saying they will name Hawke, Slaanesh Hawke or whatever god they can find in literature that is a hermaphrodite.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 17 juillet 2010 - 09:39 .

[Tamyn]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...



But it would confuse the stupid people who will believe that Hawke will look like that in game, a hermaphrodite (sort of, can't imagine someone being born being in half like that, but maybe?). With half of those people crying out that they can't just play male or female, with a bunch of sarcastic people saying they will name Hawke, Slaanesh Hawke or whatever god they can find in literature that is a hermaphrodite.

Herman Hawke the hermaphrodite.

[tmp7704]

Tirigon wrote...

Well, to be honest if I was a well-trained swordsman I would prefer as little armor as possible instead of a heavy armor; the reason being that agility is much more important. If you wear a plate armour weighing about 60 pound you are dead as soon as you stumble or are pushed to the ground, because you can´t stand up again. If you wear little to no clothing you can simply evade or parry the enemies´attacks and get in their back, push them down and finish them in total safety.

Ehh, not to argue the advantage of extra mobility of course, but on that one point... modern soldiers are routinely equipped with body armour and gear which combined weights ~60 lbs (the chest piece can weight 30-35 lbs alone) Do you honestly believe when they trip in that --or simply go prone-- they can't stand up again?

Modifié par tmp7704, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:18 .

[Tirigon]

Saibh wrote...

I said it would be offensive if her armor "magically shrunk". You said it would be more realistic. I have a hard time believing you meant she should wear light, flexible armor.

In any case, that's the point of a rogue vs. warrior. A rogue sacrifices protection for agility, a warrior sacrifices dexterity for defense. Besides all of this in a real-world setting the fact of the matter is: more armor = better armor stats.

The fact is also: more armor = less agility.

Good for a soldier in an army, bad for a solo fighter like Hawke.

[Tirigon]

tmp7704 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Well, to be honest if I was a well-trained swordsman I would prefer as little armor as possible instead of a heavy armor; the reason being that agility is much more important. If you wear a plate armour weighing about 60 pound you are dead as soon as you stumble or are pushed to the ground, because you can´t stand up again. If you wear little to no clothing you can simply evade or parry the enemies´attacks and get in their back, push them down and finish them in total safety.

Ehh, not to argue the advantage of extra mobility of course, but on that one point... modern soldiers are routinely equipped with body armour and gear which combined weights ~60 lbs (the chest piece can weight 30-35 lbs alone) Do you honestly believe when they trip in that --or simply go prone-- they can't stand up again?

Modern armor is not equal to medieval plate armor.
Knights could not stand up without help when they fell.

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:22 .

[Saibh]

Tirigon wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Well, to be honest if I was a well-trained swordsman I would prefer as little armor as possible instead of a heavy armor; the reason being that agility is much more important. If you wear a plate armour weighing about 60 pound you are dead as soon as you stumble or are pushed to the ground, because you can´t stand up again. If you wear little to no clothing you can simply evade or parry the enemies´attacks and get in their back, push them down and finish them in total safety.

Ehh, not to argue the advantage of extra mobility of course, but on that one point... modern soldiers are routinely equipped with body armour and gear which combined weights ~60 lbs (the chest piece can weight 30-35 lbs alone) Do you honestly believe when they trip in that --or simply go prone-- they can't stand up again?

Modern armor is not equal to medieval plate armor.
Knights could not stand up without help when they fell.

I think you're trying too hard to defend an unthinking comment that you made. I already told you the difference between a warrior and rogue. If it was completely stupid to wear armor in battle, why do you think knights errant existed? Do you notice how, in DA, no one falls over and is unable to get up. IIRC, you take a longer time getting up, which, again, is a sacrifice warriors make, but you don't stay down.

Heavy armor worked IRL, it certainly works in the game, and it would be utterly foolish for Hawke to wear skimpy armor.

[Daerog]

Saibh wrote...


I think you're trying too hard to defend an unthinking comment that you made. I already told you the difference between a warrior and rogue. If it was completely stupid to wear armor in battle, why do you think knights errant existed? Do you notice how, in DA, no one falls over and is unable to get up. IIRC, you take a longer time getting up, which, again, is a sacrifice warriors make, but you don't stay down.

Heavy armor worked IRL, it certainly works in the game, and it would be utterly foolish for Hawke to wear skimpy armor.

Heavy armor and knights who were pretty much tanks in medieval Europe worked great for a long time, until the longbow was used with satisfying results.
However, since archery isn't the greatest skill in Dragon Age (so far), Hawke doesn't have much to worry about!