1010 réponses à ce sujet

[ErichHartmann]

I find it hilarious how bias and shallow some of these posts are about beauty standards. /add fuel to the fire

[dan107]

Beerfish wrote...
List 5 gorgeous female fantasy video game characters and I'll wager that you will get a wide wide variety of opinions as to whether they are gorgeous or not.  Was there a gorgeous female love interest in DA1?  Nope.  Morrigan and Leliana were reasonably good looking, gorgeous?  Not in my books.

That's why, as I posted earlier, female romances should be copied out of a Victoria's Secret catalogue. Yes there are some men out there that don't like that type, but the overwhelming majority do. That's why those magazines sell. There is a clear and prevalent standard of beauty in Western society, and there's no reason not to take advantage of that.

[Rogue Unit]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I find it hilarious how bias and shallow some of these posts are about beauty standards. /add fuel to the fire

Why is it shallow to have a standard of acceptable beauty? Everyone has standands no matter how low.

Modifié par Rogue Unit, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:04 .

[the_one_54321]

Bruddajakka wrote...
She does have a fairly prominent chin from the images we've seen for her, and the facial stud draws even
further attention to it. Which make her look unconventional compared to what you expect from a female character especially from a LI though Morrigan had a very sharp chin as well. Her facial features are definately on the different side of things.

I actually ended up replacing Morrigan's face with the Sacred Ashes mod. I didn't much care for her lip or chin structure either. But her chin was better than Isabela's in this video. Her lips, maybe maybe not. I also replaced Leliana's head with the Sacred Ashes mod. It was so much more interesting than her standard model.

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
But that's assuming that you're even given any options that suit your taste. Which for many people in DA:O you simply were not. I had to download armor from builders just so that my party's appearance didn't constantly bore me to tears.

That's true. But wouldn't you agree that the odds of being able to suit the person's tastes improve with the increased amount of options? So having any number of options greater than just one is a step up from being stuck with just single non-choice.

I wouldn't automatically agree with that. You end up with situations like in DA:O where everyone looks the same and everyone looks boring. If you have individualized models perhaps it's not exactly what you want them to look like but no one ever looks boring.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:03 .

[tmp7704]

Beerfish wrote...

As long as people taking this tact never ever ever complain about any kind of realism then that's okay.  The question is how far do you go.  Do you want to tailor make chracters attitudes as well to better mesh with the player, if not why not?

That would be interesting option and not in the least because it could add to replayability -- if you can alter character from being say, hostile and cold to warm and amiable , then you have pretty much two different playthroughs on your hands. And that's not just so they better mesh with the player, but for simple variety and change. However, given the amount of work that goes into dialogue, scripting etc associated with these characters... i don't think that's plausible.

[Maria13]

yukidama wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

yukidama wrote...

Lol, it's fascinating how so many men cannot see that they are not who gets to determine a woman's attractiveness or what she chooses to do with her body. If she were a man I am sure there would be no such ****-shaming or judging her solely based on her looks and tossing around of transphobic slurs. Whatever. I am out of here.

Bit tetchy, aren't we???

Yes we are, and at least I'm not throwing a hissy fit because someone is daring to dislike a character I have a crush on, but because issues like this affect real life and I'm sick of this bullsh*t.


EDIT: Okay, now I'm gone :innocent:

Ah, such a subtle difference... No double standards there then, no hissy fit either. And I'm sure if KoP were female you would all be making up to him her the same. Goodbye.

Modifié par Maria13, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:10 .

[Dave of Canada]

Rogue Unit wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

I find it hilarious how bias and shallow some of these posts are about beauty standards. /add fuel to the fire

Why is it shallow to have a standard of acceptable beauty? Everyone has standands no matter how low.

Extremely high standards are shallow, though.

[dan107]

Beerfish wrote...
You'll have to wait to see what other possiblities there are I guess.  Or be celibate. 

But we're not talking about other possiblities, this thread is about Isabela specifically. It just seems like such an odd design choice. Why not just make her a brand new character? They changed the voice, they changed the appearance, and yet they chose to tie her to a very minor character from DA:O, whose only distinction is that she's a sl*t? Why?

[the_one_54321]

dan107 wrote...
whose only distinction is that she's a sl*t? Why?

You know, it would be so easy to just say that she sleeps around instead of insisting on using such a negatively loaded word. And then no one would need to get upset about it without anyone really changing what they have to say.

All you're accomplishing is upseting people for no particular reason. A word we tend to apply to situations like that on the internet is "troll."

[Lord_Valandil]

dan107 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
You'll have to wait to see what other possiblities there are I guess.  Or be celibate. 

But we're not talking about other possiblities, this thread is about Isabela specifically. It just seems like such an odd design choice. Why not just make her a brand new character? They changed the voice, they changed the appearance, and yet they chose to tie her to a very minor character from DA:O, whose only distinction is that she's a sl*t? Why?

I said that I was leaving, but...
I cannot believe it, you're so moralist, right? I can respect that, but insulting won't take you anywhere.
If you don't like Isabela, then don't romance her, don't take her with you, or kill her if you can, I don't know. But stop crying. Become a priest, I don't know.

Now I'm really gone.

[Deviija]

Rogue Unit wrote...


Why is it shallow to have a standard of acceptable beauty? Everyone has standands no matter how low.

In gaming, there is nothing wrong with having beautiful characters.  The question of what those standards equal, though, is the problem.  Moreover, this usually translates in gaming to mean 'standard of acceptable FEMALE beauty' since gaming does not usually give the same consideration to male attractiveness. 

I fully support having hawt characters in my escapism hobby, men and women alike.  But I also think there is room enough for more average and unique looking females as well. 

[KhorinShizucor]

dan107 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
List 5 gorgeous female fantasy video game characters and I'll wager that you will get a wide wide variety of opinions as to whether they are gorgeous or not.  Was there a gorgeous female love interest in DA1?  Nope.  Morrigan and Leliana were reasonably good looking, gorgeous?  Not in my books.

That's why, as I posted earlier, female romances should be copied out of a Victoria's Secret catalogue. Yes there are some men out there that don't like that type, but the overwhelming majority do. That's why those magazines sell. There is a clear and prevalent standard of beauty in Western society, and there's no reason not to take advantage of that.

You have to consider female audiences too. They romance female characters and I'm sure they have an idea as to what makes an attractive woman.

Oh, but you just can't please everyone but I don't agree with pleasing the majority. The characters that are created by the artists/developers/writers should be how they envisioned them to be not what fanboys want.

Modifié par KhorinShizucor, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:12 .

[the_one_54321]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Extremely high standards are shallow, though.

I agree! And as I've said a couple times, in real life I would never say about women the kinds of things I'm implying about this character. But this is a video game and she is a romancable character. I want idealizations. If I wanted reality I would spend more time trying to romance real women instead. I don't think that the standards are really so horrible when you consider them in that context.

[Avilia]

Grats to Isabela fans



I'm not one but I will say this...nice boots. I hope they're not specific to her.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I wouldn't automatically agree with that. You end up with situations like in DA:O where everyone looks the same and everyone looks boring. If you have individualized models perhaps it's not exactly what you want them to look like but no one ever looks boring.

Uhmm wait, let's go over this slow because i'm starting to think maybe we have a misunderstanding here.

What i'm saying is, between two situations:

-- player is given apples
-- player is given choice of apples and whatever else

the latter option is more likely to meet the taste of the player. If just because it satisfies as many players as the former *and* however many that whatever alternative manages to please. And you wouldn't automatically agree with that?

In other words, i'm not suggesting to get rid of customized models, but just to leave player the option to override that default appearance with whatever other models the game brings to the table. If the player feels like overriding it.

[dan107]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You know, it would be so easy to just
say that she sleeps around instead of insisting on using such a
negatively loaded word. And then no one would need to get upset about it
without anyone really changing what they have to say.

All
you're accomplishing is upseting people for no particular reason. A word
we tend to apply to situations like that on the internet is "troll."

Lol,
I just don't see the word sl*t as being some horribly slanderous word.
It means exactly what you said -- a person who sleeps around. So why not
use it appropriately? I'm really not trying to anger anyone.

Lord_Valandil wrote...
I said that I was leaving, but...
I cannot believe it, you're so moralist, right? I can respect that, but insulting won't take you anywhere.
If you don't like Isabela, then don't romance her, don't take her with you, or kill her if you can, I don't know. But stop crying. Become a priest, I don't know.

Now I'm really gone.

I'm actually not a moralist at all. Not in the slightest. I firmly believe that people should do whatever they want, especially sexually. However, I just don't find the idea of an extremely promiscuous woman being a full blown romance appealing, and I'm not alone in that. Why do you have such a problem with our expressing our opinion on this?

[Kilshrek]

I kinda liked IsabeLa, a sexy lady pirate? Why not?



Though, large stud piercing? Meh... And lighter skin tone? Meh.. Also is it me or does long hair in DA 2 seem like it has been set in place with copious amounts of hair product? I mean, it looks like it has local gravity or something..



At any rate she now looks like a character from Prince of Persia, with a little more clothing on... Whether or not that is a bad thing, time will tell.

[Lord_Valandil]

Acharnae wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
You'll have to wait to see what other possiblities there are I guess.  Or be celibate. 

But we're not talking about other possiblities, this thread is about Isabela specifically. It just seems like such an odd design choice. Why not just make her a brand new character? They changed the voice, they changed the appearance, and yet they chose to tie her to a very minor character from DA:O, whose only distinction is that she's a sl*t? Why?

I said that I was leaving, but...
I cannot believe it, you're so moralist, right? I can respect that, but insulting won't take you anywhere.
If you don't like Isabela, then don't romance her, don't take her with you, or kill her if you can, I don't know. But stop crying. Become a priest, I don't know.

Now I'm really gone.

Well I'm not that much into the chantry thing so that leaves me little choice, right?
Lol.. it's all good and fair, I just don't appreciate it when someone's trying to force his opinions down my throat no matter how marginal they might be.
And I don't really like it when I am insulted.

I'm not trying to force my opinion. When did I say that you HAVE to love Isabela?
I'm just saying that if you don't like her, then don't romance her, or don't take her with you when playing. That's all.
You don't have to call her names in every post, or create a negative cloud in the thread. Just say "I don't like her" and walk away.

Excuse me if you felt insulted, though.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I wouldn't automatically agree with that. You end up with situations like in DA:O where everyone looks the same and everyone looks boring. If you have individualized models perhaps it's not exactly what you want them to look like but no one ever looks boring.

Uhmm wait, let's go over this slow because i'm starting to think maybe we have a misunderstanding here.

What i'm saying is, between two situations:

-- player is given apples
-- player is given choice of apples and whatever else

the latter option is more likely to meet the taste of the player. If just because it satisfies as many players as the former *and* however many that whatever alternative manages to please. And you wouldn't automatically agree with that?

In other words, i'm not suggesting to get rid of customized models, but just to leave player the option to override that default appearance with whatever other models the game brings to the table. If the player feels like overriding it.

Well that's assuming that the player really is given the choice of "whatever else." In which case, heck yeah. And more please. But pragmatically, the chances of the player actually geting "whatever else" included along with the apples is slim to none.

So what you're suggesting is indeed what I would prefer. However, I don't think we'll get it one way or the other. So I'd prefer individualized as that's a safer bet.

[Lord_Valandil]

dan107 wrote...

I'm actually not a moralist at all. Not in the slightest. I firmly believe that people should do whatever they want, especially sexually. However, I just don't find the idea of an extremely promiscuous woman being a full blown romance appealing, and I'm not alone in that. Why do you have such a problem with our expressing our opinion on this?

I have a problem because you're flooding the bloody thread with "She's a sl*t" over and over again.
We got it. You don't like her. Move on.

[dan107]

Deviija wrote...
In gaming, there is nothing wrong with having beautiful characters.  The question of what those standards equal, though, is the problem.  Moreover, this usually translates in gaming to mean 'standard of acceptable FEMALE beauty' since gaming does not usually give the same consideration to male attractiveness. 

Male romanceable characters should look like Greek gods as well. No conceivable reason not to.

But I also think there is room enough for more average and unique looking females as well. 

Absolutely. But not as romances.

[atheelogos]

David Gaider wrote...

Saibh wrote...
EDIT: Also, I won't mind a voice actor change. She sounded exactly like Anora and I couldn't get over it.

She was the same actress as Anora, actually. That's one of the reasons for the change. We didn't want major characters in DA2 to share voice actors with major characters in DAO (unless they were the same character, of course). And you heard a lot more from Anora than you did from Isabela.

Good changes imo.

[the_one_54321]

dan107 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You know, it would be so easy to just say that she sleeps around instead of insisting on using such a negatively loaded word. And then no one would need to get upset about it without anyone really changing what they have to say.

All you're accomplishing is upseting people for no particular reason. A word we tend to apply to situations like that on the internet is "troll."

Lol, I just don't see the word sl*t as being some horribly slanderous word. It means exactly what you said -- a person who sleeps around. So why not use it appropriately? I'm really not trying to anger anyone.

Well fair enough, and I say more power to you to use a word correctly despite peoples misconceptions. I actually like that kind of mindset. But all you're really accomplishing is to upset people. And you could fix it right away just by using a different word.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:21 .