734 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

True but everyone has the same body in DA (by race and gender of course) if we're going to use nudity as a measuring stick.

Are they allowed to fight on the front line?

Is there or is there not a large political conflict on whether or not to allow women to fight on the front lines? Serve in the military, sure. But serve in combat?

Uh...right so there are no female soldiers on the front lines at all. Someone saying what one can do in a time of peace very rarely ends up being the reality in wars. Edit: Now I'm not saying they are their intentionally but women are medics and if the person they need to tend to happens to be on the front lines...

Sure there's political bickering they bicker about everything. And yes women soldiers have served in combat.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:30 .

[Merci357]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also: Women shouldn't be able to equip male armor then and vice versa if we're going to stick to strictly realistic.

How is this realistic in any way? Of course, sharing equipment between a very tall man and a very small woman is silly. But honestly, the is a middle ground. I could wear anything my sister does, and vice versa, if I wanted. Perfect fit? No. But easily close enough that we can share sports equipment once in a while.

Modifié par Merci357, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:30 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

The physical requirements are not standard across both sexes. The physical requirements for women are much lower. I'm going to stop there as I don't want this part of my post to contain any subjective value judgments, just responding to your raising the issue of requirements and nothing more.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the argument that historically women played almost no significant role in warfare isn't remotely contorversial. You have outliers like Joan of Arc and the occasional tribe but on the whole warfare and military equipment were used by and designed for men. That's the point. In the world of Dragon Age though, it's fairly clear through the presence of Ser Cauthrien and others that no such restrictions exist. Therefore, directly comparing the equipment of Dark Ages armored knights to potential female soldiers in DA:O is problematic because there are almost no examples of it in real life to begin with.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Ryzaki]

Merci357 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also: Women shouldn't be able to equip male armor then and vice versa if we're going to stick to strictly realistic.

How is this realistic in any way? Of course, sharing equipment between a very tall man and a very small woman is silly, but honestly. But honestly, the is a middle ground. I could wear anything my sister does, and vice versa, if I wanted. Perfect fit? No. But easily close enough that we can share sports equipment once in a while.

I guess not. But the men would end up wearing tighter armor with boob slots while the women's was be loose. It was be a disadvantage. So I suppose it would be more accurate for the armors to reduce the player's stats.

[ShrinkingFish]

RevengeofNewton wrote...
I'm not talking about intention, I'm actually going one step further and saying that there wasn't any sexism in that post at all. It is simply a misguided statement. You'll understand why I'm saying that if you look at the definition of sexism carefully.

She states such out of an assumption that the female characters are being purposefully objectified due to the observed impracticality of their armor while witnessing the same concepts at work on male characters and yet does not apply the very same logic to them simply because they are male.

That is sexist.

[RevengeofNewton]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...
There's absolutely no reason to think that there wouldn't be different outfits.

The fact they haven't said anything combined with comments by the DA team that they liked how Mass Effect 2 handled static, customized outfits is reason enough to raise it as a possibility.

Parsimony would suggest that since nothing is mentioned, the logical opinion to hold until otherwise shown is that it'll be the same as in DA: O.

If one ignores other influences, sure. But logic has very little to do with assumption in either case.

Logic has everything to do with the assumption. It's quite simply the prudent opinion to hold until new information is known.

[Nadiasama]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Nadiasama wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Nadiasama wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Sexist?

No. I would be just as irritated if Dude Hawke gave me an ass shot as I am with Isabela.

It's simply unnecessary fanservice 99% of the time.

Perhaps. But I do not believe that Dragon Age crosses any major lines. Their armor and clothing still exists within a feasible realm of believability. Meanwhile, there are plenty of games that make sexy, impractical armor just for the sake of sex appeal.

Like women's armor in World of Warcraft. Compared to WoW, DA is incredibly conservative.

Actually, no they don't.  Not for the women anyway.  In reality the armors for the women would look no different than on the men just made smaller to fit the wearer.  Especially the heavy armors with the boobs molded into the chest plate.  Thats just silly.

Actually... that is just practical.

And historically. Women didn't do any fighting anyways, so we don't have that many historical precedents to go off of.

However, all actual armor intended for females that I have seen have had accomodations for their breasts, as otherwise a female fighter would be inconvenienced and encumbered and therefore less able to fight.

Uh no. No its not. Armor is desighned to deflect blows.  Boob buldges wouldn't deflect anything. it would trap a strike to the chest instead of it sliding off in another direction. You know, away from your heart.

This is the longest I've been in a conversation on any forum.  My God...WHAT HAVE I BECOME!?

You kidding me? Boob bulges would deflect much more than a flat chest as the varied angles make it more unlikely for an enemy to land a solid blow. Deflection largely serves to soften blows as well as aim the away from the body. Taking away a substancial amount of the force put behind a blow.

Of course, this makes a bit more sense if the wearer wasn't moving and just sitting there waiting for the blow to fall. But then, even a man without accomodations for breasts built into his armor would die in that situation.

Have you seen what a typical plate of armor looks like?  It is not flat. It is rounded not hugging tight to the body and if boob notches are so much better at deflecting blows, why don't all armors have then in relife.
Any way here's an posting on the impracticality of boob buldging armor.
http://l-clausewitz....?thread=1066622

Modifié par Nadiasama, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:34 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

The physical requirements are not standard across both sexes. The physical requirements for women are much lower. I'm going to stop there as I don't want this part of my post to contain any subjective value judgments, just responding to your raising the issue of requirements and nothing more.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the argument that historically women played almost no significant role in warfare isn't terribly contorversial. You have outliers like Joan of Arc and the occasional tribe but on the whole warfare and military equipment were used by and designed for men. That's the point. In the world of Dragon Age though, it's fairly clear through the presence of Ser Cauthrien and others that no such restrictions exist. Therefore, directly comparing the equipment of Dark Ages armored knights to potential female soldiers in DA:O is problematic because there are almost no examples of it in real life to begin with.

I actually hate that. The stanadards should be exactly the same. If women can't pass the standards then they can't be soldiers.

Wait what?  I didn't compare the DA armored knights to female soldiers.

Hell I just don't want to see ass. I wouldn't care if she had some booty shorts on.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:34 .

[upsettingshorts]

RevengeofNewton wrote...
Logic has everything to do with the assumption. It's quite simply the prudent opinion to hold until new information is known.

I didn't say it was reasonable or even expected.  But until it's definite either way the possibility exists and will be an issue every time someone has issues with someone's "announced" outfit.

Ryzaki wrote...
Wait what?  I didn't complain about the DA armored knights to female soldiers.

I was responding to a general theme of discussion and (I think) clarifying someone else's point.  Not directly to you.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:34 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Ryzaki wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

True but everyone has the same body in DA (by race and gender of course) if we're going to use nudity as a measuring stick.

Are they allowed to fight on the front line?

Is there or is there not a large political conflict on whether or not to allow women to fight on the front lines? Serve in the military, sure. But serve in combat?

Uh...right so there are no female soldiers on the front lines at all. Someone saying what one can do in a time of peace very rarely ends up being the reality in wars. Edit: Now I'm not saying they are their intentionally but women are medics and if the person they need to tend to happens to be on the front lines...

Sure there's political bickering they bicker about everything. And yes women soldiers have served in combat.

Yes they have. I never denied that. But only in the last twenty years. And you seem to be assuming it is much more prevailent than it truly is. But the ratio is so far scewed to one side that it makes female combatants rare to say the least.

[ErichHartmann]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...



...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o



Really?



Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.



True but everyone has the same body in DA (by race and gender of course) if we're going to use nudity as a measuring stick.

Are they allowed to fight on the front line?



Is there or is there not a large political conflict on whether or not to allow women to fight on the front lines? Serve in the military, sure. But serve in combat?



And you're taking the same body type thing a bit too seriously. I was making a joke.

Well, speaking as an Army combat veteran, women can't volunteer for direct combat duties but static front lines don't exist anymore. So they do see plenty of action, especially since some are gunners on supply convoys and have been needed on patrols (males searching a Muslim woman is out of the question).



I could provide plenty of historical examples too. World War II saw a very substantial number of female combatants in Eastern Europe.



/carry on

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

The physical requirements are not standard across both sexes. The physical requirements for women are much lower. I'm going to stop there as I don't want this part of my post to contain any subjective value judgments, just responding to your raising the issue of requirements and nothing more.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the argument that historically women played almost no significant role in warfare isn't remotely contorversial. You have outliers like Joan of Arc and the occasional tribe but on the whole warfare and military equipment were used by and designed for men. That's the point. In the world of Dragon Age though, it's fairly clear through the presence of Ser Cauthrien and others that no such restrictions exist. Therefore, directly comparing the equipment of Dark Ages armored knights to potential female soldiers in DA:O is problematic because there are almost no examples of it in real life to begin with.

hit the nail right on the head, as usual.

[Aermas]

Only field plate should if at all be custom fitted.

[Ryzaki]

Edit: Whoops took to long to post.

I never said they didn't. But you said they're not allowed to fight on the front line as if it was totally unheard of.

It's still rare in DA. Nowhere near as rare as it is now but the fact that not one female in Redcliffe was willing to fight. Not one.So female armor would be more prevalant than it is now true.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:37 .

[Ryzaki]

ErichHartmann wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

True but everyone has the same body in DA (by race and gender of course) if we're going to use nudity as a measuring stick.

Are they allowed to fight on the front line?

Is there or is there not a large political conflict on whether or not to allow women to fight on the front lines? Serve in the military, sure. But serve in combat?

And you're taking the same body type thing a bit too seriously. I was making a joke.

Well, speaking as an Army combat veteran, women can't volunteer for direct combat duties but static front lines don't exist anymore. So they do see plenty of action, especially since some are gunners on supply convoys and have been needed on patrols (males searching a Muslim woman is out of the question).

I could provide plenty of historical examples too. World War II saw a very substantial number of female combatants in Eastern Europe.

/carry on

That's what I was trying (and failing) to get at.

[RevengeofNewton]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...
I'm not talking about intention, I'm actually going one step further and saying that there wasn't any sexism in that post at all. It is simply a misguided statement. You'll understand why I'm saying that if you look at the definition of sexism carefully.

She states such out of an assumption that the female characters are being purposefully objectified due to the observed impracticality of their armor while witnessing the same concepts at work on male characters and yet does not apply the very same logic to them simply because they are male.

That is sexist.

I disagree completely. There's a level of nuance you're missing. You and I both know that male bodies are not sexualized in the media as much as female bodies are. By missing this term in the equation, you're coming to an answer that she's being sexist. But when you add this term in, it's quite clear that she's not being sexist. Now she may be completely wrong about Bioware's intentions and her claim that Bioware is sexist, but there is no sexism behind her reasoning. It's simply flawed. You don't need to add extra controversy by accusing her of being sexist. 

At the same time you'll note that all the "fanfare" over Varric did not come from any "skimpiness" in his clothing.

[ShrinkingFish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...So women soldiers aren't accepted now? O_o

Really?

Sure they're not a lot of them but they certainly are allowed if they pass the requirements.

The physical requirements are not standard across both sexes. The physical requirements for women are much lower. I'm going to stop there as I don't want this part of my post to contain any subjective value judgments, just responding to your raising the issue of requirements and nothing more.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the argument that historically women played almost no significant role in warfare isn't terribly contorversial. You have outliers like Joan of Arc and the occasional tribe but on the whole warfare and military equipment were used by and designed for men. That's the point. In the world of Dragon Age though, it's fairly clear through the presence of Ser Cauthrien and others that no such restrictions exist. Therefore, directly comparing the equipment of Dark Ages armored knights to potential female soldiers in DA:O is problematic because there are almost no examples of it in real life to begin with.

I actually hate that. The stanadards should be exactly the same. If women can't pass the standards then they can't be soldiers.

Wait what?  I didn't compare the DA armored knights to female soldiers.

Hell I just don't want to see ass. I wouldn't care if she had some booty shorts on.

I think that is why we were arguing. I was talking about DA armored knights as opposed to female soldiers. We were apparently talking about two different things.

That happens a lot when we argue.

[ShrinkingFish]

RevengeofNewton wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...
I'm not talking about intention, I'm actually going one step further and saying that there wasn't any sexism in that post at all. It is simply a misguided statement. You'll understand why I'm saying that if you look at the definition of sexism carefully.

She states such out of an assumption that the female characters are being purposefully objectified due to the observed impracticality of their armor while witnessing the same concepts at work on male characters and yet does not apply the very same logic to them simply because they are male.

That is sexist.

I disagree completely. There's a level of nuance you're missing. You and I both know that male bodies are not sexualized in the media as much as female bodies are. By missing this term in the equation, you're coming to an answer that she's being sexist. But when you add this term in, it's quite clear that she's not being sexist. Now she may be completely wrong about Bioware's intentions and her claim that Bioware is sexist, but there is no sexism behind her reasoning. It's simply flawed. You don't need to add extra controversy by accusing her of being sexist. 

At the same time you'll note that all the "fanfare" over Varric did not come from any "skimpiness" in his clothing.

You can disagree all you'd like. It does not make the point any less valid. Sexism is a two way street, women are just as capable of it as men. Especially when it comes to women.

Some of the most sexist statements I've ever heard have been by women when refering to other women. This is an example of this type of sexism.

[ShrinkingFish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Edit: Whoops took to long to post.

I never said they didn't. But you said they're not allowed to fight on the front line as if it was totally unheard of.

It's still rare in DA. Nowhere near as rare as it is now but the fact that not one female in Redcliffe was willing to fight. Not one.So female armor would be more prevalant than it is now true.

I did not say that. I said it was incredibly rare. You misread my statement.

[Ryzaki]

ShrinkingFish wrote...


I did not say that. I said it was incredibly rare. You misread my statement.

Ah.

It's rare in both worlds. Just a lot more so than in Dragon Age.

[ShrinkingFish]

Jestina wrote...

If you don't think they amped up the sexism in their games...look at the change from ME to ME2. Otherwise you're just playing oblivious.

And there were historical female knights. Their armour was in the same fashion as males. They didn't run around in bikini's and heels. Two greats everyone probably knows about are...Boudica and Jeanne d'Arc. Saying there are no female soldiers is just a blatant chauvinistic attitude...lots of them are serving in the military now and there were some in the past.

Nobody said there were no female soldiers. Just that they're rare.

Boudica was an exception... and was a Celt... she fought nekked. And Jeanne d'Arc pretended to be a man in order to serve until much later in her career.

And accusing me of chauvanism isn't going to make me curl up into a ball and give up. I'm actually an avid feminist.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:45 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Ryzaki wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...


I did not say that. I said it was incredibly rare. You misread my statement.

Ah.

It's rare in both worlds. Just a lot more so than in Dragon Age.

Exactly. That is what I was saying! Though I'd add "Much more so than in Dragon Age". At least for the given time periods.

[upsettingshorts]

For every Joan of Arc or Boudica there are, quite literally and without exaggeration, a hundred thousand anonymous males who participated in warfare.

That isn't to say women can't fight or won't fight, just that as soon as humans started specializing, the ranks of soldiers throughout most human history in most situations were filled by men.

Why is this relevant? It isn't except only for the fact that we lack a significant number of concrete real world examples of how a woman would dress and fight in any given era. Sure we have Joan of Arc and Boudica and quite a few others, but tactics weren't designed for them. Fighting styles weren't based along their physical strengths and weaknesses.  Equipment wasn't typically designed with the idea they would be used by women. So when we try to compare fantasy female weapons and armors - especially in the pre-firearm era - trying to fall back on what is "real" is difficult to impossible.

It's got nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with numbers.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2010 - 02:53 .

[Jestina]

Celts ran around naked? Where did you drag that myth from? Almost as bad as the Scots having woad in Braveheart.

[Aermas]

Mail (Chain, Scale, Splint, Ring) is forgiving to all the curves of the female figure, no need to have different molds, they form fit.

For plate they need to be custom made so they do need to accommodate the breast, this doesn't mean that each needs it's own armor cone though.