934 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

If her ship went down, so did likely all her possession except what she was wearing at the time. So what she's wearing migth not only be what's practical on a ship but also the sum total of everything she owns.

That assumes she didn't also have a house somewhere.  Or any other property where she could have stored things.  Or didn't steal some stuff off of clothes hangers.

Unless she's wealthy enough to hire guards or servants, I don't think she'd leave valuable possessions in a house while she sails for months. And even if she did, a house in Antiva or Rivani with possessions won't help her much when she's stuck in Kirkwall without a ship.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Unless she's wealthy enough to hire guards or servants, I don't think she'd leave valuable possessions in a house while she sails for months. And even if she did, a house in Antiva or Rivani with possessions won't help her much when she's stuck in Kirkwall without a ship.

We're talking about clothes though, right?  How valuable is an extra pair of boots, shirt, bandana, etc? 

Edit: Good point about Kirkwall not being her home, though.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:03 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

serious fantasy 

Yes, a serious fantasy game as opposed to Monty Python searching for the Holy Grail in Fereldon.

Sir JK wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Any character that will not wear armor would be a moron and soon dead on the field of battle.

That phrase there is the very heart of my argument for characters not wearing armour. Yes, anyone not wearing proper armour on the field of battle is placing their lives in the hands of pure chance (if they have to means to aqcuire it).

But the party isn't on a field of battle, now are they?

When travelling, when short of funds, when running from a hostile army as quasi-civilians (refugees... but with weapons), when having lost everything they own in a shipwreck and/or just plain beloning to a non-armour wearing class (social class that is. Do not confuse that with mechanical class) then the absense of proper armour makes perfect sense.
Is it disadvantegous? Yes.
Is it gambling with their lives? Yes
Is it plausible? Very much so.

If that is your argument then you would logicly have to oppose the player character being allowed to wear armor.

However, the party will certainly be on many fields of battle and have many opportunities to loot the fallen for armor and to shop, I am sure. Are you areguing that the party will be in such a big hurry that they don't loot the bodies after battles and that they never go shopping or pause to set up camp to eat or sleep or put on armor they looted?

No, it is not plausable that the party would go though the ten year period of the game and not wear armor.

So how is a Mage not wearing leather any different than a rogue? By all accounts here, leather barely inhibits body movement. Surely it shouldn't inhibit a mage's casting so much that he can't afford the extra protection, right?

Armor inhibits a mage's casting ability. Therefore most mages will forgo armor unless they are of the arcane warrior type.

Haha, this is hilarious. You can believe someone can effectively fire three arrows at once, but a Rogue having the skill to dodge a warrior wearing full plate somehow crosses the line? How many individuals have this skill you speak of? I'd certainly love to meet them.

Yes, I can believe a person can become extraordinarily skilled with weapons. But I can't believe a woman will chose to fight battles in a thong on the front lines.

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Like that gold around her neck?

You can swim in jewelry, even heavy jewelry.

That's not even going into cultural utility. It's possible that she views her jewelry, with its heavy skull and bones motif, as keeping away bad luck. It might be grave goods, so that if she dies she has something with her in the underworld, or if someone finds her body, she can have a proper burial.

She might come from a culture where obvious displays of wealth show social ranking. She might be used to a nomadic lifestyle and prefer her wealth to be something she can constantly carry. Or it simply might be that she expects unattended jewelry to be stolen.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We're talking about clothes though, right?  How valuable is an extra pair of boots, shirt, bandana, etc? 

Edit: Good point about Kirkwall not being her home, though.

I think my mind skipped from clothing to basic 'possessions.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Ryzaki]

It's still an extra weight is my point. Just like light armor would be.



That is true still. Urgh. It just looks so gaudy to me.

[Il Divo]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Armor inhibits a mage's casting ability. Therefore most mages will forgo armor unless they are of the arcane warrior type.

Armor has been considered to interfere with the somatic components of spell-casting, also known as "hand motions". According to posts in this thread, leather armor and other light materials do not have any noteworthy effect on mobility so this clearly should not be the case. All Mages should obviously train in leather armor.

Yes, I can believe a person can become extraordinarily skilled with weapons. But I can't believe a woman will chose to fight battles in a thong on the front lines.

Well, good for you. I'm glad you learned to extend your imagination that far. Now demonstrate where in existence I can find these 'extraordinarily skilled' individuals who are so capable with a bow that they can fire three arrows at a time and are able to dual wield full long swords while wading through dark spawn like it's nothing. Then I might consider taking you seriously. But of course, the notion of a rogue being skilled at dodging an enemy in full plate is far more bizarre than any of those possibilities.

I also enjoy your straw man that because a character chooses to ignore conventional armor, then they must necessarily 'wearing a thong'.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 novembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[mousestalker]

The problem with thongware as armour:



Heroine: You face Tassles McFee the scantliest clad warrior in Thedas. Prepare to lose.



Opponent: You face Hunk McManly, studliest warrior in this area. And I'm gay. What ugly shoes. Made in Ferelden, I assume?



Heroine: Yikes! Ow! Ow! Ow!

[Ortaya Alevli]

I will fight naked in DA2.

Because I cannot fight naked in real life; I have appearances to maintain. And I need games to do crazy stuff like naked fighting.

[Ryzaki]

Also those blasted fixed outfits means no more naked barbarian Male LI.



D:



Why?!?

[Atakuma]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also those blasted fixed outfits means no more naked barbarian Male LI.

D:

Why?!?

You can at least take comfort in that you will probably never have to accidentaly stumble upon a naked Varric.

[Apollo Starflare]

Atakuma wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also those blasted fixed outfits means no more naked barbarian Male LI.

D:

Why?!?

You can at least take comfort in that you will probably never have to accidentaly stumble upon a naked Varric.

Why do you say that like it's a good thing?

[joriandrake]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

serious fantasy 

Yes, a serious fantasy game as opposed to Monty Python searching for the Holy Grail in Fereldon.

.

what?

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, good for you. I'm glad you learned to extend your imagination that far. Now demonstrate where in existence I can find these 'extraordinarily skilled' individuals who are so capable with a bow that they can fire three arrows at a time and are able to dual wield full long swords like it's nothing. Then I might consider taking you seriously. But of course, the notion of a rogue being skilled at dodging an enemy in full plate is far more bizarre than any of those possibilities.

Well to be fair the abilities you are talking about were at the end of the talent trees in DAO.  Warriors or rogues who wanted to fight with a longsword in each hand had to work for it.  Most likely they wouldn't be able to do it until the higher levels, unless they specifically built their characters to do that.  In which case they're neglecting other useful skills.  Fighting armorless could be done right away.  It takes less dexterity and intelligence.  

I also enjoy your straw man that because a character chooses to ignore armor, then they are necessarily 'wearing a thong'.

Problem is, from what little we've seen, we may very well find out if Isabella, at least is "wearing a thong" into combat

But seriously, this is likely an example of really not having enough information to judge.  I mean, we have a few screenshots, and that's it.  This is likely a fear of an extension of ME 2 into the game.  I mean, how much eyerolling are we gonna get if Isabella ends up dressing like Miranda and Bethany like Samara and Varric like Thane (oh, wait )?  I know that's my fear.


In the end, we'll all  just have to wait and see how it's pulled off

Modifié par iakus, 29 novembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[Atakuma]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also those blasted fixed outfits means no more naked barbarian Male LI.

D:

Why?!?

You can at least take comfort in that you will probably never have to accidentaly stumble upon a naked Varric.

Why do you say that like it's a good thing?

no offence:whistle: Not being attracted to men I probably just dont get it. So i'll just keep my trap shut.

[Aldandil]

Why does anyone worry about the protection offered by what the characters are wearing? It's completely irrelevant. We all know that the only thing that protects you is your armor score.

[Maria Caliban]

Atakuma wrote...

Not being attracted to men I probably just dont get it.

In my experience, lesbians are uniformly bad at judging the attractiveness of men, worse than straight dudes even, and so rely on the cultural default for attractiveness. Varric is short, squat, and hairy, and culture says this is what a good looking guy is. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the tastes of straight women in general or specifically.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2010 - 09:31 .

[joriandrake]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Not being attracted to men I probably just dont get it.

In my experience, lesbians are uniformly bad at judging the attractiveness of men, worse than straight dudes even, and so rely on the cultural default for attractiveness. Varric is short, squat, and hairy, and culture says this is what a good looking guy is. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the tastes of straight women in general or specifically.

I sense the drums coming closer...





(because a "what?" or "lolwut" comment just feels too less, too late as reaction by now)

[Qset]

what a thread

At this point, I find myself warming to Isabela's outfit, it certainly does give her a pirate look. The necklace actually looks like one of those Gorget neck armors anyway. My minor  issue with these outfits is that they are apparently fixed. A choice of pirate outfits would have been nice, 2 or even 3 in the vanilla game rather than wait for the DLC would have been great.  Maybe, it changes during the 10 year period in the vanilla  - I hoping for that to be honest even if its only the addition of a few extra tassles, a pair of leather gauntlets and maybe a shoulder mounted parrot

My only question would be if a nice purple leather outift was good enough for her in DAO why didn't she get some sort variation on that for DA2? It could have been even a very loosely related variation - she has those nice thigh length leather boots - instead of a white shirt or maybe in addition to the shirt a leather corset, low cut of course might have been nice, maybe in red or red trim 

 I have no problem with the sans pants - that might very well be consistent with DAO, her legs were bare in her leather armor so who knows.

 Of course, there are a number of possibilities why she doesn't appear in some type of leather armor in DA2

1. That was in fact her kinky leather outfit for the Pearl and other such establishments
2. She left her armor on the ship when it sank and has no money to replace it.
3. She wanted a new look
4. Any other reason you can think of

Modifié par Qset, 29 novembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[Maria Caliban]

joriandrake wrote...

(because a "what?" or "lolwut" comment just feels too less, too late as reaction by now)

If you're having difficulty understanding what I've said, feel free to ask for a more detailed response.

As you're response is 'lolwut,' I'm going to assume that you're not familiar with media studies, gender theory, or other subjects that deal with now cultural norms are created and maintained or how individuals react to them.

I'll try again and this time I'll be more specific and, hopefully, clear.

Each culture has an ideal of attractiveness. Right now, men with hairless chests and bodies tend to be considered attractive. This hasn't always been the case. Tom Selleck was once considered a very sexy dude.

Now, imagine you're a straight woman or a gay man. You've probably been attracted to men who've had hairy chests. Maybe you don't like them as much as smooth chests or maybe you like them much, much more.

Likewise, if you're a straight guy, you might not see body hair as attractive, but you probably think it's pretty natural and you might even associate it with a sort of rugged, positive masculinity.

Culture says "smooth chests on guys = attractive" but for straight men and women and gay guys, culture will have to balance with personal experience and preferences.

Not so for gay women. In fact, their personal preferences and experiences will probably count against hairy chests.

Better?

[joriandrake]

my comment wasn't a reply to your post, just an overall "eh the thread is doomed" reaction which conclusion I reached circa at the time I read up to your post

[Aermas]

Il Divo, I have seen a man shoot a Colt Peacemaker Revolver so fast, it sounded like a semi-auto. So firing three arrows is plausable, not everyone can do it but some can.



How do you know that I"m not crusading for other realistic elements in Dragon Age? I just chose armor first because to me it is the biggest issue. One this at a time, pick your battles.



Mages should wear armor unless I hear something in the lore that prohibits them from doing so.

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

Mages should wear armor unless I hear something in the lore that prohibits them from doing so.

Wearing armor generates fatigue, which cuts down on the spells you can cast. Not to mention you need a high strength to wear armor.

And don't tell me how wimps can wear armor in real life. In Thedas, you need to be able to bench press cows before you can wear massive armor.

[Johnny Chaos]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Not being attracted to men I probably just dont get it.

In my experience, lesbians are uniformly bad at judging the attractiveness of men, worse than straight dudes even, and so rely on the cultural default for attractiveness. Varric is short, squat, and hairy, and culture says this is what a good looking guy is. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the tastes of straight women in general or specifically.

when i flex lesbians turn straight........

[Atakuma]

Johnny Chaos wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Not being attracted to men I probably just dont get it.

In my experience, lesbians are uniformly bad at judging the attractiveness of men, worse than straight dudes even, and so rely on the cultural default for attractiveness. Varric is short, squat, and hairy, and culture says this is what a good looking guy is. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the tastes of straight women in general or specifically.

when i flex lesbians turn straight........

You wish

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Each culture has an ideal of attractiveness. Right now, men with hairless chests and bodies tend to be considered attractive. This hasn't always been the case. Tom Selleck was once considered a very sexy dude. 

Now, imagine you're a straight woman or a gay man. You've probably been attracted to men who've had hairy chests. Maybe you don't like them as much as smooth chests or maybe you like them much, much more.

Likewise, if you're a straight guy, you might not see body hair as attractive, but you probably think it's pretty natural and you might even associate it with a sort of rugged, positive masculinity.

Culture says "smooth chests on guys = attractive" but for straight men and women and gay guys, culture will have to balance with personal experience and preferences.

The really weird thing about this is that the culture can have an ideal without anything like a majority of the individuals in that culture sharing that ideal.