1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

tmp7704 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

I agree, the obvious conclusion seems to be, in order to avoid the unavoidable sexualization make them wear nothing at all

Brilliant!

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I'd say it's the difference between "hey, check out my legs!" and "you can check out my legs, but be aware that I can stomp you into oblivion".

But adding the threat doesn't make the invitation itself to check out the legs any more subtle, does it? 

edit: mind you, i suspect main reason Isabela's boots are low-heeled is either because even the designers realized giving it high heel would go well beyond the ridiculous... or it's simply due to fixed height of characters requirement -- putting Isabela's on high heels would require either making her legs shorter to preserve overall shape of the rig, or redoing all animations specifically for her.

Maybe not more subtle, but it certainly changes the character of the invitation, from "oo, hope you like what you see" to "like what you see?  Well, I'd better like something I see (or hear) too, or YOU ain't gettin' THAT." *z-snap*, which is a more subtle declaration.  It emphasizes that she has independence and power of her own and that you're getting to see leg because SHE decided she wants it that way and not because she's hoping YOU will like it that way.

And I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for the design decisions, but it's not appropriate to attempt to psychoanalyze the artists/art director.  Take it for what it is.

[PsychoBlonde]

Atakuma wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

I agree, the obvious conclusion seems to be, in order to avoid the unavoidable sexualization make them wear nothing at all

Brilliant!

PB approves +15<3

[Adhin]

Ahh sorta true on the scaling thing there Phsyco, but its not that bad in NWN2. But then the 'art direction' and overall look of that game isn't.. exactly something I liked. It all felt to barby-doll stiff so I guess I was less bugged by it for some reason. Also the 'cape in a tornado' when you glance left/right was hilarious, I never used cloaks... ever. That all aside, a minor height change, doesn't have to be drastic or anything would be nice to see. Few inches in either direction can easily give a more varied appearance with out hitting crazy extremes. That's what Dwarves, Elves and Qunari are for - right?

Modifié par Adhin, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:13 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Adhin wrote...
Few inches in either direction can easily give a more varied appearance with out hitting crazy extremes.

Erm, maybe--but it can also render the whole activity so far on the "not worth it" scale as to militate against bothering with it at all.  I mean, as you said, they already HAVE elves/dwarves/qunari to add some variety in.  Why go further and make this fiddly and probably buggy and clipping-issues-inducing body scaling option as well?

I mean, if a kitten gets hurled through a plate glass window when people ask for a TOGGLE, are they hurling tigers through fish tanks when people ask for a new SLIDER?

[Adhin]

Oh yeah I'm not asking for it to be put in, I'm not going to go all crazy person petition here. I was just pointing out for the record they've had in-game model scaling in since Neverwinter Nights 1, not 2. 2 just used it in the full scale. BioWare may of very well left it out entirely in the upgraded engine they now use for DAO (but it was developed from the NWN engine). Think they use a different name now for it too. I'm not 100% sure on this but they may also use it in DAO. The baby Drakes and big Drakes could be 2 separate models, where the Babies they manually scaled down (I mean they're more or less the exact same model as is). But that could easily just be Drake at 10% scale too =P

So for all you or I know - its already implemented and they simply don't use it. I know why most game developers don't use it. Mostly due to animations matching up and it being easier if they know everything's exact height. But in DAO, when your PC can be any of 6 different heights due to Race/Gender, that argument kinda dies off a tad.

And again not saying they should add it or I want them to specifically, just silly they don't when they've had the capability in there engines since NWN days of before 2002 ^.^

[Liablecocksman]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maybe not more subtle, but it certainly changes the character of the invitation, from "oo, hope you like what you see" to "like what you see?  Well, I'd better like something I see (or hear) too, or YOU ain't gettin' THAT." *z-snap*, which is a more subtle declaration.  It emphasizes that she has independence and power of her own and that you're getting to see leg because SHE decided she wants it that way and not because she's hoping YOU will like it that way.

And I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for the design decisions, but it's not appropriate to attempt to psychoanalyze the artists/art director.  Take it for what it is.

You guys are reading way too much into these boots.

Also, what is with the bolded part of your post?
Of course it is because she hopes "you" would like it that way. Why else would she wear such knee-high boots? It's surely not because it's more practical than wearing ankle-high boots, or, on the other hand, wearing pants.

She is quite sexually promiscous, and therefore she likes enticing with knee-high boots.
I'm not talking out of my arse - look at DA:O.
"Would you like to *get to know me better*????" (The player)
"Sure, wanna join, Zevran?" (Isabela)

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Liable****sman wrote...

Of course it is because she hopes "you" would like it that way. Why else would she wear such knee-high boots? It's surely not because it's more practical than wearing ankle-high boots, or, on the other hand, wearing pants.

Are you kidding me?  I know tons of women who dress provocatively (in an aggressive fashion) not because they think guys like it but because they like making guys UNCOMFORTABLE.  (And keep in mind that Thedas has much more Puritan-style culture than even the U.S. in many places.) They don't give a crap about whether you *approve* or not, they're just looking for a reaction of *some* kind.  Plus there's always the "if you've got it, flaunt it" aspect.  Women often dress to affect the perceptions of other WOMEN, too--and are much more likely to care about the perceptions of other women as opposed to men.

Don't assume it's all about you, boys.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Don't assume it's all about you, boys.

I know this isn't precisely what you're talking about - but I'm reminded of this routine by Dave Chappelle.

[Liablecocksman]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

Of course it is because she hopes "you" would like it that way. Why else would she wear such knee-high boots? It's surely not because it's more practical than wearing ankle-high boots, or, on the other hand, wearing pants.

Are you kidding me?  I know tons of women who dress provocatively (in an aggressive fashion) not because they think guys like it but because they like making guys UNCOMFORTABLE.  (And keep in mind that Thedas has much more Puritan-style culture than even the U.S. in many places.) They don't give a crap about whether you *approve* or not, they're just looking for a reaction of *some* kind.  Plus there's always the "if you've got it, flaunt it" aspect.  Women often dress to affect the perceptions of other WOMEN, too--and are much more likely to care about the perceptions of other women as opposed to men.

Don't assume it's all about you, boys.

I'm sorry, how is dressing provocatively to make guys(or girls, or to make other girls jealous) uncomfortable not dressing to make the others "like" it?
If guys didn't like the extremely married womans knee-high boots, or incredible cleavage, they wouldn't be made uncomfortable.

You've rationalised what I wrote just before, and made it even more evident, if I may be so frank.

They want to look good, not necessarily wear what they think is most comfortable.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:37 .

[slimgrin]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Don't assume it's all about you, boys.

http://t0.gstatic.co...ug999nIbHuuRe8z

WHAT!?

[PsychoBlonde]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Don't assume it's all about you, boys.

I know this isn't precisely what you're talking about - but I'm reminded of this routine by Dave Chappelle.

Yes, yes, exactly, that's hilarious.

Keep in mind that in many societies there is a huge package-deal (combining many disparate elements under a single heading) concerning women who exercise personal power/freedom.  Not too many years ago it used to be considered intensely improper for a single woman to be alone in a room with an unrelated male.  When "appropriate" women are expected to be modest/demure/sexually unknowledgeable, also, this turns into a big huge crazy mess.

[Urazz]

Big Blue Car wrote...

Fixed outfits in a fantasy RPG are terrible, especially the ones we've seen.

In ME2 it worked because the outfits had a lot of character and could be justified by sci fi bull**** like hardened skin weaves and built in kinetic shielding. Miranda, Thane, Kasumi and Jack were all partially defined by their distinctive outfits.

Fantasy is different. Magic aside, we recognise leather armour as being lighter but less hard-wearing than plate-mail. Mages wear robes to not muck up their spell casting. It follows physical laws which we understand. So finding a slightly better piece of armour is a big deal to a fantasy character; pimping your crew in badass plate, dragon-skin leather or blood-mage robes is just cool. Removing that takes away from the game.

Plus, here it is, the outfits we've seen are crap. Pirate chick has a white shirt, rich dwarf has basic robes with like a cape, tough girl has a sleeveless vest. Nothing there adds to the character and so all we are left with is a limitation.

Actually, it didn't work in ME2, that is one of the chief complaints is that the squadies don't wear armor when needed.  It's not that they didn't want to wear them to be customizable really but more that it would be more realistic in that they would have to wear a space suit/combat armor in hostile enviroments.

[PsychoBlonde]

Liable****sman wrote...

I'm sorry, how is dressing provocatively to make guys(or girls, or to make other girls jealous) uncomfortable not dressing to make the others "like" it?

I know a number of ladies who dress this way because their excessively Catholic moms just HATE it.  Yes, it confuses the guys.  And don't think we don't like it that way.

[Liablecocksman]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

I'm sorry, how is dressing provocatively to make guys(or girls, or to make other girls jealous) uncomfortable not dressing to make the others "like" it?

I know a number of ladies who dress this way because their excessively Catholic moms just HATE it.  Yes, it confuses the guys.  And don't think we don't like it that way.

EXACTLY.

I have no idea why you started arguing with me, when you are clearly agreeing that woman wear such clothing more for the reaction they get to it, than because they like wearing it.
I'm not saying men don't do stuff like that, but we were discussing Isabelas boots, which are of course meant to be sexy more than practical - Imagine how annoying it must be (leather isn't always exceptionally bendy) to have it cover your knee while you're jumping around, or even squatting like she is in one of the screenshots. It would be very uncomfotable.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

I'm sorry, how is dressing provocatively to make guys(or girls, or to make other girls jealous) uncomfortable not dressing to make the others "like" it?

I know a number of ladies who dress this way because their excessively Catholic moms just HATE it.  Yes, it confuses the guys.  And don't think we don't like it that way.

Hell I consider my wardrobe to be a social experiment. Nothing like getting a funny look for unusual footwear, whether they've gotten the right impression about me from them or not. Then the next day you wear something more conventional... lulz.

Mostly, though... I just love shoes.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Kasen]

I don't particularly mind the companion outfits really, though I hope there are more than just one alternate outfit like in ME2. I'd like to see at least four or five really good and different (i.e. not just recolors of what they have on already) alternate outfits for each companion if they're set on going this route.

I think it does help make each character feel unique, as long as it also remains fitting to the setting (something ME2 was lacking in specific areas that have been discussed many times before).

Modifié par Kasen13, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:53 .

[slimgrin]

Kasen13 wrote...

I don't particularly mind the companion outfits really, though I hope there are more than just one alternate outfit like in ME2. I'd like to see at least four or five really good and different (i.e. not just recolors of what they have on already) alternate outfits for each companion if they're set on going this route.

^This.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[Ryzaki]

Ah yes because we all know wanting someone to look like they're about to go into a fight means you're anti-sexiness.

I mean really?

Though I'm a face person and nearly all the females I've seen in particular Isbela look damn hideous.

It's a sad sad day when the only pretty female is the PC's sister.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah yes because we all know wanting someone to look like they're about to go into a fight means you're anti-sexiness.

If you're suggesting "sexy armor" I'm not sure how that's much better. 

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah yes because we all know wanting someone to look like they're about to go into a fight means you're anti-sexiness.

If you're suggesting "sexy armor" I'm not sure how that's much better. 

???

Where did I say that? <_<

I have no problem with people wearing whatever when we're not having pointy things launching at us.

[PsychoBlonde]

Liable****sman wrote...
EXACTLY.

I'm having serious trouble understanding the point you're trying to make, then.  You may have some misleading misplaced "nots" and so forth in some of your posts.  Make more effort to be clear and you won't get misinterpreted as badly.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

???

Where did I say that? <_<

You didn't. 

Ryzaki wrote...

I have no problem with people wearing whatever when we're not having pointy things launching at us.

Okay.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah yes because we all know wanting someone to look like they're about to go into a fight means you're anti-sexiness.

Well, and keep in mind that "ready to go into a fight" != "ready to go into battle".  A skirmish is not the same thing as a war.

You can be ready to fight pretty much all the time in any clothing, you just may have to seriously adjust your tactics if you ain't wearing your Badass Armor Suit at the time.

[slimgrin]

I think Ryzaki was just advocating practical outfits over stylized ones.