1309 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

People are rarely this simplistic.  I know my mom was generally more concerned that people would see her as being a bad parent than worrying I'd actually get into trouble if I attracted a bunch of looks.  Motivations can be very complicated and multi-layered.

Hmm that still seems to just add something on top of the basic reasoning rather than change it (they will think she's a **** -> she'll get in trouble -> people will think i'm bad parent) so as such i don't think it's a real counterpoint. In any case that's getting pretty generic.

Although now it does make me wonder if mama Hawke will comment if someone strips Hawke down to underwear in the opening sequence...

[Stick668]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dialogue and actions can tell you everything you need to know about a character, so the developers saying that we need their outfits to express their personality is like saying we can't understand these characters without visual cues.

I would like to refer you to a couple of other media known as "theatre" and "movies".

Unless you're of the opinion that the basic mime artist ensemble is everything an actor needs.
In which case, your argument makes perfect sense.

Modifié par Stick668, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually if you take into account why their outfit would make others think the mother is a bad parent it's not as complicated as you make it out to be.

Oooh yes it is.  Because there are plenty of people out there who would equally believe my mom was a bad parent if I went around looking like a butch lesbian all the time.  (Which is closer to how I actually look, and my mom really dislikes that, too.  Hell, my GRANDMOTHER is always trying to get me to dress "more like a woman" and wear makeup and stuff, and since she IS catholic you can fairly well assume that isn't because she WANTS me to have men climbing down my pants.)

They want me to fit what they consider the appropriate norms, and since the "norms" as they see them are neither ****ty nor butch, but have evolved over a lengthy period of really complex interconflicts between all sorts of competing views, you can't oversimplify this way.  You always end up leaving out something important when you try.

[The Big Nothing]

Here is what I know: the majority of posters have never seen actual combat, myself included, so to claim which load-out is the most efficient is ridiculous. I know that being lightweight and agile has its advantages over being armored and strong, and vice versa. Did the Vietcong wear armor? No. Was that impractical? Well, they won the Vietnam war, so...

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:28 .

[Liablecocksman]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes because Isabela is going to be climbing walls, climbing under barbed wire, jumping from helicopoters and trasking through the jungle for years on a reconissane mission.

Why should we expect the characters to know they're in a Bioware game and pitched battle after pitched battle is what they're in for?

You mean like people who joined the Warden in DA:O didn't have clue what they were in for?
"We are stopping a blight here, dudes and dudettes"
"Oh, I see, will there be combat then?"
"Maybe, I guess"


Also, PsychoBlonde - while I've enjoyed and silentely agreed with posts of yours in others threads, I'm going to have to call quits here, since you are agreeing with me, but somehow still argue.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Liable****sman wrote...

Also, PsychoBlonde - while I've enjoyed and silentely agreed with posts of yours in others threads, I'm going to have to call quits here, since you are agreeing with me, but somehow still argue.

Is cool, I can see how the way I argue can be headache-inducing if you ain't used to it, especially since I have this tendency of arguing with multiple people simultaneously.  It's fun for me, not so much for everyone else.

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes because Isabela is going to be climbing walls, climbing under barbed wire, jumping from helicopoters and trasking through the jungle for years on a reconissane mission.

Why should we expect the characters to know they're in a Bioware game and pitched battle after pitched battle is what they're in for? 

Because according to BW when we meet her her ship's been wrecked. I'd expect her to be stealig (like usual) and people tend to charge at people who steal with pointy sticks.

[Ryzaki]

Ignore

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:37 .

[Piecake]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Here is what I know: the majority of posters have never seen actual combat, myself included, so to claim which load-out is the most efficient is ridiculous. I know that being lightweight and agile has its advantages over being armored and strong, and vice versa. Did the Vietcong wear armor? No. Was that impractical? Well, they won the Vietnam war, so...

Thats a pretty poor example, since, well, machine guns and all

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Are you serious? You're saying Isabela a woman who is very sexual and flaunts it is wearing the outfit for some other reason?

No, I'm rather saying that it's not as one-dimensional as "she's a **** and Bioware included her in the game so it'll sell well with stupid drooling fratboys", just as in real life women who dress up this way are not universally "****s" or looking to sell themselves to stupid drooling fratboys.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

Because according to BW when we meet her her ship's been wrecked. I'd expect her to be stealig (like usual) and people tend to charge at people who steal with pointy sticks.

So... where did she steal her battle-ready armor?

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes because Isabela is going to be climbing walls, climbing under barbed wire, jumping from helicopoters and trasking through the jungle for years on a reconissane mission.

Did she know that when she picked out her outfit?

[Ryzaki]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Are you serious? You're saying Isabela a woman who is very sexual and flaunts it is wearing the outfit for some other reason?

No, I'm rather saying that it's not as one-dimensional as "she's a **** and Bioware included her in the game so it'll sell well with stupid drooling fratboys", just as in real life women who dress up this way are not universally "****s" or looking to sell themselves to stupid drooling fratboys.

Considering they had Miranda dress that way who it wasn't even in character for I'm inclineded to go with the "selling to stupid drooling fanboys." 

Anyways Isabela seems to like being noticed so that could play a large part in it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:40 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...



Because according to BW when we meet her her ship's been wrecked. I'd expect her to be stealig (like usual) and people tend to charge at people who steal with pointy sticks.

So... where did she steal her battle-ready armor?

Yes because we all know stealing gold can't buy you armor. {smilie}

[Ryzaki]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes because Isabela is going to be climbing walls, climbing under barbed wire, jumping from helicopoters and trasking through the jungle for years on a reconissane mission.

Did she know that when she picked out her outfit?

The woman is a pirate not a Navy Seal. <_< Nor an assassin.

She would've expected most likely being on the sea perhaps having to run away from someone who found her and at worst having to actually fight. (Better to not get hit at all).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Piecake]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Are you serious? You're saying Isabela a woman who is very sexual and flaunts it is wearing the outfit for some other reason?

No, I'm rather saying that it's not as one-dimensional as "she's a **** and Bioware included her in the game so it'll sell well with stupid drooling fratboys", just as in real life women who dress up this way are not universally "****s" or looking to sell themselves to stupid drooling fratboys.

She could be a flirt and wear revealing outfits because she enjoys manipulating men and the power it gives her over weak-minded, horny men.  I would imagine that kind of power and having everyone's eye on you be confidence boosting and ego stroking as well.  I wouldnt call that type of character a ****, more like a manipulative tease

Modifié par Piecake, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Considering they had Miranda dress that way who it wasn't even in character for I'm inclineded to go with the "selling to stupid drooling fanboys." 

Beats me, I didn't play ME2--and I'm also not stating that I know for sure they're NOT trying to do SOMETHING to sell to the "stupid drooling fratboy" demographic--they have money after all.  I'm just saying that assuming one definitive reason on one bit of evidence that could be interpreted MANY different ways is silly, especially if you're going to go off on a rant about it and how sexist Bioware is etc. etc. etc.

Why assume stuff that's just going to ****** you off and color your perceptions of stuff you might otherwise like?  Much better to assume positive intent until you hear the bad stuff straight from the horse's mouth.

[Ryzaki]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Considering they had Miranda dress that way who it wasn't even in character for I'm inclineded to go with the "selling to stupid drooling fanboys." 

Beats me, I didn't play ME2--and I'm also not stating that I know for sure they're NOT trying to do SOMETHING to sell to the "stupid drooling fratboy" demographic--they have money after all.  I'm just saying that assuming one definitive reason on one bit of evidence that could be interpreted MANY different ways is silly, especially if you're going to go off on a rant about it and how sexist Bioware is etc. etc. etc.

Why assume stuff that's just going to ****** you off and color your perceptions of stuff you might otherwise like?  Much better to assume positive intent until you hear the bad stuff straight from the horse's mouth.

I went on a how sexist BW is rant? 

The only one here I"ve seen ranting is you.

And I find it's better to assue negative so I can be pleasantly surprised in the rare event that it ends up positive.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[The Big Nothing]

Piecake wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

Here is what I know: the majority of posters have never seen actual combat, myself included, so to claim which load-out is the most efficient is ridiculous. I know that being lightweight and agile has its advantages over being armored and strong, and vice versa. Did the Vietcong wear armor? No. Was that impractical? Well, they won the Vietnam war, so...

Thats a pretty poor example, since, well, machine guns and all

Still, you would think that the VC would wear something a little more bullet-resistant. And how about Banzai warriors in WW2? Melee with little-to-no armor.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

I went on a how sexist BW is rant? 

The second-person plural pronoun is the same in English as the second-person singular pronoun.  "You" doesn't necessarily mean "You specifically".  I could say "yawl", but that offends my desire to at least attempt proper spelling.

[AlanC9]

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. 

That's what I thought Miranda's ME2 outfit was supposed to be, actually. All those hexagonal plates, etc. Form-fitting because it's made specifically for her.

Still doesn't explain no helmet or the scoop front, but I didn't think it was that bad.

[PsychoBlonde]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Still, you would think that the VC would wear something a little more bullet-resistant. And how about Banzai warriors in WW2? Melee with little-to-no armor.

It wasn't like American soldiers wore bullet-resistant gear until recently when Kevlar body armor became fairly common.  Armor is heavy and tiring and often not worthwhile in long campaigns where the main method of transit is your own two feet.  This is why there's a historical cycle between people going into battle armored or not armored.  You'll have periods where heavy armor = battlefield superiority, and periods where sneaky bollocks with nasty long-ranged weapons = battlefield superiority, and all sorts of complex combinations of the two.

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The second-person plural pronoun is the same in English as the second-person singular pronoun.  "You" doesn't necessarily mean "You specifically".  I could say "yawl", but that offends my desire to at least attempt proper spelling.

This is why I don't have a problem having picked up "ya'll" after living in Virgina.  The second person plural is damn useful!

[Ziggeh]

The Big Nothing wrote...

And how about Banzai warriors in WW2? Melee with little-to-no armor.

I try to avoid realism debates, but, what? You're saying Isabella's "armour" is fine because she's making suicide attacks?

This conversation has gone wierd places.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[Piecake]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Piecake wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

Here is what I know: the majority of posters have never seen actual combat, myself included, so to claim which load-out is the most efficient is ridiculous. I know that being lightweight and agile has its advantages over being armored and strong, and vice versa. Did the Vietcong wear armor? No. Was that impractical? Well, they won the Vietnam war, so...

Thats a pretty poor example, since, well, machine guns and all

Still, you would think that the VC would wear something a little more bullet-resistant. And how about Banzai warriors in WW2? Melee with little-to-no armor.

Was Kevlar even invented in 1970 or any other material that could sufficiently stop a bullet?  I dont remember the US army wearing any armor either