182 réponses à ce sujet

[Seena]

Rockpopple wrote...

Oh I'm not denying that you can have an emotional response to cartoon characters. It happens all the time. Just about every Pixar movie does it.

Um - not the same thing.  At least not for me. Not at all - not even close.

I'm just saying watching cartoon characters have sex doesn't do anything for me. In fact, it has the opposite effect - it always looks silly to me.

But that's just me. I'm aware that many, many people feel differently. Again, I like the way Mass Effect 1 did it - enough sensuality and intimacy without showing too much which would have turned it into a laughing stock. To me, at least.

Maybe it looks silly - because no one has done a good job.

[Seena]

Ringo12 wrote...

Nope men don't get them..>.>

But the characters aren't one dimensional this isn't a shooter. They are more then just "cartoons" to me. We either hate them or like them. Some of us sympathize with them or pity them. Whatever our feelings are we all have some sort of emotion for each character. To me that makes them more then just cartoons. Bioware does do a goob making their characters come alive.

I like the DA2 companions more then Origins. Except Anders and Isabella. I switched them for Shale and Sten or at least a drunk Alistair.

Awww men don't get them?

I feel sorry for you guys - they are nice! 

[Rockpopple]

Really? You never cried at the end of Toy Story 3? You monster, you!

Ah, therein lies the rub. Once someone does a good job with it, believe me, I'll be all over it.

You know... just not in a creepy way.

[Seena]

Rockpopple wrote...

Really? You never cried at the end of Toy Story 3? You monster, you!

Ah, therein lies the rub. Once someone does a good job with it, believe me, I'll be all over it.

You know... just not in a creepy way.

Don't get me wrong -  I'm a sucker for Disney and still blubber when Bambi's mom is killed.

But that isn't really the same thing (for me) as what I feel towards chars in a (well done) game.  In a movie (or show), it's more an emotional response to a situation, rather than a character per se (since you only have what a few hours at most with that character)

Granted there are exceptions - as when Spock died, and Xena was killed.  Those events lead to some serious sup-supping.  But - there was time spent with those chars, years even, so the emotional involvement was on a different level than what would be had in a 2 hour movie.

Modifié par Seena, 19 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[Seena]

And as I think of this more.....



Why is it acceptable to expect and have no issue over a game arousing fear, anger ect......  but not acceptable for a game to arouse us sexually?

Something to ponder....

[Rockpopple]

That's a good question. I really don't have an answer for ya, at least for me. lol. It's just how it is, I guess.

[Chromie]

Seena wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Nope men don't get them..>.>

But the characters aren't one dimensional this isn't a shooter. They are more then just "cartoons" to me. We either hate them or like them. Some of us sympathize with them or pity them. Whatever our feelings are we all have some sort of emotion for each character. To me that makes them more then just cartoons. Bioware does do a goob making their characters come alive.

I like the DA2 companions more then Origins. Except Anders and Isabella. I switched them for Shale and Sten or at least a drunk Alistair.

Awww men don't get them?

I feel sorry for you guys - they are nice! 

And as I think of this more.....



Why is it acceptable to expect and have no issue over a game arousing fear, anger ect...... but not acceptable for a game to arouse us sexually?

Something to ponder....

Oh I understand Anders I find his transformation really tragic. I just don't like him because he's not as fun as he was in Awakening. Now he's all serious!

Isabella... I just don't care for her, She's loose I get it. But come on it's like she was written specifically for the horny male.


And isn't arousing us sexually pornographic  not that I wouldn't mind it in game but...I would prefer a woman to do it instead just saying. Not that the Triss playboy cover isn't hot  >.>  Like in the words of Kevin from the Office "A painting can be beautfiul but I don't wanna bang it"

Modifié par Ringo12, 19 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[Rockpopple]

No no no, Ringo, I'll have to dispute that. You have to get to know Isabela. There really is a more mature and sombre side to her once you take the time to be-friend or be-rival her.

[Chromie]

Rockpopple wrote...

No no no, Ringo, I'll have to dispute that. You have to get to know Isabela. There really is a more mature and sombre side to her once you take the time to be-friend or be-rival her.

I plan to on my next playthrough actually I just never bothered with her...idk first impressions. Just have to finish my Witcher 1 playthrough.

[Statulos]

Ringo12 wrote...

But the characters aren't one dimensional this isn't a shooter. They are more then just "cartoons" to me. We either hate them or like them. Some of us sympathize with them or pity them. Whatever our feelings are we all have some sort of emotion for each character. To me that makes them more then just cartoons. Bioware does do a goob making their characters come alive.

I like the DA2 companions more then Origins. Except Anders and Isabella. I switched them for Shale and Sten or at least a drunk Alistair.

I wish DA2 was as satisfactory as STALKER, and that's a shooter.

[Chromie]

Statulos wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

But the characters aren't one dimensional this isn't a shooter. They are more then just "cartoons" to me. We either hate them or like them. Some of us sympathize with them or pity them. Whatever our feelings are we all have some sort of emotion for each character. To me that makes them more then just cartoons. Bioware does do a goob making their characters come alive.

I like the DA2 companions more then Origins. Except Anders and Isabella. I switched them for Shale and Sten or at least a drunk Alistair.

I wish DA2 was as satisfactory as STALKER, and that's a shooter.

 
I own Stalker SoC, Pripyat and Clear Sky. Not all shooters are the same some are good very few imo. But I wasn't talking about DA2 beinga  good game I was talking about it's character though Stalker has some memorable ones. But a select number of shooters are about the single player component unlike say Call of Duty (which I hate) Crysis and Stalker on the other hand are great.

[Avissel]

Ringo12 wrote...
 I was talking about it's character though Stalker has some memorable ones. But a select number of shooters are about the single player component unlike say Call of Duty (which I hate) Crysis and Stalker on the other hand are great.

...Stalker had characters?

[Seena]

[quote]Ringo12 wrote...





Oh I understand Anders I find his transformation really tragic. I just don't like him because he's not as fun as he was in Awakening. Now he's all serious!

Isabella... I just don't care for her, She's loose I get it. But come on it's like she was written specifically for the horny male.


And isn't arousing us sexually pornographic  not that I wouldn't mind it in game but...I would prefer a woman to do it instead just saying. Not that the Triss playboy cover isn't hot  >.>  Like in the words of Kevin from the Office "A painting can be beautfiul but I don't wanna bang it"   [/quote]


[/quote]

Loose?  - You obvously don't "get her" at all

I'm female - I think she was written with strong, independent, sexually confident women in mind.  In fact - she indimidates and threatens more men it seems than she appeals to.

As for sexually arousing -   you're missing that also.  : )     

Modifié par Seena, 19 avril 2011 - 06:52 .

[AtreiyaN7]

The fact that DA2 had a political story that really focused on people and their flaws, their opposing beliefs, etc. was quite mature as far as I was concerned. I also think that some of the secondary multi-stage quests were well done, and I enjoyed my interaction with the Arishok. I found conversations with him to be reasonably deep and interesting.

[elearon1]

Seena wrote...
I'm female - I think she was written with strong, independent, sexually confident women in mind.  In fact - she indimidates and threatens more men it seems than she appeals to.

As for sexually arousing -   you're missing that also.  : )     

I always got the strong impression that Isabela was inspired by the historical figure of Julia d'Aubigny; especially considering one of the devs made direct reference to La Maupin in a thread discussing Isabela a couple months before release. 

Personally, I find strong, independant and confident women like this very attractive, and loved the character of Isabela for that.  Would I have a long term relationship with her?  Probably not.  I've dated a woman something like her in the past and they tend to cheat, and find nothing wrong with it; they make for fun and exciting friends, and usually are easier to stay friends with after a relationship ends, but keeping them entertained is almost too much for one person. (male or female ... and yes, said ex and I are still friends; in fact, it wasn't her cheating we broke up over - I knew it was an likelihood when I went into the relationship - but, rather the fact that I couldn't keep up with her .... I don't know I've ever met anyone who could)

I find it rather silly so many people complain about her being "loose" as well; sexually free men are almost never criticized for this.  (in fact, they are often admired for it)

[elearon1]

Seena wrote...
For example, I don't know if it's the case when you romance Leliana as a man - but when you do as a woman (which I am btw), just as you kiss her the first time she makes this very soft sigh that is barely audible, and there's the "sound" of a kiss.  That stirred something in me - a response that was both emotional and physical (you know that little "ding" in your lower abdomen - dunno if men get them...).  

Ah man, now I have to go kiss Leliana again to make note of that sound! (yeah, twist my arm)

And men do get that sensation ... at least I do, so unless I'm uncommon so far as men go ... (actually, I am ... but I still suspect this isn't an uncommon physical reaction)

[Seena]

elearon1 wrote...

Seena wrote...
I'm female - I think she was written with strong, independent, sexually confident women in mind.  In fact - she indimidates and threatens more men it seems than she appeals to.

As for sexually arousing -   you're missing that also.  : )     

I always got the strong impression that Isabela was inspired by the historical figure of Julia d'Aubigny; especially considering one of the devs made direct reference to La Maupin in a thread discussing Isabela a couple months before release. 

Personally, I find strong, independant and confident women like this very attractive, and loved the character of Isabela for that.  Would I have a long term relationship with her?  Probably not.  I've dated a woman something like her in the past and they tend to cheat, and find nothing wrong with it; they make for fun and exciting friends, and usually are easier to stay friends with after a relationship ends, but keeping them entertained is almost too much for one person. (male or female ... and yes, said ex and I are still friends; in fact, it wasn't her cheating we broke up over - I knew it was an likelihood when I went into the relationship - but, rather the fact that I couldn't keep up with her .... I don't know I've ever met anyone who could)

I find it rather silly so many people complain about her being "loose" as well; sexually free men are almost never criticized for this.  (in fact, they are often admired for it)

I prefer to avoid statements "women like her in the past and they tend to cheat" (I'm thinking you really meant people, but she, in particular, was a woman... )     People with healthy sexual appetites - are people with healthy sexual appetites.    Personally, I think pretty much anyone, given the right set of circumstances, will "cheat" (sexually) - but that's because I think life long (sexual especially) monagamy is a lie.

Trust me -  when the priests/rabbis etc formalized the institution of marriage - and made it until "death do us part" - people lived on average to what, age 26?

If those old men knew that in few hundred years people would be living to age 70 and 80  - ain't NO WAY marriage would have been a life long committment.

It would have been a three year renewable, with provisions.


ps I'm very familiar with Julia but I like to see Isabela as more of a Grace O'Malley

Modifié par Seena, 19 avril 2011 - 10:30 .

[Seena]

elearon1 wrote...


Ah man, now I have to go kiss Leliana again to make note of that sound! (yeah, twist my arm)

And men do get that sensation ... at least I do, so unless I'm uncommon so far as men go ... (actually, I am ... but I still suspect this isn't an uncommon physical reaction)

I thought they must!

It's very very subtle - I had a 7.1 surround sound Orb Speaker set up when hearing it. but it's definitely there.

[elearon1]

Seena wrote...
I prefer to avoid statements "women like her in the past and they tend to cheat" (I'm thinking you really meant people, but she, in particular, was a woman... )  

Your interpretation here is correct; I never meant to suggest only women behave this way. (but considering I've only ever dated women, in the context the statement was given saying "people" would have seemed odd)

Trust me -  when the priests/rabbis etc formalized the institution of marriage - and made it until "death do us part" - people lived on average to what, age 26?

Actually the average was closer to 40, with some living notably longer. (and, of course, some living to be notably shorter)  I wouldn't go so far as a three year contract, however ... nor for marriage. (after all, the 4 year mark is where most fall apart and is considered the "test" as to whether a marriage will survive)  But "to death do us part" isn't really something our culture is prepared for anymore ... people want shorter commitments with everything, and marriages are just one victim of that.

Modifié par elearon1, 19 avril 2011 - 10:45 .

[Seena]

elearon1 wrote...

Seena wrote...
I prefer to avoid statements "women like her in the past and they tend to cheat" (I'm thinking you really meant people, but she, in particular, was a woman... )  

Your interpretation here is correct; I never meant to suggest only women behave this way. (but considering I've only ever dated women, in the context the statement was given saying "people" would have seemed odd)

Trust me -  when the priests/rabbis etc formalized the institution of marriage - and made it until "death do us part" - people lived on average to what, age 26?

Actually the average was closer to 40, with some living notably longer. (and, of course, some living to be notably shorter)  I wouldn't go so far as a three year contract, however ... nor for marriage. (after all, the 4 year mark is where most fall apart and is considered the "test" as to whether a marriage will survive)  But "to death do us part" isn't really something our culture is prepared for anymore ... people want shorter commitments with everything, and marriages are just one victim of that.

I don't have time to do the proper research - but if you look at the averages of ages in different countries in the 1960s - it was often in the 40s.

http://www.google.co...CHN:CUB:EGY:FRA



Average age several hundreds of years ago, I guarantee you - was in the 20's.   Yes, a very few people made it to advanced age - but that was a rarity.   And to have TWO people make it to an advanced age - well, nigh impossible. (despite what you read in the Old Testament)

Modifié par Seena, 19 avril 2011 - 11:15 .

[Medhia Nox]

Lifespan depends on which age you were in. Ancient Rome was higher than the Dark Ages.

It also depends on region. Today - Japan's lifespan is in the 80s, but some places in Africa it's in the 40s.

[elearon1]

Seena wrote...
Average age several hundreds of years ago, I guarantee you - was in the 20's.   Yes, a very few people made it to advanced age - but that was a rarity.   And to have TWO people make it to an advanced age - well, nigh impossible. (despite what you read in the Old Testament)

Actually, that's a popular misconception.  Being that I was a history major for a number of years, I've had a great deal of exposure to the facts of such things.  The poster previous to this has a point, though, in that it really is a matter of where and when - health conditions were a lot worse in the middle "dark" ages than in the centuries to precede them.  (particularly in the Roman, Greek and Asian empires)

[Seena]

elearon1 wrote...

Seena wrote...
Average age several hundreds of years ago, I guarantee you - was in the 20's.   Yes, a very few people made it to advanced age - but that was a rarity.   And to have TWO people make it to an advanced age - well, nigh impossible. (despite what you read in the Old Testament)

Actually, that's a popular misconception.  Being that I was a history major for a number of years, I've had a great deal of exposure to the facts of such things.  The poster previous to this has a point, though, in that it really is a matter of where and when - health conditions were a lot worse in the middle "dark" ages than in the centuries to precede them.  (particularly in the Roman, Greek and Asian empires)

I will maintain that I am without misconception. : )  My profession is involved with such demographics. : )

But we will agree to disagree. : )

[Merced652]

what involves bad anthropology?

Modifié par Merced652, 20 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[elearon1]

Seena wrote...
I will maintain that I am without misconception. : )  My profession is involved with such demographics. : )

But we will agree to disagree. : )

Considering, if you know anything about history, how often new information changes the "facts" as we accept them - particularly in reference to ancient history (I think most people would be shocked to realize how little we actually know about the Roman empire, dispite how certain we seem when depicting it in the media) - I don't see how we can, in good conscience, do anything but agree to disagree.

While the modern historians I am familiar with support my assertion, one doesn't have to look very far for support of yours either, so who is right really depends on which scholars you are going to listen to.  (which is, mostly, the case for the vast majority of historical scholasticism; it is, in fact, quite the interesting experience discussing women's history with an associate of mine who studied the subject less than a decade previously ... the changes in attitude and "accepted facts" in so short a period are almost mind boggling)