Aller au contenu

Photo

Survey on character appearances and outfits - What do you value? [Link to poll]


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
71 réponses à ce sujet

#1
TheKillerAngel

TheKillerAngel
  • Members
  • 3 608 messages
What do you think is more important: Designing characters' appearances to be unique and memorable, or designing them to be realistic and practical?

I am trying to measure community opinion on the subject of outfit style and preference. Clearly, Ashley's image in GI has sparked anew this debate.

In Mass Effect 1, your squadmates armors were swappable. They were generally practical and realisitic, though each armor set you could choose arguably had little that was unique or memorable. The characters from Mass Effect 1 I strongly associated with their armor are Ashley, Garrus, and Wrex, which is a consequence of me seeing them in so much artwork. I would not be able to think of a memorable outfit sported by Liara, Tali, or Kaidan in Mass Effect 1.

Mass Effect 2 eschews this in favor of memorability and uniqueness. Many characters in Mass Effect 2 have instantly recognizable looks. Jack's tattoos and lack of clothing convey her rebellious attitude, Thane's black jacket signifies his sleek and deadly nature, while Miranda's tight uniform accentuates her figures - which was designed to be perfect. However, many players have argued that these outfits' sacrificed believability to an unacceptable degree.

In this poll, I refrain from using language that favors one side over the other. However, I came up with this very quickly, and if any of you have more experience in survey design and are willing to help me out in this endeavor, I would greatly appreciate it.

http://social.biowar...95/polls/20036/

Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 15 mai 2011 - 10:54 .


#2
TheKillerAngel

TheKillerAngel
  • Members
  • 3 608 messages
What are your thoughts on the question and options? Can they be improved?

#3
hc00

hc00
  • Members
  • 211 messages
IMO totally realistic/practical outfits, which have been slightly personalised by the wearer (ie paintjobs or extra things added) are the best.

Though my opinion is in 3rd place :* Would have thought 2nd.

#4
SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
  • Members
  • 2 512 messages
I'm an old X-Com Player, so in my opinion it's not the armor a character wears that defines the character.

So I'm of the 'strongly desires practical/realistic armor in combat' group. However, out of combat, I don't see any reasons not to have character specific outfits. How subtle this difference is would rely entirely on the character and his/her background, though.

#5
VelvetStraitjacket

VelvetStraitjacket
  • Members
  • 1 110 messages
I strongly prefer unique and memorable appearances, even if they are less realistic or practical.

#6
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages
I vastly prefer more practical/realistic outfits, but I don't see why they can't be both.

The fact is, the way ME2 did it just pulled me out of the game and universe entirely. It seemed like after originally putting in so much effort into crafting a deep, tight and mostly logical sci-fi universe (standard pseudoscience and space magic aside) that it was just flushed down the toilet with a "rule of cool" approach I consider to be immature, pathetic and downright insulting. It cheapens the game, the characters and the universe by throwing consistency and practicality aside for what just seems like trying to be "awesumz! Badass!!1" and appealing to teenagers who love mindless action movies and T&A.

The fact is, you can't go and try and treat the dangers of space as serious one moment and whenever its convenient and then just spit in their face with pathetic, immature moves like this that completely undermine any realism or practicality the next. In the original game they made such an effort it seems to make sure everybody who needed to be was completely sealed and protected, or could be. In ME2 we have a squad who run around, knowing full well they're going out and exploring the dangers of space, and yet galavant around in their pyjamas, nipple-straps and/or high heels. It's just cringingly juvenile and non-sensical, and the only reason it doesn't make a complete farce of the Mass Effect universe as a whole is because we only visit a small amount of places where it would be a real issue. The uninformed will cry "kinetic barriers" often on these forums, but if they knew a lick about the lore they would know that kinetic barriers don't protect against any of the real dangers of visiting uncharted and far-off worlds, and really are just designed to stop incoming projectyles and that's really it.

The thing is, I don't see why outfits can't be both practical and defining. Also, I don't see why squaddies can't have a casual outfit that's more "them" for the Normandy and other safe zones as well as in-the-field gear if need be. 80% of the time you're talking with them they're either on The Normandy or in a safe-zone anyway. ME1 had squaddies wearing their own garb on The Normandy, while they had the armour you gave them on missions. I don't see why ME3 can't (and why ME2 couldn't) have the same style, even if their armour or in-the-field gear can't be selected or customised as much as it was in ME1.

Beyond that, if they must wear something a bit less armoured, at least make it sealable, even if it's only when needed. Miranda and Samara for example could have easily been fixed by simple covering their cleavage and throat and giving them a proper helmet, instead of just having a cheesy and impractical breathing mask. It doesn't take much to just make them air-tight. That said, there's still no explanation as to how they get the full benefits of armour without it, and doing something like that would be something I'd consider a "compromise" rather than an ideal solution. As far as I'm concerned these are a group of people who know they're going into battle and going to dangerous places: not being properly dressed to handle it is akin to an astronaut going into space without his suit, or a fireman battling a fire in shorts and a t-shirt. It's only because the game seems to conveniently ignore the issues that it isn't a problem in the game itself, but it's a huge issue as far as my immersion-factor goes.

To be honest, despite so many having issue with this and pointing out how both lame and impractical the whole thing is, I don't have much hope. I honestly thought BioWare were smarter than to do it in the first place, but they weren't. I would have thought that after so many bringing it up they would have done something to sort it out by now, but LotSB came with Liara still suffering breathing-mask issues, the alt packs came with Miranda getting armour but still with a pathetic breather mask in hostile environments, and the fact that Liara appears in her LotSB garb and the new appearance of Ashley in ME3 don't give much indication that BioWare has learned anything. Not to mention Casey Hudson on Twitter confirming that "space boobs, breathing masks and high heels" would be back. It's sad that as the IP goes on Mass Effect seems to be heading further and further away from classic sci-fi homage with some intelligence, integrity and maturity and into the realms of modern mindless action movie that just doesn't seem to care any more about consistency, realism or IP integrity and too-oft just invokes the rule of cool.

The worst thing of all is that it's not even a gameplay issue at all: having squaddies wear proper gear i no way effects how the game plays. It's purely a style and aesthetic thing, and a juvenile one that condradicts the very style the IP originally claimed to be going for. Mass Effect should be more Blade Runner and less Blade III. I remember Casey Hudson saying that ME2 was largely about trying to make an incredibly immersive experience, but this factor along with a bunch of other things like giant pop-ups and "Mission Complete" screens just do the complete opposite. I find it incredibly hard to take the universe seriously like this.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 mai 2011 - 01:05 .


#7
ScepticMatt

ScepticMatt
  • Members
  • 484 messages
Both. But at least, let them be realistic enough to not be immersion breaking like wearing high-heels in combat.

#8
Vez04

Vez04
  • Members
  • 4 266 messages

ScepticMatt wrote...

Both. But at least, let them be realistic enough to not be immersion breaking like wearing high-heels in combat.


Pretty much this.

#9
GodWood

GodWood
  • Members
  • 7 954 messages

Terror_K wrote...
I vastly prefer more practical/realistic outfits, but I don't see why they can't be both.

Essentially this.

Also this thread would probably get more attention if it was in the "Characters and Fan Creations" discussion forum

#10
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages
I perfer helmets on characters when the are in space and in harsh environments. But I also like unique design characters....So it's simple....Jack can be topless unless it's in a place that dose not burn her skin off, burn eyes out, or make her an ice sculpture.

#11
Silrian

Silrian
  • Members
  • 170 messages
The problem here is that realism is not in fact realism. There's hardly anything REALLY realistic about these games (and don't get me wrong, I think ME actually is breaking new ground on the territory of believability). A lack of armor can be easily 'realistically' fixed by boosting your shields. Aesthetic changes are so easily implemented. Trinity in the Matrix wore high heels and imo got away with it – then why not Miranda? The fact is, the realism is in my view a lot less important then what it says about the concerning character. What does it say about Miranda that she enters combat on high heels and do we on the consumer-end think that fits her character in a believable way – in other words is the decision on her part a believable one in-game? With Miranda I'd eventually say yes. If Ashley started to wear high heels in combat, I'd definitely say no. Not because it's not realistic, but because it's not believable with regards to what the character him/herself would actually chose. Other example: Jack. I would never walk around the galaxy half nude, but maybe she has confidence in her shields? Or her incredible biotics? Or maybe she's just an arrogant dumb b****? As long as it's believable that that character acts so and so, the actual physical realism is quite irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You can't really value realism over Aesthetics, because at the core there is no realism to speak off. You can only discuss believability within a certain aesthetic frame.

So with that in mind, it's not until we see how ME3 unfold on this issue wether we can judge if characters' choices evolved believable (with the exception of a few like Garrus, but he didn't really change a lot).

#12
corporal doody

corporal doody
  • Members
  • 6 037 messages

dreman9999 wrote...

I perfer helmets on characters when the are in space and in harsh environments. But I also like unique design characters....So it's simple....Jack can be topless unless it's in a place that dose not burn her skin off, burn eyes out, or make her an ice sculpture.




THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's why i picked the median choice.

#13
TheCrakFox

TheCrakFox
  • Members
  • 743 messages
Both.
Just because they're wearing armour doesn't mean it can't be iconic and instantly recognisable. The armour could even be customisable like Shepard's in ME2, it doesn't matter what you do to it you can always still tell that it's N7 armour.
And they should definately be properly sealed against the environment when neccessary.

#14
DieBySword

DieBySword
  • Members
  • 84 messages
well im fine with them wearing what they want on the normandy and normal planets. The tech are wearing medium/heavy armor anyway and the biotics are wearing something like a light armor or they are sure they biotic bariers will hold so its fine with me. But open space and harsh worlds they should at least have closed suits without naked body showing and helmets on and not just breather masks.

#15
TheConfidenceMan

TheConfidenceMan
  • Members
  • 244 messages
Practical/realistic. I don't really care what people are wearing around the ship, but a shore party should be equipped properly, that means not going into combat missions in casualwear.

#16
Tamahome560

Tamahome560
  • Members
  • 934 messages
Both equally.

Modifié par Tamahome560, 15 mai 2011 - 02:00 .


#17
Chaos Gate

Chaos Gate
  • Members
  • 186 messages
Both, but leaning slightly more towards the practical and the realistic.

I dunno, I just found many of the outfits in ME2 to be quite corny. Silrian made some decent points, but I still think that running into a gunfight with barely anything on (ala Jack), or in high heels and a catsuit (such as Miranda) is abit silly.

#18
JakePT

JakePT
  • Members
  • 477 messages
Mass Effect fans have a very strange idea of what constitutes 'realism'.

For some reason that completely escapes me they seem to think that Shepard's ridiculously bulky armor is somehow more 'realistic' than Miranda's skimpy jumpsuit. They're both equally ridiculous! There's nothing at all realistic about 'Heavy Armor' in the ME universe. Look at any picture of a modern soldier, they aren't wearing a futuristic version of Medieval plate armor. They're using much more efficient, light and flexible materials. I don't see them wearing pauldrons or helms.

This silly notion is probably due to the significant cross-fandom between sci-fi and fantasy which has given them a notion that heavy medieval plate armor is cooler or more realistic, despite the fact it was designed for a completely different kind of fighting with different weapons.

Obviously Mass Effect's combat and technology is very different to todays, but I still fail to see how that justifies armor technology and design reverting to 15th century Europe.

#19
Black Raptor

Black Raptor
  • Members
  • 1 114 messages
Give them decent armour to take out on the battlefield, but also have more times when you aren't in a fight and they can wear something more elegant.

#20
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Chaos Gate wrote...

Both, but leaning slightly more towards the practical and the realistic.

I dunno, I just found many of the outfits in ME2 to be quite corny. Silrian made some decent points, but I still think that running into a gunfight with barely anything on (ala Jack), or in high heels and a catsuit (such as Miranda) is abit silly.

On the issue on that.....The heels I understand being seen as point less, but the hate on the catsuit.....

Posted Image
It's like eveyone forgot the skin tight light armors you wear in ME1. They are just like Miranda's suit.

#21
mattylee10

mattylee10
  • Members
  • 211 messages
Can we not just have unique outfits on board ship or in hub areas, and more practical armour/environment suits in combat areas.

#22
Silrian

Silrian
  • Members
  • 170 messages

Chaos Gate wrote...

Both, but leaning slightly more towards the practical and the realistic.

I dunno, I just found many of the outfits in ME2 to be quite corny. Silrian made some decent points, but I still think that running into a gunfight with barely anything on (ala Jack), or in high heels and a catsuit (such as Miranda) is abit silly.


Thanks for the credit. I agree with you in that I at first was also like okaaaay somebody screamed "more sex appeal" when they made this. But I actually have more trouble with the 'genetically perfect' excuse to just make one hell of a hot assisting character, then her wearing high heels. The whole "shields" factor kind of excuses a lot of armor issues wether we like it or not. Your opinion that it's 'silly' is again an aesthetic argument at the core, not an argument about realism (which is fine, just for the record). Though come to think of it, Miranda would be completely screwed against someone with disrupter ammo.

#23
theSteeeeeels

theSteeeeeels
  • Members
  • 72 messages
realistic and pratical

its more immsersive, seeing shepard run around in armour whilst your team mates are wearing silly outfits is stupid. characters should be unique in dialogue and personality, not by their clothes. plus should should also have their own personal clothes when onboard the normandy at quiet times.

#24
Art3m

Art3m
  • Members
  • 365 messages
ME started as deep workout realistic sci fi. In me2 it downgraded to pop fiction action. Return to the roots is my choice. Practical and realistic staff that's what i say.

#25
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

JakePT wrote...

Mass Effect fans have a very strange idea of what constitutes 'realism'.

For some reason that completely escapes me they seem to think that Shepard's ridiculously bulky armor is somehow more 'realistic' than Miranda's skimpy jumpsuit.They're both equally ridiculous! There's nothing at all realistic about 'Heavy Armor' in the ME universe. Look at any picture of a modern soldier, they aren't wearing a futuristic version of Medieval plate armor. They're using much more efficient, light and flexible materials. I don't see them wearing pauldrons or helms.

This silly notion is probably due to the significant cross-fandom between sci-fi and fantasy which has given them a notion that heavy medieval plate armor is cooler or more realistic, despite the fact it was designed for a completely different kind of fighting with different weapons.

Obviously Mass Effect's combat and technology is very different to todays, but I still fail to see how that justifies armor technology and design reverting to15th century Europe.


Not when you think about it. Armour in Mass Effect is designed for harsh, unknown and unpredictable environments and operating in space, which means it's not just armour but also doubles as a space suit, environmental suit, hazmat suit, survival suit, etc. as well. It was designed to be hardy and durable to survive not just bullets, but rough terrain, radiation, toxins/acids, extreme temperatures, etc. Modern military only have to deal with what's on the Earth, not strange planets, and usually switch to other specialty outfits when dealing with specific issues, while the armour in Mass Effect also handles them in most cases (as I listed above). A few comments and notes in ME1 seem to suggest that the difference between wearing bulkier armour over lighter stuff (or none) is the difference between a few minor holes being put in you and being shredded on the inside with a nice large exit wound to boot (I can't remember the lines exactly, but there's some banter between Ashley and Kaidan specifically regarding this where he comments on asari commandos and Ashley talks about why she'd prefer to stick with heavier armour).

dreman9999 wrote...

On the issue on that.....The heels I understand being seen as point less, but the hate on the catsuit.....

Posted Image
It's like eveyone forgot the skin tight light armors you wear in ME1. They are just like Miranda's suit.


Aside from having some light plating, the other factors the armour has are that it's properly sealed when a helmet is on, and on the back has the same power supply, oxygen source, etc. that the heavier variants have. Given what Miranda and some of the others are wearing, there's no explanation at all as to where their oxygen is coming from (In ME1 a tube plugged into the back of the armour from the helmet. To make matters worse in ME2 the breathing masks aren't even attached to anything... they're just some plasticy looking stuff that covers the nose and mouth.) and for non biotics no indication as to where their kinetic barriers are coming from or how they're being powered. On top of that the lore that explains the reasoning behind the health regen in ME2 specifically states that this is related to medigel pockets within new sets of armour, so I have to wonder where exactly our squaddies are getting this magical medigel in certain cases. Seems to me that in Miranda and Samara's cases they're probably getting their air and medigel from their boobs or something, because there's pretty much nowhere else on their suits that could store it that I can see.

Silrian wrote...



The
whole "shields" factor kind of excuses a lot of armor issues wether we like it or not. Your opinion that it's 'silly' is again an aesthetic argument at the core, not an argument about realism (which is fine, just for the record).


*sigh* To quote myself... in this very topic no less... less than a few hours ago...

Terror_K wrote...

The uninformed will cry "kinetic barriers" often on these forums, but if they knew a lick about the lore they would know that kinetic barriers don't protect against any of the real dangers of visiting uncharted and far-off worlds, and really are just designed to stop incoming projectyles and that's really it.


If you need further clarification, Mass Effect's own lore states directly from The Codex in both games that both kinetic and biotic barriers (i.e. shields) do not (I repeat, NOT) protect users from the effects of extreme temperatures, pressure, radiation, toxins, gases, etc. and all the other dangers of space exploration. They are designed and function only to stop high projectyle objects from hitting their wearer... that's it! They are made to stop mass effect weapons from hitting you and doing you harm... they are not designed to protect you against the elements, and they do not do so.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 mai 2011 - 02:47 .