338 réponses à ce sujet

[Oopsieoops]

Blue Face Beast wrote...
And i still want magical g-strings for my party. G-strings with force fields. Better than any standard full plate mail ever.

Seems like X-Blades is your type of game. That's a surprisingly fun game actually. Anyway, what people mean when they say 'realism' isn't really "like it happened in reality". So it's really irrelevant that there weren't women knights in our world. I honestly don't think it's hard to understand that eg not requiring 3+ hours to put a plate armor on, or having characters walking around in them for hours without crumbling from fatigue is a lot more realistic than having armored g-strings.

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 25 mai 2011 - 07:09 .

[the_one_54321]

Realism in a fantasy setting is 100% relative. The only thing people are saying is "I want what I want." There is no further justification for any of it other than that.

[Oopsieoops]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Realism in a fantasy setting is 100% relative. The only thing people are saying is "I want what I want." There is no further justification for any of it other than that.

100%? Really? That's a cheap cop-out if I ever saw any. No insult indended though.

[the_one_54321]

Oopsieoops wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Realism in a fantasy setting is 100% relative. The only thing people are saying is "I want what I want." There is no further justification for any of it other than that.

100%? Really? That's a cheap cop-out if I ever saw any. No insult indended though.

Just had this conversation some pages back. What constitutes "reality" in the game is entirely up to the writers. Take any "realistic" rule and if the writers want something to function outside of that rule then it does. All that really matters is that they explain or shadow over their reasoning for that properly so that it doesn't create a break in the disbelief of the player.

[Teredan]

this thread creeps the hell out of me...

[Mwah]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Second of all, however egocentrically you want to play your game in your own basement is not our concern. But if you insist on playing it that way (which is generally not how most ppl play RPGs), I suggest you go back to your basement and play it.  The moment you decided to, on a public forum, rub your opinion in ppl's faces, it stopped being a private affair. Disregard for PCness only works if you have a valid, formed opinion beyond the "I like it" self-absorbance.

How do you know how most people play RPGs?  Have you done an extensive study?  Peeped in many windows?  You make it sound as if the way you play games should be the only acceptable way to play them and us "basement" dwellers should just sod off.  I'm sorry, but that's not how the world works.  The real world, btw.

"I like it" is just as valid of an opinion as any other.  In fact, it's the simplest, the least abrasive, the least judgemental... and sometimes that's all that needs to be said.

I like it.  I also like cheese, and I will happily defend my liking of cheese to any of you cheese-haters.

 

[Pasquale1234]

Blue Face Beast wrote...

FYI Joan of Arc, which i mentionned above is ONE woman. Maybe the only woman ever known to have wore armour and fought in an actual real war. I do not deny this. On the contrary, it only shows how rare it ever was and i doubt Joan of Arc ever spent over 15 years training into warfare mastery like most young male nobles had to.

Joan simply was the exception, i am still waiting to learn about all the tousand other women who carried swords and wore armors in medieval era. Where are they? Know any names? And what of their armors? Had they armors especially crafted for them?

I don`t think so. Truth is women in armors and fighting like men during medieval era is pure fantasy. But DA2 is a fantasy game so it is all good. Let`s just not insist too much on realism thought... There is nothing real in DA2.

http://www.lothene.o...hers/women.html

[the_one_54321]

Mwah wrote...
I also like cheese, and I will happily defend my liking of cheese to any of you cheese-haters.

Now you've done it.

[88mphSlayer]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Realism in a fantasy setting is 100% relative. The only thing people are saying is "I want what I want." There is no further justification for any of it other than that.

100%? Really? That's a cheap cop-out if I ever saw any. No insult indended though.

Just had this conversation some pages back. What constitutes "reality" in the game is entirely up to the writers. Take any "realistic" rule and if the writers want something to function outside of that rule then it does. All that really matters is that they explain or shadow over their reasoning for that properly so that it doesn't create a break in the disbelief of the player.

my vision for dragon age 3

[Drachasor]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Blue Face Beast wrote...

FYI Joan of Arc, which i mentionned above is ONE woman. Maybe the only woman ever known to have wore armour and fought in an actual real war. I do not deny this. On the contrary, it only shows how rare it ever was and i doubt Joan of Arc ever spent over 15 years training into warfare mastery like most young male nobles had to.

Joan simply was the exception, i am still waiting to learn about all the tousand other women who carried swords and wore armors in medieval era. Where are they? Know any names? And what of their armors? Had they armors especially crafted for them?

I don`t think so. Truth is women in armors and fighting like men during medieval era is pure fantasy. But DA2 is a fantasy game so it is all good. Let`s just not insist too much on realism thought... There is nothing real in DA2.

http://www.lothene.o...hers/women.html

To say nothing of the fact that just because DA's setting has more women warriors and there is magic doesn't suddenly make non-magical bare skin able to deflect swords.  Striving for realism in this and other regards increases the immersion factor of an RPG, which IS quite important.

[the_one_54321]

88mphSlayer wrote...
my vision for dragon age 3

Do you really think that a fantasy writer can't take any rule of reality and just say "this doesn't apply anymore" and make it work inside of a story? Really?

[88mphSlayer]

the_one_54321 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
my vision for dragon age 3

Do you really think that a fantasy writer can't take any rule of reality and just say "this doesn't apply anymore" and make it work inside of a story? Really?

Metal Gear Solid 2 anybody?

while they're at it tho, can we put pokemon in dragon age 3 and make catsith the main character? throw in some steampunk robots for good measure

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 25 mai 2011 - 07:44 .

[the_one_54321]

88mphSlayer wrote...
Metal Gear Solid 2 anybody?

You've lost me.

Anyway, you could come up with 100 examples of story elements you didn't like and for each of those examples there will be people that did like it. It's all 100% relative.

[Nozybidaj]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Also there is a concept of modesty in Thedas, much like the real world. Hence female warriors in G strings makes no sense at all.

I bet Isabella wears a G string under her pants.  Oh wait, she doesn't wear pants.....

[Mwah]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Just because it's a fantasy game, doesn't mean you can get away with anything. There's something called immersion and this is broken if the game world doesn't stick to it's own rules. In DA lore, a sword will kill just as effectively as in real life...

This isn't entirely true.  There are several moments in the game where swords don't do a very good job at killing at all.  I have a specific scene in mind that always makes me chuckle, but spoilers are no-nos.

I guess my point is that everyone accepts a certain amount unrealism in these games, the degree of which varies from person to person.  You sort of have to.  Nitpicking would just take all the enjoyment out of playing. 

[Haexpane]

aduellist wrote...

 



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

Thread PWNED!


http://t3.gstatic.co...l4tNhykx1yE&t=1

[the_one_54321]

Mwah wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Just because it's a fantasy game, doesn't mean you can get away with anything. There's something called immersion and this is broken if the game world doesn't stick to it's own rules. In DA lore, a sword will kill just as effectively as in real life...

This isn't entirely true.  There are several moments in the game where swords don't do a very good job at killing at all.  I have a specific scene in mind that always makes me chuckle, but spoilers are no-nos.

I guess my point is that everyone accepts a certain amount unrealism in these games, the degree of which varies from person to person.  You sort of have to.  Nitpicking would just take all the enjoyment out of playing.

I agree that the game should always maintain its own internal consistency. When a game fails to do so is when I start to fault it. And in DAII the internal consistency was violated in a number of big ways. But in a game with magic armor and magic weapons and magic spells there is no reason to expect armor to behave exactly as it does in real life.

[88mphSlayer]

the_one_54321 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
Metal Gear Solid 2 anybody?

You've lost me.

Anyway, you could come up with 100 examples of story elements you didn't like and for each of those examples there will be people that did like it. It's all 100% relative.

Kojima invented a lore in MGS1, which was then turned completely upside down in MGS2 to such a huge degree as to turn science-fiction into matrix-style multi-dimensional fantasy

nobody liked it, and Kojima eventually tried retconning all of MGS2 with MGS4

[the_one_54321]

88mphSlayer wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
Metal Gear Solid 2 anybody?

You've lost me.

Anyway, you could come up with 100 examples of story elements you didn't like and for each of those examples there will be people that did like it. It's all 100% relative.

Kojima invented a lore in MGS1, which was then turned completely upside down in MGS2 to such a huge degree as to turn science-fiction into matrix-style multi-dimensional fantasy

nobody liked it, and Kojima eventually tried retconning all of MGS2 with MGS4

Gotcha. But that's not related to "realism" ™. That is related to internal consistency.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

The way I see it, any given fantasy world is filled with knuckle-dragging sword-swingers.  What's my incentive to bring a female warrior onto the team if she isn't smoking hot and willing to show some skin?

[Drachasor]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

The way I see it, any given fantasy world is filled with knuckle-dragging sword-swingers.  What's my incentive to bring a female warrior onto the team if she isn't smoking hot and willing to show some skin?

Perhaps your character isn't a sexist monster?

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Drachasor wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

The way I see it, any given fantasy world is filled with knuckle-dragging sword-swingers.  What's my incentive to bring a female warrior onto the team if she isn't smoking hot and willing to show some skin?

Perhaps your character isn't a sexist monster?

Turns out he is, though.  Wait: and so am I!  What are the odds?  Anyway, neither one of us is really concerned with nodding soberly about scrupulous equality between men and women wearing armor in fantasy games. 

[Drachasor]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

The way I see it, any given fantasy world is filled with knuckle-dragging sword-swingers.  What's my incentive to bring a female warrior onto the team if she isn't smoking hot and willing to show some skin?

Perhaps your character isn't a sexist monster?

Turns out he is, though.  Wait: and so am I!  What are the odds?  Anyway, neither one of us is really concerned with nodding soberly about scrupulous equality between men and women wearing armor in fantasy games. 

Which is a decidedly poor argument to implement sexist armors.

[Nozybidaj]

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

As noted above, you'd have a hard time convincing me that Sonja is not an equally capable and professional warrior.

[the_one_54321]

Drachasor wrote...
Which is a decidedly poor argument to implement sexist armors.

It is the exact same argument as those that don't want them: "I want what I want."