176 réponses à ce sujet

[alex90c]

I'm cool with sexualisation as long as it mixes style with practicality, so say for example if Isabela's outfit had a bit more padding and protection (and pants under that loincloth, good god what the hell was up with having her vag catching a breeze whenever she moved?) thenI wouldn't really be fussed if they kept the cleavage. Sure, it wouldn't make sense, but I can suspend my disbelief, kinda like how Tallis' outfit is.

But chainmail bikinis and the like can stay far

far

far

FAR away from DA thank you very much.

And regarding male sexualisation, then well what is it that the female audience actually wants? I mean Bioware can just throw T&A at the blokes and call it a day, but I've got no idea what girls would like in their DA, lol.

[Firky]

This female audience is not interested in chain*male* bikini in the slightest. Blegh.

Also, I can't see why there is an argument for *more* revealing clothes. I don't have a problem with Isabela being a sexy pirate. She's just a sexy pirate. Aveline was Captain of the Guard, so she wore the Guards non-revealing outfit. It's a balanced and healthy approach to characterisation, surely.

An ironic example. Kings Bounty: Armoured Princess. She aint wearing much armour.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

D.Kain wrote...






As you can see the armor is not practical as some would say, but it is revealing for both men and women alike, so people can't really complain that women are portrayed bad.

I think you'll find that there were quite a few complaints from *men* that their Guild Wars (Nightfall) Paragons couldn't wear pants. For some reason they didn't like seeing their guys prance around in short skirts, and despite their being 12 armour sets for this class, both male and females were forced to wear skirts cut above the knee.

Oh, except for the NPCs. So your companions, with their meagre 3 armour sets were allowed pants, but not you with your vast wardrobe of 12. Ticked a few people off.

Do you think that having these kind of armors in future DA games would solve the problem with people who want revealing armors and people who think it is offensive? 

Here is a poll.

This was an issue in DA?

Because the only thing that really annoyed me about DA2 armour had nothing to do with being revealing/concealing, and simply that there were so few high-tier armour sets (until DLC came out) the game practically forced you into the 'iconic' Champion Armour if you wanted decent protection. I just didn't like being nudged into the same bloody shoes every other player's Hawke was wearing.

[Wulfram]

I prefer simpler, practical looking armour.

[alex90c]

oh, and it just has to be said that after seeing SoLD's link, Guild Wars has some seriously awful looking armour.

This:



and this:



look pretty decent, but everything else on that page is just ick.

Of course, DA:O tried to venture away from the typical spike-fest which consists of practically 99% of other fantasy games' armour, but then DA2 started to actually move towards it. Bleurgh.

Modifié par alex90c, 26 novembre 2011 - 01:31 .

[D.Kain]

Firky wrote...

This female audience is not interested in chain*male* bikini in the slightest. 

You win. 

[whykikyouwhy]

Rojahar wrote...

Before the whole "Lord of the Rings" type fantasy setting became the ONLY kind of fantasy setting, things like Conan the Barbarian or even Greek Mythology were popular, respected, and viable, yet heroes in those settings wore skirts or exposed a LOT of skin. Nobody doubted their masculinity or said it was unrealistic for every single person to not be wearing full platemail head to toe. The "realism" argument is silly, because even in a European setting like Dragon Age, few people could even afford platemail.

But maybe that's the issue right there - masculinity vs. femininity, and how we socially react to both.

We've been conditioned things that men need to flex and show off that which makes them masculine - expose the muscles, wear a loincloth, etc. This was the standard by which heroes used to be measures in entertainment. Go back to the Steve Reeves movies from the 50's - we knew he was full of manly prowess because he showed off the musculature. Nevermind that it may or may not have been practical (Greek myths reborn, so loose fitting tunics and robes would work, but he had no armor. Of course, he often played a demigod...).

With women though, those feminine aspects are to be lauded yet protected. Back to old entertainment as the measurement here, a woman could be scantily clad, but she's not going to be in the fight. She's going to be fought for - she's the prize. The sexy prize that the male hero fights over.

So we come to expect that - when a woman wears skimpy clothing, she's not a fighter. She's an object. Whereas when a man wears skimpy clothing, he's very much a fighter, and is showing you exactly what he is going to fight with. His biceps of steel will crush you.

Which...to bring my rambling back on topic, is why the oversexualized outfits are ridiculous (imo). They do nothing for the character - they do nothing to add richness to the game, let alone practicality, if indeed things are RL practical in a fantasy world.

The exception of course being Isabela - because her outfits fits her character. It fits the needs of a pirate. It fits the needs of a woman who is free spirited, knows she is beautiful, and needs freedom of movement for work on the ship and for fights on deck.

[AlexXIV]

What can I say, I am a fan of sexy clothes for women, and why wouldn't I? But sexy does not necessarily equal nudity or revealing. Actually revealing too much turns out to actually be 'too much' and rather a turn off because it just looks cheap. Alot of modders make this particular mistake. I like when there are 2 kinds of armor sets though, one male and one female which both support their gender physical traits. Meaning female armor should look female, male armor should look male. It's a game so it's not about realism, and I am not bothered if armor pieces seem unrealistic or useless irl.

So in answer to the question, sexy yes, revealing not necessarily. Imo. Whether it is a good idea in general I don't know. Probably depends if games sell better with it or without it. I personally don't base my decision of buying a game on skimpy clothing.

[D.Kain]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

So we come to expect that - when a woman wears skimpy clothing, she's not a fighter. She's an object. Whereas when a man wears skimpy clothing, he's very much a fighter, and is showing you exactly what he is going to fight with. His biceps of steel will crush you.

Well that solely depends on the persons build. A male without big muscle mass would look like an object in skimpy clothes, and a women that has muscles to show wouldn't. 

Object is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you look at this right? 

[mousestalker]

Actually what comes to mind with that drawing is 'big 80s hair', closely followed by 'bad makeup' and then 'while she is dressed for the heat, those cloth triangles won't do her a bit of good if that dragon gets cranky' followed by 'why chains?'

Now you know...

[whykikyouwhy]

D.Kain wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

So we come to expect that - when a woman wears skimpy clothing, she's not a fighter. She's an object. Whereas when a man wears skimpy clothing, he's very much a fighter, and is showing you exactly what he is going to fight with. His biceps of steel will crush you.

Well that solely depends on the persons build. A male without big muscle mass would look like an object in skimpy clothes, and a women that has muscles to show wouldn't. 

Object is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you look at this right? 

*snip*

Well, I was trying to point out that the expectations are based on how our entertainment has portrayed women and men in fantasy, and their respective attire. Usually, a scantily-clad woman meant "prize." The Frazetta or Vallejo warrior women were often still over-sexualized - sure, they had muscle, but they were often in ridiculous poses with their chests thrust out.

I see a chainmail bikini and I think "sexy for sexy's sake" and then I think "I guess she looks like she could fight, if she could put her hips back in alignment" and then "metal on boobs would be cold."

mousestalker wrote...

Actually what comes to mind with that drawing is 'big 80s hair', closely followed by 'bad makeup' and then 'while she is dressed for the heat, those cloth triangles won't do her a bit of good if that dragon gets cranky' followed by 'why chains?'

Now you know...

Ok...now that I have stopped laughing and crying, my first reaction is "wow...a warrior."

[Seagloom]

D.Kain wrote...

Object is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you look at this right?

Object is exactly what comes to mind when looking at that image. She is standing in an awkward pose in order to push out her bottom and chest. Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell are phenomenal artists, but most of their work is textbook male gaze material. Including a few ripped guys in loincloths does not balance the scales due to issues whykikyouwhy summarized.

As for the question posed at the start of this thread, yes and no. I am not against revealing attire when it does not damage my suspension of disbelief. Seeing a warrior charge into battle dressed in underwear in a no-no. Seeing a mage that way? It may still be cheesecake depending on just how skimpy that outfit is; but I can at least overlook it if the artists did not get too carried away. Ditto with archers. That said, there is a limit to how far that can go. I rarely see high heels or anything that exposes breasts or pushes up breasts to create cleavage as believable.

I have seen women with larger chests at archery gatherings. Often, they widen their stance and wear chest guards in order to keep the bowstring from snapping back on their boob. I'm told the experience is extremely painful. Likewise, sword fighting can be challenging. Most of the skimpy outfits I see in these games are only plausible for mages, and even then I often wonder how often the poor woman's junk is exposed when an errant breeze passes by, or the number of times her boobs fall out of her dress.

I like sexy. Sexiness is good. But I also like to get into what I'm playing. When a costume in a game forces me to stop and think about how viable it is, it hurts my experience. It takes me out of the game. That's never a good thing.

Going back to my original answer: yes, if it is done properly, logically, and without a hint of gender bias. No if it is mere eye candy with little more rationale than tittilating players. Creating aesthetically pleasing armor and clothing has nothing to do with exposure, anyway.

Modifié par Seagloom, 26 novembre 2011 - 03:45 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Well, I was going to snark about the the refugee from a Boris Vallejo cover up there, but sadly mousestalker, whykikyouwhy, and seagloom have used up all the good snark.

OT: In terms of armor design, I like it when characters wear things that make sense as armor. Chainmail bikinis are bad, gratuitous spikes are bad, and parts of the suit clipping through each other are bad.

[ladyshamen]

There seems to be no easy answer here. It's the old ' you can't make everyone happy' thing. When I first started playing DA:O, one of the first mods I saw has everyone running around fighting in the NUDE! I'm sorry, but the thought of that had me laughing. There's no way I could have played a game like that. Each to their own, tho.

And BTW. seagloom ir right. I have competed in archery contests, and yes, the chest protector is a MUST. ( painful indeed )

[bEVEsthda]

Rojahar wrote...

I don't think showing skin is always bad, but I don't think it's always good either. I think the outfits in the OP are dumb. Not because they show skin, but because I think they just look tacky and lame - on both genders. You can have something that's tacky and lame even if it completely covers someone in plates and chainmail, too.

I didn't see anything wrong with Isabela's outfit. She was a civilian pirate rogue, who was very comfortable with her sexuality. I don't understand why some people wanted her wearing ARMOR. Nobody complains that Varric should have had armor plating. I think the heart of the issue is a lot of people have an aversion, a disgust or feeling of shame in, the human body, regardless of gender, so think characters shouldn't show anything below the neck.

Before the whole "Lord of the Rings" type fantasy setting became the ONLY kind of fantasy setting, things like Conan the Barbarian or even Greek Mythology were popular, respected, and viable, yet heroes in those settings wore skirts or exposed a LOT of skin. Nobody doubted their masculinity or said it was unrealistic for every single person to not be wearing full platemail head to toe. The "realism" argument is silly, because even in a European setting like Dragon Age, few people could even afford platemail.

I don't think things should be like WoW, where your "power level" is determined by how incredibly bulky your armor is and how giant your shoulder pads are. I'm OK with some stylization too. I think, for example, the Mage Champion armor in DA2 is a great look and wish more outfits were like it. "Oh noes, it shows a bicep! Mages are supposed to wear man-burqas! Warriors are supposed to be covered head to toe in platemail! " I'd be cool with a warrior being able to wear something like this:

..Uhu...  right...


More seriously: I'm wary of "politically correct". I'm not an enthusiastic believer of that.
But I don't think Conan/HM/Frazetta/Vallejo/Royo style art direction belongs in Dragon Age. I always saw DA as more medieval-realistic. If there was a fantasy-RPG that went totally towards a Heavy Metal fantasy art style and mood, I would expect it to see some flak from the P.Correct crowd, but I personally would see it as appropriate. It's an art style, and despite that it's sexy and even somewhat sexistic, it's IMO valid enough.

But DA is not that game. It's as simple as that.

[TheRealJayDee]

Seagloom wrote...
I like sexy. Sexiness is good. But I also like to get into what I'm playing. When a costume in a game forces me to stop and think about how viable it is, it hurts my experience. It takes me out of the game. That's never a good thing.

This! A thousand times this, to end all discussions about armor and clothing in games.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

I prefer visual aesthetics over realism. And even if - the armors we had in Origins were 'unwearable'. Those things like Templar Armor or Cailain Armor cannot be wear normally on adventures or walking through city.

Such armors were used for Heavy Cavalry , where a person wearing it was set up on horse and he did nothing else but charge forth and run through enemy defenses. Those armors are then as much ridicules as those who want a "chain mail bikiny".

Of the latest games both Witcher 2 and Skyrim had very good armor designs. Witcher 2 - for sorceresses robes, and overall clothing of "Fantasy World" population(Saskia armor is what the chain mail/plate armor for female should look). And Skyrim had some of the best armors (except the Dwemer, that still needs to be fixed) - i would say Forsworn, Elven, Dragonscale and Savoir's Hide were the best out of light armors, and for heavy definitely - Ebony, Dragonbone and Falmer armor's with its alien and unique look.

In DA 3 i really wish they won`t use the same old armors from Origins - of the DA 2 armors only the champion sets were good, the rest is a generic crap(speaking of armors that are wearable by PC, not the companions).

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

alex90c wrote...

oh, and it just has to be said that after seeing SoLD's link, Guild Wars has some seriously awful looking armour.

Paragons class isn't known for their fashion Some of the other classes have some really nice (and of course really awful) stuff, but on the whole Guild Wars does really well with armour I think. Warriors can actually get full plate armour instead of a metal g-string! I can actually decide if my female toons want to dress like tanks or skanks!

[KilrB]

Revealing clothes?

Situationally ... yes.

Revealing armor?

No, no , no ...

A thousand times NO!

I want armor that looks like it will do what armor is supposed to do ... protect the wearer.

[Monica83]

there is a pratical reason to have a stupid bikini armor? This is what i hate most of mmo like lineage 2 or guildwars the demential nosense armor design maded only to be "good looking"

No thanks an armor is an armor and i can't see how a metal perizoma and bra can protect you from blows

[Gemini1179]

I consider DA to be a 'fantasy/humour' universe and so I would have no problems with chain mail bikinis. The whole thing is absurd so I might as well enjoy it. I won't CHOOSE to dress a male character up in one, but that is my own choice.

ME is a whole different story, you can make armours look good without showing all kinds of skin. Most of the N7 bits in ME2 looked pretty good on both the male and female Shepards. I actually WANTED Jack to have some actual armour and I liked Miranda's alternate armour. I tended to have her dressed in the catsuit on the ship and the armour on mission. Gets an extra laugh with Captain Enyala cause she doesn't know the difference...

[TheRealJayDee]

Gemini1179 wrote...

I consider DA to be a 'fantasy/humour' universe and so I would have no problems with chain mail bikinis. The whole thing is absurd so I might as well enjoy it.

Well, I think you consider wrong, and I sincerly hope Bioware thinks so too. Then again, there's Isabela...

[philippe willaume]

Well
I think that armour at least for warriors should be closer to proper armour. so really it should not have gapage.
For rogue and mage well as revealing or hiding as they like or as the character demands, so for a fantasy Barabarian the Conan lool is ok.
I mean can you really imagine chantry leader in figure hugging thigh boots, over reaching belt and plugging V neck.


Phil

[Gemini1179]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

I consider DA to be a 'fantasy/humour' universe and so I would have no problems with chain mail bikinis. The whole thing is absurd so I might as well enjoy it.

Well, I think you consider wrong, and I sincerly hope Bioware thinks so too. Then again, there's Isabela...

After playing through as a 'sarcastic/charming' Hawke, I can no longer see DA any other way and it made MotA much more enjoyable for me. Too bad too as DAO was such a great start in terms of setting up an actual dark fantasy world.