649 réponses à ce sujet

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
And, no, not all sex scenes are meant to be titilating or arousing.  Ever seen Game of Thrones?

You have got to s****** me...

I've seen game of thrones, and there is not a single instance of nudity in that show that was not intended to be entirely gratuitous. Many of them felt like "hey, they are supposed to be having sex, but instead of using the description in the book lets have them thrusting and grunting in doggy style. Or here, where there's a conversation with Tyrion, lets just have him surround with naked hookers. I think that would be cool." 

I am not exaggerating.

Nope.  I mean, if you were aroused by that sort of thing, that's your deal.  But depictions of rape and loveless sex are not always supposed to get everyone all excited.  They were intended to make you go "ew."  I can agree that some scenes are gratuitous, but things like Dany and Drogo, Jaime and Cersei, and the recent scene with Joffrey?  

It might have been a poor example, but I guess I always found the ASoIaF series depictions of sex disgusting, and that seemed to be the intent.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
And, no, not all sex scenes are meant to be titilating or arousing.  Ever seen Game of Thrones?

You have got to s****** me...

I've seen game of thrones, and there is not a single instance of nudity in that show that was not intended to be entirely gratuitous. Many of them felt like "hey, they are supposed to be having sex, but instead of using the description in the book lets have them thrusting and grunting in doggy style. Or here, where there's a conversation with Tyrion, lets just have him surround with naked hookers. I think that would be cool." 

I am not exaggerating.

Arousal, titillation, and being gratuitous are not the same thing at all. Trying to conflating them is foolish. A scene can be gratuitous without being arousing or titillating.

[the_one_54321]

Cersei and Jaime are meant to be despicable bastards, but not loveless. Not even remotely loveless. Danny and Drogo were depicted as they were described, but even then, the actual depiction is not necessary.

Also, Danny's actress is a professional nude model. I'm fairly certain she was chosen so that she could be shown off naked.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Arousal, titillation, and being gratuitous are not the same thing at all. Trying to conflating them is foolish. A scene can be gratuitous without being arousing or titillating.

In not one of those scenes was nudity or the depiction of sex actually necessary. All of what needed to be communicated could just have easily been done without showing them humping. Which the way almost every sex scene in GoT is done. Humping and grunting.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 avril 2012 - 03:23 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
And, no, not all sex scenes are meant to be titilating or arousing.  Ever seen Game of Thrones?

You have got to s****** me...

I've seen game of thrones, and there is not a single instance of nudity in that show that was not intended to be entirely gratuitous. Many of them felt like "hey, they are supposed to be having sex, but instead of using the description in the book lets have them thrusting and grunting in doggy style. Or here, where there's a conversation with Tyrion, lets just have him surround with naked hookers. I think that would be cool." 

I am not exaggerating.

Arousal, titillation, and being gratuitous are not the same thing at all. Trying to conflating them is foolish. A scene can be gratuitous without being arousing or titillating.

I think a lot if not most of the GoT scenes were intended to disgust the audience, even if they did go overboard with it in the TV show.

[upsettingshorts]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I thought it was obvious this was about consenting characters. Depicting anything else is an entirely different matter.

Who said all of my examples were rape?  (They aren't)

Your argument is a flimsy justification for your own desires.  The only evidence in your favor are Cinemax films, lowest-common-denominator action flicks, frathouse comedies, and The Witcher.

Keep dressing up that strawman, though.  I'm sure you'll completely derail the argument into semantics soon enough.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 avril 2012 - 03:23 .

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
Not all depictions of sex are meant to be titilating.

Which is why DA2 did it so much better than DA:O.  There was intimacy without the hilarity or uncanny valley going on.  And really, I want it to stay that way.

If your dipicting sex and it's not titilating to at least some degree , then you have failed. Sex and romance is not the same thing obviously.

What about a rape scene? Did you get off while Noomi screamed in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

Sex is between consenting parties. Not really the same thing.

Uh-huh. Get back to me when you're ready to stop fabricating fantasy defintions for words.

You mean like the one where you used rape instead of sex ?

The subject is between the PC and another character. I don't want to play a rapist thanks 'k?

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
Yet Anders goes Kamikaze terrorist no matter what, while Alistair can end up as 1.) King, 2.) Warden, 3.) Drunk/Exile, or 4.) Martyr and if you romanced him, the Warden's status can change accordingly too, whether thats as Queen or mistress or just staying as a fellow Warden or a widow of sorts. I think thats some reason people like it, is that its quite variable at the end. People like having choices/consequences like that. So while Anders might "change" based on friendship/rivalry, what does it matter if in the end he gets funneled down to the same plot point of terrorist no matter what? I think thats what people dislike most- having the illusion of some reactivity or choice only to have it smushed into a one size fits all ending that makes it obvious nothing you've had a hand in previously really mattered. Thats one of my major issues with DA2 overall, not just the romances.

If one's qualification for a good romance is that they need to be able to make decisions that affect them at the end, then fair enough-- though that was hardly the case for all of DAO's romances either, or really for any of the romances we've written. Being able to make decisions for your romance has never been the point and never will be. But if someone likes it when it happens, that's fine.

I do find it a little frightening, however, that someone could consider making decisions at the very end of a character's plot to be a "character arc"... or that Anders having the same event at the end of his plot represents the lack of an arc. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between game and story there. Not sure whether it's mine or theirs... but I'm willing to bet there's a whole bunch of people eager to tell me just how it should be properly done.

[wsandista]

the_one_54321 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
This doesn't mean they won't be there, as my opinion isn't the only one that matters, but my preference would be to have the "culmination" scene of a romance vary according to the character. Sexual depictions are fine for sexual characters (like, say, Isabela)... but even then if that leads to people going on about how they needed to see Isabela's ****** or Anders' ass in order for it to be a "real" or "adult" romance... then I'd just rather not contribute to it. And I think that's all I'll say about that.

Not asking to see anything. Just pointing out that, what is apparently the model skin itself, really throws off the whole scene. It makes it largely unbelievable, and feels similar to uncanny valley. So, if you can't change that (which is fine) then just don't show an actual scene of the act. Include the immediate lead up, and the "afterglow," as you put it. Much more of the character development will take place there than during the actual deed.

The buildup and afterglow are all that are really needed, IMO. Seeing two character models clumsily flopping around isn't romatic(more like an embarasing 30 second trainwreck), seing two characters bonding emotionally can be much more rewarding.

[Firewolf99]

WHOA!!! We're really getting off topic here. Can we talk about what we want in DA3 romances again please? There were some great ideas before, but now we're just arguing about what's gratuitous sex, whats emotional lovemaking and what's rape...

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cersei and Jaime are meant to be despicable bastards, but not loveless. Not even remotely loveless. Danny and Drogo were depicted as they were described, but even then, the actual depiction is not necessary.

Also, Danny's actress is a professional nude model. I'm fairly certain she was chosen so that she could be shown off naked.

Daenerys being raped was supposed to feel uncomfortable, even if it was gratuitous (even in the least).   I'm not sure what other intent there was supposed to be.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 25 avril 2012 - 03:26 .

[the_one_54321]

RinjiRenee wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Cersei and Jaime are meant to be despicable bastards, but not loveless. Not even remotely loveless. Danny and Drogo were depicted as they were described, but even then, the actual depiction is not necessary.

Also, Danny's actress is a professional nude model. I'm fairly certain she was chosen so that she could be shown off naked.

Daenerys being raped was supposed to feel uncomfortable, even if it was gratuitous.   I'm not sure what other intent there was supposed to be.

Ok, I'll give you that one. That was shown as it was intended to be. But they (Danny and Drogo) had numerous sex and nude scenes, and that's the only one that actually showed something of her character that could not have been done another way.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 avril 2012 - 03:28 .

[Firewolf99]

Brockololly wrote...
Yet Anders goes Kamikaze terrorist no matter what, while Alistair can end up as 1.) King, 2.) Warden, 3.) Drunk/Exile, or 4.) Martyr and if you romanced him, the Warden's status can change accordingly too, whether thats as Queen or mistress or just staying as a fellow Warden or a widow of sorts. I think thats some reason people like it, is that its quite variable at the end. People like having choices/consequences like that. So while Anders might "change" based on friendship/rivalry, what does it matter if in the end he gets funneled down to the same plot point of terrorist no matter what? I think thats what people dislike most- having the illusion of some reactivity or choice only to have it smushed into a one size fits all ending that makes it obvious nothing you've had a hand in previously really mattered. Thats one of my major issues with DA2 overall, not just the romances.

This. Hell, it's the fundamental argument behind the ME3 ending. Influencing a character (and possibly having them influence you?) would be a great feature in later games.

Modifié par Firewolf99, 25 avril 2012 - 03:27 .

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...
The buildup and afterglow are all that are really needed, IMO. Seeing two character models clumsily flopping around isn't romatic(more like an embarasing 30 second trainwreck), seing two characters bonding emotionally can be much more rewarding.

The FFX lake scene is definately more emotional than the Witcher2 lake scene. Especally if you put it into full context.
I'm fine with them not showing any sex, but trying to do something like the Witcher2 with clothes just makes it look stupid.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Arousal, titillation, and being gratuitous are not the same thing at all. Trying to conflating them is foolish. A scene can be gratuitous without being arousing or titillating.

In not one of those scenes was nudity or the depiction of sex actually necessary. All of what needed to be communicated could just have easily been done without showing them humping. Which the way almost every sex scene in GoT is done. Humping and grunting.

I agree. They are wholly unnecessary. That's what gratuitous means. Rinji never said that they weren't gratuitous. Rinji said that they weren't arousing or titillating. There is a difference, and you're missing it. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you apparently didn't comprehend.

[Rinji the Bearded]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The FFX lake scene is definately more emotional than the Witcher2 lake scene. Especally if you put it into full context.
I'm fine with them not showing any sex, but trying to do something like the Witcher2 with clothes just makes it look stupid.

Don't worry, I don't think they'll ever do that.

[Firewolf99]

If a sexual scene between DA2 characters was well done, out of interest, would people still be put off by the nudity? Do people even think it is possible to do one?

EDIT sorry, meant "Scene in DA3 between characters."

Modifié par Firewolf99, 25 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[byzantine horse]

I wouldn't mind a better "fade to black" if we absolutely need one. You know the scene in Assassin's Creed 2 when Ezio goes to the girl's house in the introduction? We see them kiss and then they blow out the candle - that is imo alot better than seeing two people go at at eachother followed by the screen abruptly turning black as if the camera (or player) was knocked out.

I also didn't mind the side-boob in Mass Effect 1. I mean seriously, yes Fox went crazy over it but what do they not go crazy over? And you don't want anyone who watches Fox as your customers anyway. And CDProjekt got away with softcore porn in The Witcher 2 - why can't Bioware? If that is what you want that is - I personally prefer something more subtle and classy than what was displayed in TW2 (which imo is eyecandy for teens more than anything) and ME1 got that quite right.

If you go down the Witcher-route regarding sexual content I wouldn't mind however, the game is for adults afterall and I think Bioware should try and get there as well - it will work alot better telling the stories you tell if you aim at an adult audience that actually appreciates it rather than want CoD in Middle Earth. Which is not me trying to insult young people at all, I'm myself only 20 after all.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I agree. They are wholly unnecessary. That's what gratuitous means. Rinji never said that they weren't gratuitous. Rinji said that they weren't arousing or titillating. There is a difference, and you're missing it. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you apparently didn't comprehend.

Are there instances of gratuitous acts that aren't also titillating? Even the incest acts in GoT were there only for the sake of showing two attractive actors going at it. There's no other reason to actually show them naked and thrusting. Implying, providing audio but obscured visual, having a fade to black; there were numerous methods they could have used that wouldn't have included showing them in the actual act. Or naked.

When you show two attractive peopel naked, there's almost always only one reason for it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 avril 2012 - 03:40 .

[Pasquale1234]

David Gaider wrote...

And despite the fact that some people seem to think we should just go ahead and show nudity, or that casual nudity is somehow more "adult" (or that it should simply be de rigeur in dark fantasy), I don't think we'd really be missing much by not having sex scenes at all (or the "afterglow" talk). At the very least, I wouldn't have to listen to people moan about how there's not enough skin, how they wanted different variations and positions, etc. etc. Frankly, such talk is more embarassing to listen to than interesting.

Fade-to-black is fine with me (I rather prefer it), but I think the "afterglow" talks can be pretty helpful in overall character definition and relationship development.  For example, we learned more about Isabela's past and Hawke was able to indicate what type of relationship s/he wanted with her during that chat.  If you were to do away with the "afterglow" talks, I would hope such conversations could still be available at some point in the game.

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

Ummm... yeah.

What you're describing is not simpler, it's actually more difficult.

Never said it was simpler . In fact, I was laboring under the assumption that it'd be more complex because of what it was. It's an alternative, surely. An unfeasible one at the moment now that you've told me about the issues associated with making such a scene.

I don't know the intricacies associated with scene-making and model creating, so when I propose an idea like this it's out of ignorance and optimism. I know not of what I speak in areas that don't deal with story. If it deals with mechanics, implementation, modeling, etc. then chances are I won't really be able to give a viable alternative.

Still, it's something to keep in mind IMO, should the engine the games run on ever permit it -- if it's upgraded to such a degree of course.

And that's assuming it can be done at all.

Question: You say that the dress is a part of the model. Would it be possible to make a blanket a part of the model as well in a sex scene?

Basically, create a model that has the LI covered by a blanket enough to not go "OMG ******" but also doesn't go "OMG THEY WERE DRY HUMPING", to be used in the "afterglow", as it were.

David Gaider wrote...

This doesn't mean they won't be there, as my opinion isn't the only one that matters, but my preference would be to have the "culmination" scene of a romance vary according to the character. Sexual depictions are fine for sexual characters (like, say, Isabela)... but even then if that leads to people going on about how they needed to see Isabela's ****** or Anders' ass in order for it to be a "real" or "adult" romance... then I'd just rather not contribute to it. And I think that's all I'll say about that.

Personally speaking, it's not that I need it there to make it adult. It already is adult without it based on the nature of what transpires -- meaning what's said, how it's said, the scene's specific tailoring to the individual characters.

But it certainly helps to flesh out the adultness even more IMO, and thus I would like to see it. If that makes sense.

Actually, I'd just be happy if instead of seeing the characters back in clothes afterwards if they're lying on the bed I just saw them wrapped in the blankets, moving around.

Something about the Merrill scene where Hawke and Merrill are back in clothes and cuddling felt off. This is ignoring the rather bad animation issue for Merrill -- that doesn't reflect on her actual design, as I feel the need to say -- but focusing just on the intimacy of it.

I mean, who gets dressed after sex before they start cuddling with someone? That seemed.... odd.

EDIT: Started to go into "TMI" territory.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 avril 2012 - 04:06 .

[AkiKishi]

byzantine horse wrote...

I wouldn't mind a better "fade to black" if we absolutely need one. You know the scene in Assassin's Creed 2 when Ezio goes to the girl's house in the introduction? We see them kiss and then they blow out the candle - that is imo alot better than seeing two people go at at eachother followed by the screen abruptly turning black as if the camera (or player) was knocked out.

I also didn't mind the side-boob in Mass Effect 1. I mean seriously, yes Fox went crazy over it but what do they not go crazy over? And you don't want anyone who watches Fox as your customers anyway. And CDProjekt got away with softcore porn in The Witcher 2 - why can't Bioware? If that is what you want that is - I personally prefer something more subtle and classy than what was displayed in TW2 (which imo is eyecandy for teens more than anything) and ME1 got that quite right.

If you go down the Witcher-route regarding sexual content I wouldn't mind however, the game is for adults afterall and I think Bioware should try and get there as well - it will work alot better telling the stories you tell if you aim at an adult audience that actually appreciates it rather than want CoD in Middle Earth. Which is not me trying to insult young people at all, I'm myself only 20 after all.

I think it's cultural. Americans have that weird double standard of sex and violence. Witcher shows nothing you would not see in an 18 rated movie and it's an 18 rated game. On the other hand seeing PG13 scenes in an 18 rated game or movie would just seem like a cop out.

[Esbatty]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I agree. They are wholly unnecessary. That's what gratuitous means. Rinji never said that they weren't gratuitous. Rinji said that they weren't arousing or titillating. There is a difference, and you're missing it. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you apparently didn't comprehend.

Are there instances of gratuitous acts that aren't also titillating? Even the incest acts in GoT were there only for the sake of showing two attractive actors going at it. There's no other reason to actually show them naked and thrusting. Implying, providing audio but obscured visual, having a fade to black; there were numerous methods they could have used that wouldn't have included showing them in the actual act. Or naked.

When you show two attractive peopel naked, there's almost always only one reason for it.

They just landed in a large lake after surviving a harrowing helicopter malfunction and are pulling the leeches off each other. 

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

When you show two attractive peopel naked, there's almost always only one reason for it.

I'm gonna post this quote on Tumblr and see how long it takes for someone to point out that it supports rape culture. 

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I agree. They are wholly unnecessary. That's what gratuitous means. Rinji never said that they weren't gratuitous. Rinji said that they weren't arousing or titillating. There is a difference, and you're missing it. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you apparently didn't comprehend.

Are there instances of gratuitous acts that aren't also titillating?

Ever heard of the term 'gratuitous violence'? How about 'gratuitous blood', like in a horror movie? I found the blood and gore aspects of Pan's Labyrinth gratuitous. I didn't find them particularly titillating or arousing.

Even the incest acts in GoT were there only for the sake of showing two attractive actors going at it. There's no other reason to actually show them naked and thrusting. Implying, providing audio but obscured visual, having a fade to black; there were numerous methods they could have used that wouldn't have included showing them in the actual act.

When you show two attractive peopel naked, there's almost always only one reason for it.

You're still conflating the terms, and thus still wrong. I agree that the scene is gratuitous. Nothing that happened in the scene couldn't have happened with audio but obscured visual. However, when I saw it I was more horrified than aroused or titillated. It was pretty gross, because it wasn't celebrated or treated like a normal romance scene. The goal wasn't to make the viewer feel aroused or titillated. The goal was to show the depravity of these two characters in a way that the viewer can't ignore or downplay. I doubt many people find the idea of incest to be particularly arousing. Perhaps you differ in this from me.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 25 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
When you show two attractive peopel naked, there's almost always only one reason for it.

I'm gonna post this quote on Tumblr and see how long it takes for someone to point out that it supports rape culture.

Please consider rape scenes to be an exception to everything I've said. Except the part where I talked about the rape scene between Danny and Drogo, that was brought up. Where, you know, I agreed with the other poster about it being meant to be uncomfortable.

You might also note the qualifier I included in the form of "almost always." Meaning that there are some exceptions. Of which rape is obviously one of the exceptions.