226 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

Yikes. Sensitivity levels are rising. So is the hyperbole; the Dragon Age video games are hardly porn.

Obviously, you haven't gotten the mod......even when you're under the initial impression it isn't porn and it would just make the sex cutscenes better.....

[AlienWolf728]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

lol. I think mods are hilariously pointless. But people have a right to "mod" whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. Bioware isn't responsible for that.

"Mods are pointless" You do mean the skimpy ones yes? If you mean mods in general than...just...<_<.

[The Hierophant]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

@Hiro: I'm talking about what Bioware puts in their games. That is not porn. What someone mods into his or her own game at home... whose business is that, anyway? It's certainly not Bioware's responsibility, so why dedicate a thread to "toning down" the sexuality? It's an M-rated game that is far more tame than most R rated films...

@Alien: My opinion. I think all mods are silly. People get very upset when I say that, lol. It's nothing personal. I just like to play the game that the company designed. And if someone is modding skimpy outfits I feel they aren't being any more or less silly than someone who mods mohawks onto their DA protagonist.

Unofficial patches, advanced lighting, and texture mods are a god send. 

[Shadow Fox]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...







Also, I think this outfit is cool. It's revealing as hell, but so what? Is a woman's body something to be ashamed of? How many male warriors in video games walk around bare chested and it's considered manly? (I remember seeing plenty in Skyrim, and remember all those bare-chested Qunari in DA2?)

The real sexism here is labeling the female form as filthy. 

Hawt<3:wub:

[Biotic Sage]

Diablo 3 lets you use dyes to color your armor pieces the way you want, and there is also a "vanishing die" that makes an armor piece invisible. So it's a great solution: the developers are free to design awesome armor pieces while not having to worry about players complaining about them being ugly. If the player thinks it's ugly, then they can make it invisible so they don't have to look at it. It's like the concept of "hide helmet" except applied to everything. I think it's a good idea for Dragon Age because then the people who want to play in their underwear can while at the same time receiving the full bonuses of practical armor.

[Shadow Fox]

MultiWerar wrote...

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

WHAT THE ****

*cackles*

[Biotic Sage]

MultiWerar wrote...

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

WHAT THE ****

Well I don't see how that's any different than this:



I can't remember being upset when I saw this, so the girls should be able to proudly display their avatars' toned bodies as well. It's only fair.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 06 octobre 2012 - 07:20 .

[Iakus]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...


Also, I think this outfit is cool. It's revealing as hell, but so what? Is a woman's body something to be ashamed of? How many male warriors in video games walk around bare chested and it's considered manly? (I remember seeing plenty in Skyrim, and remember all those bare-chested Qunari in DA2?)

The real sexism here is labeling the female form as filthy. 

Sure the outfit's hot.  But as far as combat goes is totally impractical.  As impractical as a male warrior (human or qunari) going into battle bare chested.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of being "filthy" as much as it's "asking for trouble" when facing off against someone with a large, pointy piece of metal that can carve you up into steaks

[Biotic Sage]

MultiWerar wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
I can't remember being upset when I saw this, so the girls should be able to proudly display their avatars' toned bodies as well. It's only fair.

OKAY! LISTEN TO ME CLOSELY, BRO!

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BARECHESTED MAN THAT ISN'T REALLY THAT SEXUALIZED AND A WOMAN WHO IS WEARING SOME KIND OF FREAKY SEX GARB DESIGNED BY SOME BASEMENT DWELLING GROGNARD!

YOU CAN SHOW NUDITY WITH TASTE! YOU CAN SHOW SEXUALITY WITH TASTE!

THAT MOD HAS NO TASTE!

IT'S CREEPY INTERNET FETISHISM AT ITS VERY WORST, BRO

I didn't really need to listen closely, I actually had to lean back a little bit because the CAPS YELL was a bit "in your face."  You know that I can still read your ideas in standard format, right?

Anyway, you say that the barechested man "isn't sexualized."  No, it isn't sexualized to you, a heteronormative straight male.  However, I'm sure that it's very sexualized to straight women, gay men, and bisexuals of both sexes.  There's inherent sexism in the statement you made if you examine it closely, and I know you didn't intend it but objectively it's there.

And sure, there are some cases of "creepy internet fetishism," but really that all comes down to perspective as well.  I don't personally participate in what you might consider to be "creepy" stuff, but I'm not going to negatively judge those who do.

[bleachorange]

XCelfa wrote...

Revenant24 wrote...

Sex sells, when will people (Mostly women) understand this will not change?

When men are objectified to sell me products on a daily... hourly basis, so...

probably never.
Don't be an ass.

men and women are different. we see the world differently, we enjoy different things. obviously, this is all a generalization, but how many men watch figure skating (on their own)? how many women watch football (on their own)? it's not about hard and fast rules, but about realizing that while stereotyping exists and is bad, it happens for a reason.

so is it so hard to believe that different things appeal to women in advertising than men? i'm not saying the ladies don't enjoy topless shots of buff dudes. i'm just saying that it will be less effective advertising for women than shots of nubile women in skimpy clothing will be for men. don't you think that if this cheap form of advertising worked as well for a female audience as it does for the male audience, it would be just as prevalent? some things are what they are because human nature doesn't change.

Modifié par bleachorange, 06 octobre 2012 - 07:39 .

[Biotic Sage]

bleachorange wrote...

XCelfa wrote...

Revenant24 wrote...

Sex sells, when will people (Mostly women) understand this will not change?

When men are objectified to sell me products on a daily... hourly basis, so...

probably never.
Don't be an ass.

men and women are different. we see the world differently, we enjoy different things. obviously, this is all a generalization, but how many men watch figure skating (on their own)? how many women watch football (on their own)? it's not about hard and fast rules, but about realizing that while stereotyping exists and is bad, it happens for a reason.

so is it so hard to believe that different things appeal to women in advertising than men? i'm not saying the ladies don't enjoy topless shots of buff dudes. i'm just saying that it will be less effective advertising for women than shots of nubile women in skimpy clothing will be for men. some things are what they are because human nature doesn't change.

Men do tend to be more visual in terms of their sexuality (this is obviously a generalization, hence the "tend").  However, I have to wonder whether or not this is a socially-instilled aspect of sexuality or if it is a natural one?  Maybe a bit of both?  Girls and boys do tend to be treated and raised differently growing up, so when they are solidifying their sexualities in their younger years maybe boys are pushed more towards visual sexual stimuli than girls are.

[hobbit of the shire]

MultiWerar wrote...

HOW ABOUT ACTUAL MATURE CONTENT INTSEAD OF CHILDISH PANDERING!?

This.

Too often the definition of "mature" means more boobage and the ESRB people are the worst in this.  Yeah, total graphic violence is okay, but boobage = evil.  I want a mature game, but that doesn't mean desire demons and the naked broodmother (which I find funny because *many* exposed boobs is ESRB-M friendly but the Warden/Hawke's 2 isn't???).

[Foolsfolly]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...







Also, I think this outfit is cool. It's revealing as hell, but so what? Is a woman's body something to be ashamed of? How many male warriors in video games walk around bare chested and it's considered manly? (I remember seeing plenty in Skyrim, and remember all those bare-chested Qunari in DA2?)

The real sexism here is labeling the female form as filthy. 

The woman that runs into battle wearing that... ain't walking away from that battle.

[daaaav]

I don't know... The darkspawn may die from laughter...

Anyway thread officially derailed.

[AlienWolf728]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...
@Alien: My opinion. I think all mods are silly. People get very upset when I say that, lol. It's nothing personal. I just like to play the game that the company designed. And if someone is modding skimpy outfits I feel they aren't being any more or less silly than someone who mods mohawks onto their DA protagonist.

Heh, I like how all BSN responses are "IT'S MY OPINION"; What of mods that directly improve the vanilla game? one that comes to mind (of course) is Skyrim. The original game was pretty bad (opinion). Mods can directly improve the game, whether it's high res textures or anything else. Saying mods are "pointless" isn't opinion, it's trying to state a fact. A false fact.

Modifié par AlienWolf728, 06 octobre 2012 - 08:16 .

[FaWa]

umm is anyone else aware that someone posted legit nudity on page 1? lol

And I'd prefer nudity/T and A/Shirtlessness/other things to happen only at appropriate times. Those times could be more frequent though.

[Patchwork]

If Trista Faux Hawke doesn't like mods then they don't like mods. He/she is entitled to their opinion even though in mine they're missing out.

Skyrim without mods shudders.

"Armour" like the one posted above should only be available via mods (imo ;p ), the shipped game should be more respectful and practical in it's armour designs for all genders and species. There's no reason why npcs can't look good even with that proviso.

The Pants for Isabela mod for example doesn't take anything away from her character. Adding some black pants (I prefer the black) just makes her look more battle ready.

[Wrathion]

Why no skimpy males OP? WHY?

The only problem I have with skin tight BOOBS IN YOUR FACE armor/camera shots is that it's not equal. I liked looking at Miranda's ass but...How come Anders was wearing so much clothing, eh? I didn't even get a good look at Fenris' behind and he was only wearing leggings...LEGGINGS! 
If you're going to hand out the fanservice...can you like make it specifically appeal to my base instincts? Please? Thank you.

And for armor mods I'm cool with them. I dress my female characters in skimpy junk all the time. 
The problems arise when!! It takes me 0.3431 seconds to make my female character to look like THIS 
But it takes my 500 years, both my arms and legs, in addition to the Black Sacrament to make my male characters look like THIS. 

But then these are user made and Dragon Age doesnt seem like it's go in the "gratuitious booty shots' direction" so i'll just leave you ME players to your nipple harnesses.
(Oblivion screens BTW)

[deatharmonic]

I don't mind some skin on display at all. Isabella was a ****, that doesn't mean I expected her to be dressed that way but it didn't surprise me that she was. As long as there's some balance and there isn't unnecessary boobage left right and centre, I'm fine with it. It wouldn't surprise me if Bioware gave a few conservative apparel options for our companions seeing as the companion customization is being tweaked a tad.

[daffl5]

XCelfa wrote...

While I kind of understand where you're coming from, I have to ask: Why are you playing a rated M game in the first place if this kind of content bothers you?

very true.

i think skimpy clothes and armour is a little unrealistic. but imagine if everyone was wearing iron clad plate gold whatever armour with massive helmets! you wouldn't see their faces!