226 réponses à ce sujet

[CuriousArtemis]

Quicksilver26 wrote...

it's cause the breast are still emphasizes she should be wearing light armor like shep is wareing not something that is all look i have boobies could it be better yes could it have been a lot worse hell yeah it could've(i think she looks so hot in that:whistle:)

Yes lol I'm glad s/he posted that pic, too, because it illustrated how absurd Liara's outfits were. I can't imagine leaving the house in an outfit that made me look like that... let alone running into battle! 

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

The way I think about it is this: If I meet a person and they are one of those people who talks to my chest instead of my face, I'm going to be uncomfortable and my creeped out. In a video game, I don't want to be on the receiving end or the delivering end of that kind of behavior.

If we are supposed to take characters seriously, then I don't want the focus to be on how they look, but rather who they are. If outfits highlight personality traits of the characters, then fine-- it works. If it detracts from the personality then it doesn't work.

As far as DA2 goes, I think that they did a pretty good job. I think Isabela's character design was an extension of her character--just as Aveline's character design was an extension of her character. Whether or not Isabela's design was successful depends on how much you're willing to buy that argument-- can you believe that she would run around without pants? Or is it immersion breaking?

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:35 .

[bleachorange]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
If we are supposed to take characters seriously, then I don't want the focus to be on how they look, but rather who they are. If outfits highlight personality traits of the characters, then fine-- it works. If it detracts from the personality then it doesn't work.

and what if the character is morinth (or someone else) who is obsessed with sensuality and passion? what should that type of character wear to highlight their personality traits? for some characters, it seems a part of who they are. for instance, the elf in dao (the one who tries to kill you, i can't remember his name because he betrays me and i kill him), he seems to be the sort of stylish, sensual, male counterpart to isabella. it wouldn't seem out of character for him to trot around the battlefield in revealing and/or suggestive clothing/armor.

personally, i think bioware does a great job of handling the whole mess. if you dont like it? change their armor! there is a dlc pack that gives miranda realistic armor, and in dragon age, all the armors can be swapped out. so what's the big friggin deal anyway?

[Joy Divison]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

[brushyourteeth]

Joy Divison wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

Samara was an all-business Justicar who shunned any romantic involvement and would probably break the neck of anyone who made a sexual overture towards her. The fact that she'd rather let the girls breathe than protect her vitals from gunfire did seem rather strange to me. So did her space-stiletto's.

But again, that's Mass Effect. I think the DA team does a great job of giving the women a wide range of sexy/practical, so that the objectification is an exception rather than the rule, and the player has some choice as far as their own roleplay goes.

[Pelle6666]

Joy Divison wrote...

I find it amusing when people who have never seen a battlefield let alone been on one talk about military practicality.

After you're done telling Bioware they're doing it wrong, why don't you talk to these guys...

Seriously? Id gladly take them on all at once as long as I was wearing a suit of armor! We're talking about medieval warfare here, not tribal spear chucking action.

[Melca36]

http://img148.images...00206200104.jpg


Picture is kind of risque which is why its not posted.


I definitely agree. I hate skimpy armor

Modifié par Melca36, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:20 .

[Pelle6666]

Completely agree. Leave the sexy stuff for the love scenes or visits to the brothel and let the characters dress appropriately.
The Miranda thing was pretty ridiculous but I can't say anything about Isabella, she was a character based on sex appeal so the cleavage was not unnecessary.

[Joy Divison]

Pelle6666 wrote...

Seriously? Id gladly take them on all at once as long as I was wearing a suit of armor! We're talking about medieval warfare here, not tribal spear chucking action.

Then you'll have to explain to me why these and other "tribal spear chuckers" have often successfuly resisted attempts by "practically" armed and armored warriors with access to better technology and resources?

Or go ahead and read accounts of 12th century combat in the Middle East where highly trained knights in the heaviest armor were killed by warriors who wore *no armor*.  Usually it was because the heavily armored knight was exhausted in protracted battle, knocked down, physically overwhelmed, and then got stabbed in the eye with a dagger.

But just go ahead thinking that you, who obviously has never read an account of an actual battle let alone been in one, know better than people whose lot in life is/was to actually be a warrior.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:44 .

[daaaav]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

Samara was an all-business Justicar who shunned any romantic involvement and would probably break the neck of anyone who made a sexual overture towards her. The fact that she'd rather let the girls breathe than protect her vitals from gunfire did seem rather strange to me. So did her space-stiletto's.

But again, that's Mass Effect. I think the DA team does a great job of giving the women a wide range of sexy/practical, so that the objectification is an exception rather than the rule, and the player has some choice as far as their own roleplay goes.

I'm sorry, but there was absolutely nothing about Samara's character that suggested that she would be happier dressed as a nun. The fact that she shuns romantic involvement (she didn't break Shehards neck...) is irrelevant since perhaps she just likes the look?

[Si-Shen]

In the end, they need to have a mix of both and so far to be honest they did a good job with it. In DA:O and DA2 most of their choices fit perfectly and played to ALL players. We had serious and we had a bit risky and the risky fit the NPC as to how she acted, etc. In the end, if you get too seriuos with armor, cloths and camera shots you loose a lot of people. Just because you did not like it, does not mean I don't. Personally if they got any less risky the game would be far to serious and not as enjoyable.

[Joy Divison]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

Samara was an all-business Justicar who shunned any romantic involvement and would probably break the neck of anyone who made a sexual overture towards her. The fact that she'd rather let the girls breathe than protect her vitals from gunfire did seem rather strange to me. So did her space-stiletto's.

But again, that's Mass Effect. I think the DA team does a great job of giving the women a wide range of sexy/practical, so that the objectification is an exception rather than the rule, and the player has some choice as far as their own roleplay goes.

So "all-business" means a woman could not possibly show cleavage?  Or is it that women who shows cleavage must want romantic involvement? 

Is it even right to represent Samara, a character with such a rich past history it's almost ludicrous to be so reductionist to call her one thing, as "all-business"?  If so, what does "all-business" actually mean and why must it preclude cleavage?  That an insanely powerful biotic would derive protection from futuristic weapons by wearing suit that more covered her boobs seems stranger to me.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:14 .

[Si-Shen]

-dang internet... double post after some lag

Modifié par Si-Shen, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:08 .

[Vandicus]

Joy Divison wrote...

Pelle6666 wrote...

Seriously? Id gladly take them on all at once as long as I was wearing a suit of armor! We're talking about medieval warfare here, not tribal spear chucking action.

Then you'll have to explain to me why these and other "tribal spear chuckers" have often successfuly resisted attempts by "practically" armed and armored warriors with access to better technology and resources?

Or go ahead and read accounts of 12th century combat in the Middle East where highly trained knights in the heaviest armor were killed by warriors who wore *no armor*.  Usually it was because the heavily armored knight was exhausted in protracted battle, knocked down, physically overwhelmed, and then got stabbed in the eye with a dagger.

But just go ahead thinking that you, who obviously has never read an account of an actual battle let alone been in one, know better than people whose lot in life is/was to actually be a warrior.

Context matters. Also your understanding of warfare during the Middle Ages in the Middle East is horribly uninformed. Equipment is not something that should be dismissed lightly. Equipment might not be designed for all circumstances, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Moreover, Thedas(*cough Europe*cough) is the environment which the equipment in question is designed for.


Wearing armor on a ship on the other hand, tends towards the foolhardy.

[Joy Divison]

Vandicus wrote...

Context matters. Also your understanding of warfare during the Middle Ages in the Middle East is horribly uninformed. Equipment is not something that should be dismissed lightly. Equipment might not be designed for all circumstances, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Moreover, Thedas(*cough Europe*cough) is the environment which the equipment in question is designed for.


Wearing armor on a ship on the other hand, tends towards the foolhardy.

Oh, I am horribly uninformed?  Please do tell me some scholarly sources where I can brush up on the latest research in medieval warfare.

I am not dismissing the importance of equipment.  I am dismissing the erroneous assumptions that it is common sense that practical warriors must wear armor and that wearing armor is so obviously superior it is laughable that warriors could opt to forgo wearing it.

Since I am so uninformed, then perhaps you could tell me why many of the heavily armored Spaniards who accompanied Cortez in his campaign which destroyed the Aztec Empire began to discard their heavy steel plate and began donning the much lighter quilted armor the natives wore?

Or perhaps you could tell me why the heavily armored Tuetonic Knights, Poles, and Hungarians got their ass kicked repeatedly by much more lightly armored Mongols...in *cough* *cough* Europe? 

[daaaav]

Heavy plate didn't do the French much good at Agincourt either...

[brushyourteeth]

daaaav wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

Samara was an all-business Justicar who shunned any romantic involvement and would probably break the neck of anyone who made a sexual overture towards her. The fact that she'd rather let the girls breathe than protect her vitals from gunfire did seem rather strange to me. So did her space-stiletto's.

But again, that's Mass Effect. I think the DA team does a great job of giving the women a wide range of sexy/practical, so that the objectification is an exception rather than the rule, and the player has some choice as far as their own roleplay goes.

I'm sorry, but there was absolutely nothing about Samara's character that suggested that she would be happier dressed as a nun. The fact that she shuns romantic involvement (she didn't break Shehards neck...) is irrelevant since perhaps she just likes the look?

There could be plenty of truth to the underlined, though I definitely didn't/wouldn't say that it was out of character for her -- just that it seemed like a strange choice to me.

Would she be happier dressed as a nun? Nope - I've never met an asari who was. But most of them are at least fully armored when they're going into combat situations. Samara struck me as being foremost a practical person, and it seems odd to me that she'd leave her chest unprotected just because of an aesthetic element.

[daaaav]

brushyourteeth wrote...

There could be plenty of truth to the underlined, though I definitely didn't/wouldn't say that it was out of character for her -- just that it seemed like a strange choice to me.

Would she be happier dressed as a nun? Nope - I've never met an asari who was. But most of them are at least fully armored when they're going into combat situations. Samara struck me as being foremost a practical person, and it seems odd to me that she'd leave her chest unprotected just because of an aesthetic element.

True enough, but this goes back to one of my personal bug bears -  that people seem so obsessed with requiring that everything be "practical" and "sensible" in a world that has such a diversity of culture. This seems especially strange with an ancient culture like the Asari, who appear to place aesthetics ABOVE practicality. Tell me, even amongst human cultures and traditions, is practicality often sort at the expense of aesthetics?

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

Joy Divison wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

IMO, an example of what not to do would be Samara from ME2. She's supposed to be a white knight obligated by her personal code to do a terrible thing. Instead of focusing on this, her outfit only focuses on T&A.

I was unaware her outfit and her code were mutually exclusive.

It seems to me you (and others) are bringing in your own expectations and biases.  Unless a female is a rogue character and is very overt/open about their sexuality in public, then it's somehow immersion breaking that they could wear outfits which accenuate their sexuality.

I think there might be a slight disconnect between how we are understanding the problem.

I think that characters should be defined according to their personalities--their outfits give indicators as to what they are like, as people. When a character like Samara is sexified, I find it incredibly creepy. Her story arc says that she's a mother burdened with the horrible task of killing her own daughters, but what does her outfit say? My first impression was "oh, look. boobs". I think it detracts from a character when sexiness is added for the sake of sexiness. Do we really care about the sex appeal of Samara? Is that an important part of who she is? I think not, and I'd rather that her depiction would reflect more of who she is.

It doesn't necessarily mean that all non-overtly sexual characters should be covered head-to-toe. It just means that they should be dressed reasonably in ways that reflect their characters. Wouldn't you find it slightly disturbing if Aveline was dressed in a chain-mail bikini? Or if Fenris walked around in a loin-cloth?

Luckily, DA seems to have avoided this problem for the most part. 

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 09 octobre 2012 - 12:28 .

[berelinde]

Every time I see this thread title, I read it as a request for better nutrition in Thedas.

As for the attire our companions wear, it doesn't bother me. I do giggle at the apparent protective qualities of Dalish brassieres in DA:O, but it doesn't offend my sensibilities.

[The Hierophant]

Joy Divison wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Context matters. Also your understanding of warfare during the Middle Ages in the Middle East is horribly uninformed. Equipment is not something that should be dismissed lightly. Equipment might not be designed for all circumstances, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Moreover, Thedas(*cough Europe*cough) is the environment which the equipment in question is designed for.


Wearing armor on a ship on the other hand, tends towards the foolhardy.

Oh, I am horribly uninformed?  Please do tell me some scholarly sources where I can brush up on the latest research in medieval warfare.

I am not dismissing the importance of equipment.  I am dismissing the erroneous assumptions that it is common sense that practical warriors must wear armor and that wearing armor is so obviously superior it is laughable that warriors could opt to forgo wearing it.

Armor regardless if it's boiled leather, lamellar, or platemail covers vitals, and could potentially prevent injuries that can be easily received in combat without them. Luckily for the DA verse the warriors/rogues are peak humans in terms of physical feats.(Batman, Punisher) 

Since I am so uninformed, then perhaps you could tell me why many of the heavily armored Spaniards who accompanied Cortez in his campaign which destroyed the Aztec Empire began to discard their heavy steel plate and began donning the much lighter quilted armor the natives wore?

It seems that the climate, and terrain are to blame for the conquistadors woredrobe change and it's not solely the natives doing. 

Or perhaps you could tell me why the heavily armored Tuetonic Knights, Poles, and Hungarians got their ass kicked repeatedly by much more lightly armored Mongols...in *cough* *cough* Europe?

 
The Mongolians were not lightly armored considering that their forces wore armor of  iron made of segmented scales, lamellar, and their version of gambeson thrown in for good measure. The defeats of the Poles, Hungarians and Teutonics were a culmination of ill prep, training, tactics, terrain, experience, and a clash with the better trained Germans or French(lol) wouldn't have been the same as the above mentioned.

- JD i wholeheatedly agree with you that armor is not the end all be all on the battlefield, especially in a fantasy game/setting but watching Isabela use all her CC moves then tank blows that her def couldn't bypass during cooldowns always looked off to me.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 09 octobre 2012 - 12:53 .

[brushyourteeth]

daaaav wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

There could be plenty of truth to the underlined, though I definitely didn't/wouldn't say that it was out of character for her -- just that it seemed like a strange choice to me.

Would she be happier dressed as a nun? Nope - I've never met an asari who was. But most of them are at least fully armored when they're going into combat situations. Samara struck me as being foremost a practical person, and it seems odd to me that she'd leave her chest unprotected just because of an aesthetic element.

True enough, but this goes back to one of my personal bug bears -  that people seem so obsessed with requiring that everything be "practical" and "sensible" in a world that has such a diversity of culture. This seems especially strange with an ancient culture like the Asari, who appear to place aesthetics ABOVE practicality. Tell me, even amongst human cultures and traditions, is practicality often sort at the expense of aesthetics?

I see your point, but I think where the main topic's argument stems from is this notion that a fantasy game is less enjoyable when it has less skin, even where the price is a demeaning oversexualization of women, which is something we could be getting past in this day and age.

What Samara chooses to wear is generally not the problem - it's what the artists and developers choose to put her in, and why. Because she's not a real person, she's the creation of someone's mind. Why did they choose to leave her clothing open in the front? The answer isn't as clear in her case as it would be in Isabela's (who likes to draw those lusty glances and has enough bravado to choose style over functionality in her clothing). So the conclusion many people draw is that Samara, like many other female characters, is exposed simply because straight male gamers like it that way. And that's certainly something to be aware of.

But like I've said a few times now, I really feel like the DA team does a great job of showing enough variety in their armors and diversity in their female characters that women in general aren't demeaned. 

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 09 octobre 2012 - 12:47 .

[daaaav]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...


I think there might be a slight disconnect between how we are understanding the problem.

I think that characters should be defined according to their personalities--their outfits give indicators as to what they are like, as people. When a character like Samara is sexified, I find it incredibly creepy. Her story arc says that she's a mother burdened with the horrible task of killing her own daughters, but what does her outfit say? My first impression was "oh, look. boobs". I think it detracts from a character when sexiness is added for the sake of sexiness. Do we really care about the sex appeal of Samara? Is that an important part of who she is? I think not, and I'd rather that her depiction would reflect more of who she is.

It doesn't necessarily mean that all non-overtly sexual characters should be covered head-to-toe. It just means that they should be dressed reasonably in ways that reflect their characters. Wouldn't you find it slightly disturbing if Aveline was dressed in a chain-mail bikini? Or if Fenris walked around in a loin-cloth?

Luckily, DA seems to have avoided this problem for the most part. 

A few points...

- Samara is supposedly hundreds of years old, I think it's a little premature to be able to define precisely what is important to her character and what is not.

- Whilst asari in general have undoubtedly been designed with human feminimity in mind (and yes, a certain amount of male fan service), they are not human! Therefore, why should they conform to human modesty ideals anyway?

You can make the argument that the asari as a whole are oversexualised, I disagree myself, but I think that samara herself is fine.