162 réponses à ce sujet

[Vitlen]

Leomerya12 wrote...

It's been a memetic joke that women who wear less clothing in RPGs have higher armor ratings.
Kidding aside, I'd like, for once, my male to not be fully clothed 95% of the game (the other 5% consisting of derobing for armor changes or love-making). It sounds gay, sure, but slightly more revealing outfits would be aesthetically pleasing; I use "aesthetically" because some of you will point out how unrealistic and ineffectual it would be to have less covering. Bah. If I want reality, I step away from the computer.
Anyways, BioWare goes through the trouble of making viable body designs; we might as well see and enjoy them more often.

.No problem! Most monsters and beasts don`t wear any armor. This doesn`t make them weak or vulnerable.

[Leomerya12]

ArinTheirinCousland wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

I want realistic armor.

That pretty much sums it up.

Whenever you design a piece of armor, ask yourself will this work in reality?

Did Joan of Arc wear a bikini chainmail to battle? Did Genghis Khan wear giant shoulder spike plates as he marched to war? 

I know it's a fantasy and Bioware wants iconic but lets be honest... armor grounded in realism do look cooler than even the fanciest garbage.

Agreed.

People will argue and say "if I wanted realism I wouldn't play a fantasy game," but I guess some people don't see a difference between the realistic and the ridiculous. Fatantasy must be grounded on realism, otherwise it's just too ridiculous to be taken seriously. If my rogue doesn't wear proper armor, then she's just walking around waiting for her lady bits to be chopped up. I, for one, would rather have my rogue nice and guarded rather than be exposed. You want to be wear less clothing? That's cool, but safety should be the price to pay.

That's an oxymoron if I ever read one.

So you mean to tell me that magic, and dragons, and demons (naked ones, with boobies), and elves, and dwarves, and ghasts, and darkspawn, and god babies and whatever the hell else I forgot to mention, is okay, but having more revealing clothing with decent stats is ridiculous!?


Oh, and whomever mentioned the warpaint idea, a "stroke" of genius, I think. 

Modifié par Leomerya12, 03 novembre 2012 - 08:41 .

[Sejborg]

I think it would make more sense with higher dexterity if you are wearing less or a lighter/more revealing outfit.

[The Hierophant]

Leomerya12 wrote...

ArinTheirinCousland wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

I want realistic armor.

That pretty much sums it up.

Whenever you design a piece of armor, ask yourself will this work in reality?

Did Joan of Arc wear a bikini chainmail to battle? Did Genghis Khan wear giant shoulder spike plates as he marched to war? 

I know it's a fantasy and Bioware wants iconic but lets be honest... armor grounded in realism do look cooler than even the fanciest garbage.

Agreed.

People will argue and say "if I wanted realism I wouldn't play a fantasy game," but I guess some people don't see a difference between the realistic and the ridiculous. Fatantasy must be grounded on realism, otherwise it's just too ridiculous to be taken seriously. If my rogue doesn't wear proper armor, then she's just walking around waiting for her lady bits to be chopped up. I, for one, would rather have my rogue nice and guarded rather than be exposed. You want to be wear less clothing? That's cool, but safety should be the price to pay.

That's an oxymoron if I ever read one.

So you mean to tell me that magic, and dragons, and demons (naked ones, with boobies), and elves, and dwarves, and ghasts, and darkspawn, and god babies and whatever the hell else I forgot to mention, is okay, but having more revealing clothing with decent stats is ridiculous!?


Oh, and whomever mentioned the warpaint idea, a "stroke" of genius, I think. 

It's not an oxymoron as we've seen or it's been implied that characters eat for sustenance, hydrate, sleep, sit, walk, run, show emotion, can smell, hear, and communicate verbally  like we do irl despite the series being categorized as high fantasy. On the armor issue there needs to be a good explanation as to how a non armored pc can tank arrows, sword slashes, or blunted objects in contrast to the warden being nearly killed by an arrow, Jory killed by one stab, Loghain/Viscount being decapitated by a sword, Wesley crippled by a sword slash to the back, Cailan/Carver/Bethany being crushed, Gascard taking an arrow to the throat etc. 

[Solmanian]

Leomerya12 wrote...

It's been a memetic joke that women who wear less clothing in RPGs have higher armor ratings.
Kidding aside, I'd like, for once, my male to not be fully clothed 95% of the game (the other 5% consisting of derobing for armor changes or love-making). It sounds gay, sure, but slightly more revealing outfits would be aesthetically pleasing; I use "aesthetically" because some of you will point out how unrealistic and ineffectual it would be to have less covering. Bah. If I want reality, I step away from the computer.
Anyways, BioWare goes through the trouble of making viable body designs; we might as well see and enjoy them more often.

Chainmail bikini -Yes.
Chaimail thongs for man?


http://t3.gstatic.co...0NdAFDl0xrGy1WA

The horror. The horror.

Man and female have different anatomy, and thus some outfits that might look good on one gender, just look... scary on the other. It's OK to make a stand for same sex relationship, but advocating cross dressing?

[Ridwan]

No thanks, the characters having emo anime hair in DA 2 was bad enough, I don't want them to look even worse. Keep it like it was in Origins. So to phrase it differently. Keep the gay stuff to a minimum.

[dversion]

Leomerya12 wrote...
. It sounds gay, sure,

This is just horrible.

[Sejborg]

I would like to run around in a chainmail shaped as a wife-beater. How about that?

[dversion]

Solmanian wrote...

Leomerya12 wrote...

It's been a memetic joke that women who wear less clothing in RPGs have higher armor ratings.
Kidding aside, I'd like, for once, my male to not be fully clothed 95% of the game (the other 5% consisting of derobing for armor changes or love-making). It sounds gay, sure, but slightly more revealing outfits would be aesthetically pleasing; I use "aesthetically" because some of you will point out how unrealistic and ineffectual it would be to have less covering. Bah. If I want reality, I step away from the computer.
Anyways, BioWare goes through the trouble of making viable body designs; we might as well see and enjoy them more often.

Chainmail bikini -Yes.
Chaimail thongs for man?


The horror. The horror.

Man and female have different anatomy, and thus some outfits that might look good on one gender, just look... scary on the other. It's OK to make a stand for same sex relationship, but advocating cross dressing?

Yes, yes, all media has to be made for the tastes of the straight male. To do otherwise would be wrong.

[KainD]

Solmanian wrote...

... but advocating cross dressing?

Or you could, you know, not assign gender to a piece of cloth, and suddenly cross dressing doesn't exist. 

[Solmanian]

dversion wrote...

Yes, yes, all media has to be made for the tastes of the straight male. To do otherwise would be wrong.

Not all media. Just the ones that's actually aimed predominantly towards straight males. There's no reason to purposelly shove content, that will make the majority of your audience uncomfortable, down their throats.

How do you think ME3 sales would look if the removed all non gay LI's? Would the reaction be better or worse than the ending hoopla?

[KainD]

Solmanian wrote...

How do you think ME3 sales would look if the removed all non gay LI's? Would the reaction be better or worse than the ending hoopla?

How does dressing your characters in sexy outfits relate to gay Li's? 

[dversion]

Solmanian wrote...

dversion wrote...

Yes, yes, all media has to be made for the tastes of the straight male. To do otherwise would be wrong.

Not all media. Just the ones that's actually aimed predominantly towards straight males. There's no reason to purposelly shove content, that will make the majority of your audience uncomfortable, down their throats.

How do you think ME3 sales would look if the removed all non gay LI's? Would the reaction be better or worse than the ending hoopla?

Not everything is for you. Just because it was catered to your narrow interests in the past does not mean it will continue to do so. No one has ever 'shoved' something down your throats. Females and homosexuals have just as much money as you do. their dollar is equal to yours and their tastes can also be catered to. And you know what? I'm also a straight male and I really don't care if there's an option to dress a male character in a chain mail thong. It's a god damn polygonal character. I'm not the one with a picture of a bare man's ass readily available to show people why he hates it.

[Leomerya12]

You guys do realize I am asking for optional content, not mandating that the PC be skimpily clad? Just because something doesn't suit your fancy doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist.

dversion, I've explained why I used the word "gay", but one more time; I was taking note that there are a lot of people who are immature and think anytime a man does, wears, etc. something "unmanly", it is "gay". I was dismissing the concept, not empowering it.

Modifié par Leomerya12, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[Gamemako]

@OP: I disagree. I believe BioWare should strive to give more of the extravagant armors of the first game. More than merely functional, they were elaborate and over-the-top. They didn't merely offer sufficient protection, they gave you seven inches of steel between your opponent's weapon and your Warden's skin. It was awesome while modest, functional while over-the-top. More women toting 100kg of armor please!

[dversion]

Leomerya12 wrote...

You guys do realize I am asking for optional content, not mandating that the PC be skimpily clad?

dversion, I've explained why I used the word "gay", but one more time; I was taking note that there are a lot of people who are immature and think anytime a man does, wears, etc. something "unmanly", it is "gay". I was dismissing the concept, not empowering it.

Maybe you want to edit to put quotes around it or something. Its that that sort of rhetoric is used so often on the internet that 99.99% of the time it's used to demean. I also don't always agree with the statrement "I was being ironic" as a defense.

[Leomerya12]

dversion wrote...

Leomerya12 wrote...

You guys do realize I am asking for optional content, not mandating that the PC be skimpily clad?

dversion, I've explained why I used the word "gay", but one more time; I was taking note that there are a lot of people who are immature and think anytime a man does, wears, etc. something "unmanly", it is "gay". I was dismissing the concept, not empowering it.

Maybe you want to edit to put quotes around it or something. Its that that sort of rhetoric is used so often on the internet that 99.99% of the time it's used to demean. I also don't always agree with the statrement "I was being ironic" as a defense.

You should always give the benefit of the doubt. Unless someone openly spouts hateful or demeaning things throughout the course of a statement, one little phrase should not invalidate or incriminate the writer. Also, you're not in front of me, so you can't read my subtlety and will have to just take my word for it; I was being ironic. 99.99% is not 100%; if you're any kind of minority, you realize how important judgement on an individual basis is.

I will take your advice; quotes should clear things up.

Modifié par Leomerya12, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:22 .

[dversion]

Leomerya12 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Leomerya12 wrote...

You guys do realize I am asking for optional content, not mandating that the PC be skimpily clad?

dversion, I've explained why I used the word "gay", but one more time; I was taking note that there are a lot of people who are immature and think anytime a man does, wears, etc. something "unmanly", it is "gay". I was dismissing the concept, not empowering it.

Maybe you want to edit to put quotes around it or something. Its that that sort of rhetoric is used so often on the internet that 99.99% of the time it's used to demean. I also don't always agree with the statrement "I was being ironic" as a defense.

You should always give the benefit of the doubt. Unless someone openly spouts hateful or demeaning things throughout the course of a statement, one little phrase should not invalidate or incriminate the writer. Also, you're not in front of me, so you can't read my subtlety and will have to just take my word for it; I was being ironic. 99.99% is not 100%; if you're any kind of minority, you realize how important judgement on an individual basis is.

I will take your advice; quotes should clear things up.

I think you should understand the context of how you use your words. I'm not telling you how you meant it, but I'm telling you how it came off.

Anyway, I'm glad you didn't mean anything by it and that we've cleared stuff up. Anyway, back on topic.

[Gamemako]

dversion wrote...

I think you should understand the context of how you use your words. I'm not telling you how you meant it, but I'm telling you how it came off.

I had no trouble interpreting his comment as he meant it.

[Chipaway111]

Hopefully this argument won't turn into another sexism and gaming topic, because armour preferances mostly come down to an individuals taste regardless of gender. I was so jealous of what Isabela was permitted to wear in DA2 while my rogue had to deal with frumpy, practical armour. 

As optional content I wouldn't mind more revealing armours, but as long as they're sexy and not stupid, I think there's a difference. If I knew how to post pictures as examples I would but alas the finer points of anything technical escapes me. 

[Joe25]

For mages I could see them wearing a low v-neck sleveless robe. A warrior maybe a kilt and war paint because, who doen't love Brave Heart. Then I could see the rouge in black DA:O gear with shoulder straps and no breastplate. These I think these would be fine without going over the top. I think your question would look better a if you set the clothing somewere between 65-75 or 70-80 for male amor with more skin than just going full on man thong.

Modifié par joe2353, 04 novembre 2012 - 02:07 .

[Todd23]

Sejborg wrote...

I would like to run around in a chainmail shaped as a wife-beater. How about that?

  Absolutely nothing.  I'd like to do the same.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Leomerya12 wrote...

BioWare goes through the trouble of making viable body designs

Do they? Do they really, Leomery Snicket?

[Scott Sion]

M25105 wrote...

No thanks, the characters having emo anime hair in DA 2 was bad enough, I don't want them to look even worse. Keep it like it was in Origins. So to phrase it differently. Keep the gay stuff to a minimum.

Just because you didn't like the hair styles it doesn't make them emo. I honestly want a wider variety of hair styles in DA3.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Well he kinda has a point, if a particular do is popular in the emo scene it *is* emo hair.

Seriously though I like my tiltilation as much as the next person but I think there's a time and a place to ogle viable body designs