237 réponses à ce sujet

[Emzamination]

krul2k wrote...

whats the reason then? i like wide hips but small waist no thnxz

They give off a subliminal urge to reproduce.

[Icinix]

Isabella, Merrill and Avenline were quite different standards of beauty I would have argued.

If they keep that kind of diversity in DA3 - I don't think there will be an issue at all.

[Barneyk]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

But complaining about small waists? Its status as a marker of attractiveness is biological and evolutionary in nature. What are you going to be disappointed about next, their symmetry?

The status marker and level of attractiveness of a small waist is not constant thoughout our history, not even our modern history.
It is a social thing and it is sad to see you use your own ignorence and lack of historical perspective as an argument.

You are just plain wrong on this point.

Blair Brown wrote...

To compare the differences between
races they all had to have a standard/constant state.  ie. same level of
fitness, whether that would have been this or more skinny or less
etc.

My point stands and it is pretty clear, if you don't want to see it I can't do anymore to convince you.
There are plenty of studies, papers and books about this kind of thing that do a whole heck of a lot better job than me.

I also want to say that they aren't that bad and they do highlight a lot of differences.
But it is very much something worth reflecting over if you wanna move forward with a less objectifying ideal image of what "beauty" really is.

I hope you can bring it to attention of other people at the office so that they can spend at least a second or two reflicting about it.

[nightscrawl]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Yeah, pretty much this. 

There's a -reason- the ideal shape tends towards small waists and wide hips.

Other than cultural, what reason is this? I honestly don't believe that we went from artists painting women with fat rolls in the 15 and 1600s to our current standard because of "biological evolution."

Even now, there are entire groups of people that enjoy and sexualize fat. There is a whole group on deviantART dedicated to BBW (big beautiful women), with artists who do things like this (Mario's princess girls, but fat).

Modifié par nightscrawl, 26 février 2013 - 10:12 .

[Neoleviathan]

I think Bioware treats their female characters pretty well. The're written well & respectful. Even in that picture I think they're quite different from eachother. The elves look like maybe they don't get the best nutrition & the dwarves look perfect. The qunari look good, considering the males & females are separated into different positions in their society that picture represents this well.
I thought the Mass Effect sequels suffered some degree of sexism & exploitation... But Dragon Age, no. I do often complain about the breasts though, but thats more an art department thing than a story one. Maybe its the Lyrium, or the water, but its horribly distracting. Sometimes every women on screen is endowed at herculean levels. But like I said I don't think Dragon Age has too much of a problem with this, & I suppose it does play into a certain fantasy style trope. Some games can be really horrible & you can pretty much know them for what they are by the cover, & others are accidently ridiculous like Fallout New Vegas.

[Emzamination]

nightscrawl wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Yeah, pretty much this. 

There's a -reason- the ideal shape tends towards small waists and wide hips.

Other than cultural, what reason is this? I honestly don't believe that we went from artists painting women with fat rolls in the 15 and 1600s to our current standard because of "biological evolution."

Even now, there are entire groups of people that enjoy and sexualize fat. There is a whole group on deviantART dedicated to BBW (big beautiful women), with artists who do things like this (Mario's princess girls, but fat).

In what universe is looking like your 18 months pregnant considered sexy?

[Blazomancer]

OP, you do have a point regarding the tagline. I'd suggest you just let it be and consider it as an oversight.

I agree with Blair that all the models have to be in the same level of fitness for comparison. Even then,it's true that the artist could have gone up a few notches in terms of body mass for each. Anyway, there's not much point in making it a big deal.
Peace.

[Daralii]

Emzamination wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Yeah, pretty much this. 

There's a -reason- the ideal shape tends towards small waists and wide hips.

Other than cultural, what reason is this? I honestly don't believe that we went from artists painting women with fat rolls in the 15 and 1600s to our current standard because of "biological evolution."

Even now, there are entire groups of people that enjoy and sexualize fat. There is a whole group on deviantART dedicated to BBW (big beautiful women), with artists who do things like this (Mario's princess girls, but fat).

In what universe is looking like your 18 months pregnant considered sexy?

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it exposes us to billions of new fetishes.

[Atchas]

[quote]Daralii wrote...

[/quote]The wonderful thing about the internet is that it exposes us to billions of new fetishes.
[/quote]


:lol::lol:

LOLD

[Scarlet Rabbi]

Slim waist + big breasts is beautiful. At least to me; and to many, many others I'd wager. What 'active stance' does Bioware need to take? Lol, try to convince us that cankles and flat chests are beautiful? Or on the flip side, convince us that balding men with bulging bellies are the peak of physical attractiveness? Is it what it is, cut this pc crap. Some physical characteristics are almost universally attractive, and it doesn't make you boarish to realize that.

[Emzamination]

Daralii wrote...

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it exposes us to billions of new fetishes.

Ugh

[Lennard Testarossa]

Barneyk wrote...
But it is very much something worth reflecting over if you wanna move forward with a less objectifying ideal image of what "beauty" really is.

Oh boi. More meaningless buzzwords please.

[nightscrawl]

Emzamination wrote...

In what universe is looking like your 18 months pregnant considered sexy?

Regardless of your personal views, those people think so. To answer your question: this universe.


To go back to the OP, it seems to me that he or she is advocating for more than one standard of beauty to be included. I don't know how realistic this is though. I think the best we can expect is a wider variety to reflect the variety in nature. It would be particularly nice if, when we went into Orlais, we had fatter nobles and slimmer working peoples. But again, that can only be the case if they build a body slider into the CC, even if only the devs get to use it.

[Reznore57]

Beauty standard (like many things) tends to evolve and change depending on where you live , at what time , your culture etc...
+there's beauty standard and personal taste , which obviously can differ.

Anyway I don't find anything shocking about the picture , it's cartoony.The characters are not too sexy but obviously they meant to look a bit easy on the eye.
But anyway I don't think they were drawn to be too realistic .

About how woman are in game , well I don't think man looks realistic either.
All smooth bodybuilder type...I mean even if you work hard and eat healthy food , not everybody gonna have the same body .Depending how what muscles you use and biology.

I think the only one game i played a pc with a sort of realistic body was Female Shepard.
But hey , in DA Hawke wouldn't look as good in her mage armour if she was shorter , with smaller boobs and smaller legs...
It's just aethetics , depending how you build different clothes looks better.

[Alexander1136]

Barneyk wrote...



How is it different standars of beauty when all the females are thin with big breasts and a well defined slim waist?

Really dissapointing to see Bioware not taking a better and more active stance with this...

It's not really an opinion it's more of a phyisological norm for male brains to be attracted to that. the different standards apply to the different races I would assume. 

[craigdolphin]

Of all my criticisms of DA2 this is one that never rang a bell for me.

Maybe that's because millions of years of evolution has predisposed me to be attracted to the very things being critiqued here? So I suspect you're fighting a pretty powerful biological phenomenon.

Let's explore your statement that different racial physiology is a missed opportunity for exploring different standards of beauty....

We know what humans /typically/ find attractive.
Human males generally find women with small waists and large breasts to be attractive, as you've noted.
And generally speaking, human women find large men with obvious musculature to be attractive too.

Why?

Well, evolutionary biology holds many of the answers here.

For a superficial example: it should be pretty obvious that small waists are an important visual clue that a woman is not already pregnant with someone else's child. The law of probabilities suggests then that, over evolutionary time and all else being equal, men who exhibit a heritable preference for small waists in their choice of mates are more likely to produce offspring than a similar man with the inverse preference. Thus the trait for small waist preference is more likely to be passed on to future generations unless there is some other harmful outward manifestation that results from the exact same genes that are responsible for the small waist preference.

And over the majority of human evolution, males who were physically larger and stronger were socially and physically more able to provide resources (food, shelter, etc) and protection for their offspring than less physically imposing men. All else being equal, bigger muscles meant greater strength. Stronger contestants usually win in contests for resources. Thus, women who chose such a mate were more likely to have their children survive and prosper.

So it is natural that humans find these traits to be desirable in their mates: it's just a result of anatomy, time, and chance.

Would it be similarly sensible to find the same traits applicable to the other three races?

Well, humans are sexually dimorphic (ie: the sexes look different), bipedal, placental mammals whose uterus is located within the lower abdomen, and who give birth through an opening in the pelvis (this constraint limits the upper size of the head relative to the body).

The same appears to be true of elves, qunari, and dwarves. They are certainly bipedal. And by the existence of mammary structures on the upper torso, roughly similar sized heads relative to body size, almost identical placement and number of eyes, ears, nose, and digits, and the presence of a belly button indicating prolonged internal development (ie pregancy) and a placenta, they certainly appear to share an extraodinarily similar anatomical blueprint to humans. I would go so far as to suggest that they are all closely related to some common evolutionary ancestor. That makes it highly unlikely that they would have radically different internal anatomical structures, organ placement, or reproductive characteristics.

(Of course, if it turns out dwarves or quinari laid eggs like an echidna, or had a marsupial pouch and secreted their young to develop in an external pouch like a kangaroo, then this argument would be turned on its head but it would raise new questions about the presence of visible belly buttons!)

Since the anatomical and reproductive basis for each of the races is almost identical, it only makes sense that very similar selective pressures during a largely parallel evolutionary process, in roughly similar environments, would result in roughly similar outcomes with regard to the evolution of broad sexual selection preferences for each race. Of course, this could still be influenced by the environment if the environments were vastly different during the evolutionary timeframe.

One opportunity to go this route would have been to factor in the darkness of underground life for dwarves. In non-tool using species, this has often led to the loss of eyes in total darkness, or perhaps much larger and more highly sensitive eyes if there is still some amount of light available. It could also lead to the reduction of importance for things such as visual pigmentation etc. However, like humans, dwarves have turned out to be pretty good with fire, lyriam, and other tools that can modify their environment to remove that kind of selective pressure. And, of course, their shorter stature could be a response to tunnel life. So that seems to have worked out well. And if height becomes a negative evolutionary factor, and strength remains a positive trait, then increased breadth and depth of size could become more important factors in mate selection. So, that seems to have worked out ok too. So maybe it's not a missed opportunity as much as you seem to think?

That said, Bioware could have devised other races with radically different anatomies and reproductive strategies and these could indeed have had different standards of beauty.

Wait. There ARE the darkspawn. And the female breeders of the darkspawn definitely don't have thin waists (though they do have a very respectable collection of what could turn out to be mammary glands). I am dubious about the numerous mammary glads (broodmothers are corrupted females from the other species so I'll give that a pass) given that Darkspawn are reputed not to eat and are probably not mammalian, and really don't seem conform to any normal expectation of biology. But aside from that, they seem to have lost the bipedal aspect and other reproductive traits associated with humanoid species. So it would make quite a lot of sense for them to look substantially different. So, you seem to have got what you wanted after all!

[SeismicGravy]

Alexander1136 wrote...

Barneyk wrote...



How is it different standars of beauty when all the females are thin with big breasts and a well defined slim waist?

Really dissapointing to see Bioware not taking a better and more active stance with this...

They look fine to me.

If you want to see an example of how NOT to do it, may I suggest you do a Google image search of Sonya Blade.

[Sir George Parr]

No complaints from me on this topic. Everything looks very aesthetic.

[TheBlackAdder13]

I feel pretty, oh so pretty, pretty and witty and gay! 

Modifié par TheBlackAdder13, 26 février 2013 - 11:12 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

Daralii wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Yeah, pretty much this. 

There's a -reason- the ideal shape tends towards small waists and wide hips.

Other than cultural, what reason is this? I honestly don't believe that we went from artists painting women with fat rolls in the 15 and 1600s to our current standard because of "biological evolution."

Even now, there are entire groups of people that enjoy and sexualize fat. There is a whole group on deviantART dedicated to BBW (big beautiful women), with artists who do things like this (Mario's princess girls, but fat).

In what universe is looking like your 18 months pregnant considered sexy?

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it exposes us to billions of new fetishes.

There are actually various cultures in sub-Saharan Africa where it is/was considered desirable and attractive to be large and fat, especially before colonisation. Actually, I think this used to be a pretty universal standard throughout the world. The logic behind it is if you're fat it means you're more affluent since you can afford more food, etc. Now it's the opposite and skinny can somewhat be considered a sign of affluence as healthy food is a lot more effing expensive than the cheap, fattening food, at least in the developed world. 

[Volus Warlord]

Emzamination wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Yeah, pretty much this. 

There's a -reason- the ideal shape tends towards small waists and wide hips.

Other than cultural, what reason is this? I honestly don't believe that we went from artists painting women with fat rolls in the 15 and 1600s to our current standard because of "biological evolution."

Even now, there are entire groups of people that enjoy and sexualize fat. There is a whole group on deviantART dedicated to BBW (big beautiful women), with artists who do things like this (Mario's princess girls, but fat).

In what universe is looking like your 18 months pregnant considered sexy?

Preggos can be sexy, with all that emotional instability caused by getting kicked in the ribs from the inside.

[cJohnOne]

craigdolphin wrote...

Of all my criticisms of DA2 this is one that never rang a bell for me.

Maybe that's because millions of years of evolution has predisposed me to be attracted to the very things being critiqued here? So I suspect you're fighting a pretty powerful biological phenomenon.

Let's explore your statement that different racial physiology is a missed opportunity for exploring different standards of beauty....

We know what humans /typically/ find attractive.
Human males generally find women with small waists and large breasts to be attractive, as you've noted.
And generally speaking, human women find large men with obvious musculature to be attractive too.

Why?

Well, evolutionary biology holds many of the answers here.

For a superficial example: it should be pretty obvious that small waists are an important visual clue that a woman is not already pregnant with someone else's child. The law of probabilities suggests then that, over evolutionary time and all else being equal, men who exhibit a heritable preference for small waists in their choice of mates are more likely to produce offspring than a similar man with the inverse preference. Thus the trait for small waist preference is more likely to be passed on to future generations unless there is some other harmful outward manifestation that results from the exact same genes that are responsible for the small waist preference.

And over the majority of human evolution, males who were physically larger and stronger were socially and physically more able to provide resources (food, shelter, etc) and protection for their offspring than less physically imposing men. All else being equal, bigger muscles meant greater strength. Stronger contestants usually win in contests for resources. Thus, women who chose such a mate were more likely to have their children survive and prosper.

So it is natural that humans find these traits to be desirable in their mates: it's just a result of anatomy, time, and chance.

Would it be similarly sensible to find the same traits applicable to the other three races?

Well, humans are sexually dimorphic (ie: the sexes look different), bipedal, placental mammals whose uterus is located within the lower abdomen, and who give birth through an opening in the pelvis (this constraint limits the upper size of the head relative to the body).

The same appears to be true of elves, qunari, and dwarves. They are certainly bipedal. And by the existence of mammary structures on the upper torso, roughly similar sized heads relative to body size, almost identical placement and number of eyes, ears, nose, and digits, and the presence of a belly button indicating prolonged internal development (ie pregancy) and a placenta, they certainly appear to share an extraodinarily similar anatomical blueprint to humans. I would go so far as to suggest that they are all closely related to some common evolutionary ancestor. That makes it highly unlikely that they would have radically different internal anatomical structures, organ placement, or reproductive characteristics.

(Of course, if it turns out dwarves or quinari laid eggs like an echidna, or had a marsupial pouch and secreted their young to develop in an external pouch like a kangaroo, then this argument would be turned on its head but it would raise new questions about the presence of visible belly buttons!)

Since the anatomical and reproductive basis for each of the races is almost identical, it only makes sense that very similar selective pressures during a largely parallel evolutionary process, in roughly similar environments, would result in roughly similar outcomes with regard to the evolution of broad sexual selection preferences for each race. Of course, this could still be influenced by the environment if the environments were vastly different during the evolutionary timeframe.

One opportunity to go this route would have been to factor in the darkness of underground life for dwarves. In non-tool using species, this has often led to the loss of eyes in total darkness, or perhaps much larger and more highly sensitive eyes if there is still some amount of light available. It could also lead to the reduction of importance for things such as visual pigmentation etc. However, like humans, dwarves have turned out to be pretty good with fire, lyriam, and other tools that can modify their environment to remove that kind of selective pressure. And, of course, their shorter stature could be a response to tunnel life. So that seems to have worked out well. And if height becomes a negative evolutionary factor, and strength remains a positive trait, then increased breadth and depth of size could become more important factors in mate selection. So, that seems to have worked out ok too. So maybe it's not a missed opportunity as much as you seem to think?

That said, Bioware could have devised other races with radically different anatomies and reproductive strategies and these could indeed have had different standards of beauty.

Wait. There ARE the darkspawn. And the female breeders of the darkspawn definitely don't have thin waists (though they do have a very respectable collection of what could turn out to be mammary glands). I am dubious about the numerous mammary glads (broodmothers are corrupted females from the other species so I'll give that a pass) given that Darkspawn are reputed not to eat and are probably not mammalian, and really don't seem conform to any normal expectation of biology. But aside from that, they seem to have lost the bipedal aspect and other reproductive traits associated with humanoid species. So it would make quite a lot of sense for them to look substantially different. So, you seem to have got what you wanted after all!

I think Man has only existed for 200,000 years.  I also doubt that woman choose their mates but it was done by the rules of society assuming they had a society.   I didn't think human had much in the way of instincts but I could be wrong.

[Volus Warlord]

cJohnOne wrote...


I think Man has only existed for 200,000 years.  I also doubt that woman choose their mates but it was done by the rules of society assuming they had a society.   I didn't think human had much in the way of instincts but I could be wrong.

And I base this statement on absolutely nothing.