583 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

And this is what comes down to for you, isn't it?

BioWare gave a character an attractive feature. They didn't have to give that character the feature! It was on purpose! The story would function without it. The only possible explanation is that BioWare did it to attract 13 year old boys and basement dwellers with sex!

Ash was already attractive, the changes were totally unnecessary and served no purpose.

In fact, it detracts from her character because while she is an Alliance officer, she no longer looks the part

[David7204]

What this really seems to boil down to is a ridiculous and hypocritical definition of 'sex appeal' and the causes and consequences surrounding it.

[RadicalDisconnect]

David7204 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Are you suggesting that the style of armor adds significantly to a character? I highly disagree.

Oh, and slippery slope logic is a type of fallacy...

I know exactly what a slippery slope is. And if you're claiming this isn't one, the slope has to end somewhere. I was asking where.

Let me ask you a question. You don't think armor matters. Okay. So is that just armor, or is that appearances, period?

Armor adds to appearance, but appearance isn't solely defined by armor. Not only that, just because a set of armor share the same functional style doesn't mean they look identical or indistinguishable.

As for the slippery slope, it's for your statement that people will whine about Bioware being lazy and reusing models. Sure, that could happen, but that's not the only possible outcome, nor is there reason to believe that it's the most probable outcome. In fact, no one complained when Kaidan had the same fatigues as everyone else.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 29 mai 2013 - 09:56 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

What this really seems to boil down to is a ridiculous and hypocritical definition of 'sex appeal' and the causes and consequences surrounding it.

Okay, now that I'm certain you're trolling, we're done here

[conjmk]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I don't find those outfits to be sexual nor erotic. 

Now lets take a look at the french rugby team.

http://i.dailymail.c...402_634x562.jpg

Those are some erotic "outfits". They seem combat ready to me. Put some breather masks on those hotties and they are ready to go into the derilict reaper for sure. mmmmmhmmmmmm.

I don't understand, are you saying because they're not half naked they're not being sexualized? 

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

What this really seems to boil down to is a ridiculous and hypocritical definition of 'sex appeal' and the causes and consequences surrounding it.

Not really a ridiculous and hypocritical definition when Bioware actively said it in the Art Book  when it talked about Ashley's appearance

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

[RadicalDisconnect]

conjmk wrote...

This has nothing to do with wether you personally found him attractive. All the outfits sexulized the men that wore them, Sheploo's casual wear clearly presents his muscles in a sexual manner, Kaidan's armor countours his body and shows off his anatomy, just because he doesn't have some sort of bulge sticking out doesn't mean he's not being sexualized; and do I even have to explain Jacob? He's wearing a carbon copy of Miranda's jumpsuit except for a man. 

Not saying that males aren't sexualized. Just that for females, it's certainly more noticeable, hencing giving off the vibe that female sexualization is more blatant (and to a certain degree, it is).

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 29 mai 2013 - 09:59 .

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

As soon as you answer mine. What, specifically, is wrong with the suit?

Modifié par David7204, 29 mai 2013 - 09:59 .

[Sashimi_taco]

conjmk wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I don't find those outfits to be sexual nor erotic. 

Now lets take a look at the french rugby team.

http://i.dailymail.c...402_634x562.jpg

Those are some erotic "outfits". They seem combat ready to me. Put some breather masks on those hotties and they are ready to go into the derilict reaper for sure. mmmmmhmmmmmm.

I don't understand, are you saying because they're not half naked they're not being sexualized? 

I'm saying i'm attracted to men and I don't find any of the examples you gave me to be erotic or sexualized.

[Sashimi_taco]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What this really seems to boil down to is a ridiculous and hypocritical definition of 'sex appeal' and the causes and consequences surrounding it.

Not really a ridiculous and hypocritical definition when Bioware actively said it in the Art Book  when it talked about Ashley's appearance

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

I think it's time to just ignore this guy because all his responses consist of words but have that special something in them that makes it so they don't say anything.

[RadicalDisconnect]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

As soon as you answer mine. What, specifically, is wrong with the suit?

Well look here.

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What's wrong with the casual suit she wears now?

Besides the fact that it was added for the sole purpose of Sex-Appeal, That outfit doesn't even look like it should be in the alliance

Is that not a response? And to add to that, no other Alliance officer wears that suit.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 29 mai 2013 - 10:02 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

As soon as you answer mine. What, specifically, is wrong with the suit?

Me and others already answered your question but you seem to refuse to acknowlege it 

So stop trying to avoid my question

[David7204]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

As for the slippery slope, it's for your statement that people will whine about Bioware being lazy and reusing models. Sure, that could happen, but that's not the only possible outcome, nor is there reason to believe that it's the most probable outcome. In fact, no one complained when Kaidan had the same fatigues as everyone else.

That's not the slope I was talking about. I was talking about the logic I'm seeing here, which seems to be 'characterization means nothing and "practicality" means everything for armor.' When does that slope end? Does it end before the characters are faceless goons?

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

Me and others already answered your question but you seem to refuse to acknowlege it 

So stop trying to avoid my question

Then it should be simple for you to repeat the answer, shouldn't it? What specifically is wrong with the suit? Do you have anything to say more precise than "It looks silly."?

Modifié par David7204, 29 mai 2013 - 10:04 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

David7204 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

As for the slippery slope, it's for your statement that people will whine about Bioware being lazy and reusing models. Sure, that could happen, but that's not the only possible outcome, nor is there reason to believe that it's the most probable outcome. In fact, no one complained when Kaidan had the same fatigues as everyone else.

That's not the slope I was talking about. I was talking about the logic I'm seeing here, which seems to be 'characterization means nothing and "practicality" means everything for armor.' When does that slope end? Does it end before the characters are faceless goons?

I don't like repeating myself, especially if it's just a few posts up on this very page.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Armor adds to appearance, but appearance isn't solely defined by armor. Not only that, just because a set of armor share the same functional style doesn't mean they look identical or indistinguishable.

Not to mention that characters have faces that we can go by.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 29 mai 2013 - 10:05 .

[HiddenInWar]

nvm, not really educated on this subject enough.

Modifié par HiddenInWar, 29 mai 2013 - 10:10 .

[conjmk]

@sashimi_taco 

Do I have to quote myself?

Just because they're not attractive to YOU doesn't mean they're not being sexualized. whether or not you get a lady boner from it is irrelevant, it's how they're portrayed. I don't find Ashley's outfit to be attractive in the least bit, does that mean she's not being sexualized? no.

Modifié par conjmk, 29 mai 2013 - 10:07 .

[AresKeith]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What this really seems to boil down to is a ridiculous and hypocritical definition of 'sex appeal' and the causes and consequences surrounding it.

Not really a ridiculous and hypocritical definition when Bioware actively said it in the Art Book  when it talked about Ashley's appearance

So now answer my question, what's wrong with the Ashley pic I posted for her casual appearance?

I think it's time to just ignore this guy because all his responses consist of words but have that special something in them that makes it so they don't say anything.

Yep

But a few months ago I did think of better alternate armors for Ashley than the ones Bioware gave her 

[David7204]

Maybe you should look a few more posts up where you claim it wasn't a slippery slope? Because that just proves me right.

[RadicalDisconnect]

conjmk wrote...

Do I have to quote myself?

Just because they're not attractive to YOU doesn't mean they're not being sexualized. whether or not you get a lady boner from it is irrelevant, it's how they're portrayed. I don't find Ashley's outfit to be attractive in the least bit, does that mean she's not being sexualized? no.

In case you missed my response. I'm not saying that males aren't sexualized. It's just that for females, it's certainly more noticeable, hencing giving off the vibe that female sexualization is more blatant (and to a certain degree, it is).

[conjmk]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

conjmk wrote...

Do I have to quote myself?

Just because they're not attractive to YOU doesn't mean they're not being sexualized. whether or not you get a lady boner from it is irrelevant, it's how they're portrayed. I don't find Ashley's outfit to be attractive in the least bit, does that mean she's not being sexualized? no.

In case you missed my response. I'm not saying that males aren't sexualized. It's just that for females, it's certainly more noticeable, hencing giving off the vibe that female sexualization is more blatant (and to a certain degree, it is).

Sorry, I got ninjed, that comment was not directed towards you.

And yes, I agree.

Modifié par conjmk, 29 mai 2013 - 10:08 .

[AresKeith]

conjmk wrote...

@sashimi_taco 

Do I have to quote myself?

Just because they're not attractive to YOU doesn't mean they're not being sexualized. whether or not you get a lady boner from it is irrelevant, it's how they're portrayed. I don't find Ashley's outfit to be attractive in the least bit, does that mean she's not being sexualized? no.

I agree with you about Jacob beside his outfit really is a male version of Miranda's

[RadicalDisconnect]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should look a few more posts up where you claim it wasn't a slippery slope? Because that just proves me right.

How about you actually address my response that you requested?

[David7204]

I think it's completely wrong, and would be an extreme disservice to characterization. Characters should look like characters, and not like grunts.

Modifié par David7204, 29 mai 2013 - 10:12 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I think it's completely wrong, and would an extreme disservice to characterization. Characters should look like characters, and not like grunts.

Appearances aren't the only thing that does characterization