1324 réponses à ce sujet

[Killdren88]

favoritehookeronthecitadel wrote...

I would've given Tali a penis. I mean, it's bound to get sweaty in there...

What the hell man?

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

It's always a factor. Always. Acting as if the developers being concerned if a character will be a good romance option somehow makes that character 'fanservice' is ridiculous.

Reread your statement and think hard about romances in relation to the game's overarching story.

[DuskWanderer]

David7204 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Doesn't matter how good of characters they are. It's very poor game design.

In what way? 

Zaeed and Kasumi both cost 10 bucks.

Consider two players who each spend ten dollars on one, but not the other. If you bring back one and not the other, one player gets a full squadmate in ME 3 with all the content that comes with it. The other gets far less.

In other words, despite paying the same amount of money, a player who decided to buy Zaeed and not Kasumi gets a whole lot more. Conversely, the player who buys Kasumi gets a whole lot less. And of course, there's no way they could have known wehn they purchased the content years ago that they'd be screwed over.

That is poor design. For an equal price, DLC should offer roughly an equal amount of content.

And of course, it's really just not a good idea to put that much work into a character so many people won't see in the first place. Better to put it towards a squadmate from the vanilla game.

I recall Zaeed being free with Cerberus Network, which was given to anyone who bought a new copy. I guess you're talking about used. 

You know, I make the same argument in the Citadel DLC about Wrex. I kill him, save Mordin, and the amount of different stuff I get amounts to squat. Don't get me wrong, Citadel-Wrex is terrible, but I do wish...


As far as fanservice, while David and I usually disagree, there is an element of truth to it: Most characters have fanservice in their design. One must provoke a reaction: Jacob is not hated for being a jerk, Jacob is hated because he's basically moving scenery. 

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's always a factor. Always. Acting as if the developers being concerned if a character will be a good romance option somehow makes that character 'fanservice' is ridiculous.

Reread your statement and think hard about romances in relation to the game's overarching story.

If you have you'd like to say to me, then say it.

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:20 .

[David7204]

DuskWanderer wrote...

As far as fanservice, while David and I usually disagree, there is an element of truth to it: Most characters have fanservice in their design. One must provoke a reaction: Jacob is not hated for being a jerk, Jacob is hated because he's basically moving scenery. 

That is just ridiculous nonsense.

Is any portrayal of beauty 'fanservice'? The existence of any attractive character 'fanservice'?

Which would make just about every single film and television series in existence 'fanservice,' then?

I guess practically every main every character for any and every popular fiction in existence is 'fanservice,' now. Since protagonists of popular fiction are almost always attractive.

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:22 .

[spirosz]

StreetMagic wrote...

Thane's got a lot more going for him than the romance. Whether intended or not. I'm a male player, but still liked interacting him with a lot. He's kind of the real "archangel" of the group. And an outlet for L'Etoile to wax poetic, more than he could with a character like Ash (who just quotes poetry).

No I know this, as I said - he is one of my favourite characters. 

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

As far as fanservice, while David and I usually disagree, there is an element of truth to it: Most characters have fanservice in their design. One must provoke a reaction: Jacob is not hated for being a jerk, Jacob is hated because he's basically moving scenery. 

That is just ridiculous nonsense.

Is any portrayal of beauty 'fanservice'? The existence of any attractive character 'fanservice'?

Which would make just about every single film and television series in existence 'fanservice,' then?

I guess practically every main every character for any and every popular fiction in existence is 'fanservice,' now. Since protagonists of popular fiction are almost always attractive.

If it's there for the fans, how is it not fanservice? 

[DuskWanderer]

David7204 wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

As far as fanservice, while David and I usually disagree, there is an element of truth to it: Most characters have fanservice in their design. One must provoke a reaction: Jacob is not hated for being a jerk, Jacob is hated because he's basically moving scenery. 

That is just ridiculous nonsense.

Is any portrayal of beauty 'fanservice'? The existence of any attractive character 'fanservice'?

Which would make just about every single film and television series in existence 'fanservice,' then?

I guess practically every main every character for any and every popular fiction in existence is 'fanservice,' now. Since protagonists of popular fiction are almost always attractive.

Basic rule of, well, just about everything: Sex sells. No one wants to see ugly people unless ugly is necessary, and they certainly don't want to pay to see ugly people. That's why Hollywood only recruits stunning beauties. Game characters are designed the same way: You don't get someone ugly unless it's necessary they be that way. And if it's not beauty that's necessary, then you go for cool. 

[David7204]

Every element of every story is 'there for the fans.' By that very stupid definition, every word of every story since the dawn of time is 'fanservice.'

[David7204]

DuskWanderer wrote...

Basic rule of, well, just about everything: Sex sells. No one wants to see ugly people unless ugly is necessary, and they certainly don't want to pay to see ugly people. That's why Hollywood only recruits stunning beauties. Game characters are designed the same way: You don't get someone ugly unless it's necessary they be that way. And if it's not beauty that's necessary, then you go for cool. 

No. Wrong. Have you even bothered to consider that beauty has meaning beyond money? You seem to be under the deluded impession that just because beauty attracts money, beauty only exists for money and nothing else.

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:28 .

[AresKeith]

David you cray, stop smokin

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

spirosz wrote...

" For us the key words were “career assassin”. The problem was, he was going to be the female love interest. Now that doesn't sound like much if you think about it, but it got us all mixed up a bunch of times, because women were going to have to find this guy attractive. So we asked all the women in the office what they liked in their aliens, and that kind of got us going off a lot of weird directions in the beginning and made it harder than it should have been. As far as men go – like with the Asari – you make her blue and give her the perfect body and you’re good to go. Women are more sophisticated than that."

Designing Thane

Yes, Thane the other female love interest. Kaidan - dead. Jacob? Well I got turned off by the forced conversations. And Thane? Thane was exotic. He was attractive. Thane had this other stuff going for him too. He was really different. Sure he was sick, but Bioware would find a cure for him, right? He'd survive to the end. Well, alas in my first play he died in the Suicide Mission by freak seeker grab.

Next game was Jacob. I forced myself through the conversation. I get to ME3 and he cheats. WTF? Thane dies. I'm ... okay there's Liara. I guess Liara is the canon LI. 

So don't give the fanservice crap, David.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:32 .

[David7204]

This is all way over your head, Julia.

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:31 .

[DuskWanderer]

David7204 wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

Basic rule of, well, just about everything: Sex sells. No one wants to see ugly people unless ugly is necessary, and they certainly don't want to pay to see ugly people. That's why Hollywood only recruits stunning beauties. Game characters are designed the same way: You don't get someone ugly unless it's necessary they be that way. And if it's not beauty that's necessary, then you go for cool. 

No. Wrong. Have you even bothered to consider that beauty has meaning beyond money? You seem to be under the deluded impession that just because beauty attracts money, beauty only exists for money and nothing else.

I think you've officially gone nuts. Beauty (and cool) are designed by the makers. And the makers are interested, first and foremost, in money. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand basic business, and there's very little I can do for you. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

David7204 wrote...

This is all way over your head, Julia.

I think you in way over yours.

[David7204]

DuskWanderer wrote...

I think you've officially gone nuts. Beauty (and cool) are designed by the makers. And the makers are interested, first and foremost, in money. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand basic business, and there's very little I can do for you. 

Nope. Completely and entirely wrong yet again. Do a bit of research. You'll learn, for instance, that cultures and societies who have never seen an advertisement, never seen any fiction produced by industry, still have just as many standards of beauty as western cultures. And that those standards of beauty are often directly in tune with ours.

Clearly, advertisers are not the source of those standards of beauty.

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's always a factor. Always. Acting as if the developers being concerned if a character will be a good romance option somehow makes that character 'fanservice' is ridiculous.

Reread your statement and think hard about romances in relation to the game's overarching story.

If you have you'd like to say to me, then say it.

Romances aren't the point of the game. They're a nice sideshow, but they don't matter as much as you think they should.

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

I think you've officially gone nuts. Beauty (and cool) are designed by the makers. And the makers are interested, first and foremost, in money. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand basic business, and there's very little I can do for you. 

Nope. Completely and entirely wrong yet again. Do a bit of research. You'll learn, for instance, that cultures and societies who have never seen an advertisement, never seen any fiction produced by industry, still have just as many standards of beauty as western cultures.

It's a western game for western cultures, professor. Not that this comment had anything to do with anything. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

DuskWanderer wrote...

I think you've officially gone nuts. Beauty (and cool) are designed by the makers. And the makers are interested, first and foremost, in money. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand basic business, and there's very little I can do for you. 

Nope. Completely and entirely wrong yet again. Do a bit of research. You'll learn, for instance, that cultures and societies who have never seen an advertisement, never seen any fiction produced by industry, still have just as many standards of beauty as western cultures. And that those standards of beauty are often directly in tune.

HA!

Nope. Completely and entirely wrong yet again. Do a bit of research.

[David7204]

You deny, Massively, that pre-literate cultures exist which have some but not necessarily all of the same norms of beauty as western cultures? Boobs, butts, wide hips, feet? Clear skin? Big eyes? Tall? White teeth?

Modifié par David7204, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:40 .

[DuskWanderer]

David7204 wrote...

You deny, Massively, that pre-literate cultures exist which have some but not necessarily all of the same marks of beauty as western cultures? Boobs, butts, wide hips, feet?

Those were symbols of fertility, not beauty. Perhaps you need to do research

[David7204]

Oh gosh, who could possibly imagine marks of fertility and beauty being the similar or outright identical. Surely you jest. That's beyond the realm of possibility. There's no way evolution could have programmed in such fertility cues which are processed culturally as beauty.