408 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

Sentinel358 wrote...
Youre missing the point of this armor, her "revealing piece is normal, she's a young girl probably trying to attract men, go outside and you'll see that in most females no doubt about it, the chainmail is clearly just thrown on as improvisation when they were taken by suprise by the blight. when her armor upgrades the revealing portion is gone

In the beginning when they've just left Lothering I thought the obviously improvised armour was fine.

When you take Bethany on the incredibly dangerous deep roads expedition and she's still wearing it? 

Admittedly this is as much an issue of limited wardrobes and armour changes (a major issue in DA2 all-around) as it is an issue of gender and sexualisation. 

Modifié par EJ107, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:29 .

[wolfsite]

Youth4Ever wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...
Bethany's a mage...

But her top is low cut for... reasons. I think that's what the OP is getting at. And it is weird she has a low cut top considering the lower portion is covered in chainmail.

EDIT: See -

Keep in mind with Bethany.  Dragon Age 2 is being told as a story to Cassandra by Varric and Varric enjoys embelishing events and traits (he even admits this during gameplay) so Bethany's visuals in DA2 should be taken with a grain of salt, even after Casasndra told him to knock off the bull.

[Gwydden]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Of course, she only gets those armor changes for real later in the game. The beginning, not so much.

A girl shows some cleavage. THE HORROR! Now take a look at this:



DA's armors? Pretty tame and practical.

[slimgrin]

The last thing the artists need to do is base their direction on some flimsy moral crusade. There should be ugly women, pretty women, sexualized women, all different types.

[Nefla]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Nefla wrote...

There is already a wide choice of styles, so you dress your character how you want and don't try to force your Amish ideals on other people.

Amish?

I'm just saying that practicality isn't a bad thing. Would you be alright with chainmail bikinis?

Chainmail bikinis have never been and will never be in DA. I don't see any problem with cleavage shown in leather armor (it doesn't even cover the legs on either gender and is more about speed and  ease of movement) lines around the breast area in mage robes (how does this in any way change practicality?) or boob plates on armor (in a world with dragons, demons magic, 90lb elves wielding swords the size of surfboards with one hand, etc...THIS is the one thing that has to be practical? Really? What about all the spikes on armor that would put the wearer's eye out, or the straps, buckles, wraps, claws, etc...that would make it hard to move, take hours to get dressed, in some cases be a trip hazard, etc?) It looks better, you have a choice not to wear it, it's more practical than huge spikes armor, etc...just stop trying to dictate what other people wear or what their made up characters in an extremely stylized magical fantasy game wear.

[lil yonce]

Gwydden wrote...
May I ask why?

Why it doesn't make sense? An arrow to the chest, a sword to her entirely exposed chest, could kill her. Why not cover that vulnerable area up? She's part of a merc band, or a smuggling ring and uses her magic to make coin, so its not like she isn't expecting to be in dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. And Hawke, also part of the same merc band or smuggling ring, can walk around in full armor, or be completely covered up in mage robes with chainmail included.

[Veruin]

MasterScribe wrote...

Can't we have non-sexualized AND sexualized female characters?

Different types of women coexist in real life just fine....

No, because this is a video game and is therefore a form of media.  Being a form of media, it makes people think that because it happens in a video game, it's ok to apply that to real life.

Modifié par Veruin, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:34 .

[wolfsite]

MasterScribe wrote...

Can't we have non-sexualized AND sexualized female characters?

Different types of women coexist in real life just fine....

True, Isabella is a fine example of this since her personality is of a woman who enjoys showing off a little bit, if anything to get the upper hand or have things to her advantage.

[Ser Alicia]

If being scantily clad matches the character's personality, I don't see what the problem is. Isabela is a sexually active pirate, and she isn't afraid to show it. Morrigan uses her body to manipulate men and gain an advantage over them, as Veruin has mentioned. Both of those women dressing like they do fits.

Now, if we happened meet Aveline in Inquisition and she's suddenly wearing an Isabela-esque outfit, I'd be concerned. That's because it doesn't match her personality. She a modest, loyal, and strong warrior, and dressing like Izzy doesn't seem like something she would do.

And, honestly, Bioware has been good with things like this. The devs won't suddenly change their minds and decide to force all women to wear "chain mail bikinis." As a female gamer, I'm not worried the least bit, and I don't think they're the game company you should be directing this concern towards.

Besides, some women (or men) might want to dress their female characters in the armor you describe -- chain mail bikinis and whatnot. Shouldn't they be given the option to do so? Why should they be left out?

[9TailsFox]

DarthSliver wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...
Amish?

I'm just saying that practicality isn't a bad thing. Would you be alright with chainmail bikinis?

When has there been anything remotely resembling chainmail bikinis in DA?

I know seriously, where are these chainmail bikinis in DA games? I wanna find them for my female hawke and female warden lol. 

Bioware I don't think has given us an option for chainmail bikinis, I think we should demand Chainmail Bikinis for our female characters as an option lol.

All praise the Maker for mods.

[Red Panda]

slimgrin wrote...

The last thing the artists need to do is base their direction on some flimsy moral crusade. There should be ugly women, pretty women, sexualized women, all different types.

You're saying a variety of different kinds of displaying?

In roles that would make sense? Wearing clothing that would make sense?

A prostitute would wear more revealing clothing than say, a generic mook with a sword, who should be equipped with functional armor, for example.


If so, then I would agree.

[Gwydden]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
May I ask why?

Why it doesn't make sense? An arrow to the chest, a sword to her entirely exposed chest, could kill her. Why not cover that vulnerable area up? She's part of a merc band, or a smuggling ring and uses her magic to make coin, so its not like she isn't expecting to be in dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. And Hawke, also part of the same merc band or smuggling ring, can walk around in full armor, or be completely covered up in mage robes with chainmail included.

Then why isn't anyone complaining about Merril's or Wynne's robes, which are even less practical than Bethany's? You are aware wearing an armor is exhausting, and mages are not exactly body builders?

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

For the Bethany pic remenber in the first scene Varic was over statibg the size of her boobs. they were meant to be unrealisticaly big.
Most female characters in the fantasy genra get the treated the same as men.
People tend to bring up the Chainmail Bikini but forget the furry underpants or loincloth.
the next thing is body types the woman is unrealistic. ( so is the man to in my opinion.)
but honeatly i prefere practical armor over the Queens Blade stuff not that i havent .. you nkow watched it. ( Only for the story lines... awe who am i kiding.)

[lil yonce]

Gwydden wrote...
Then why isn't anyone complaining about Merril's or Wynne's robes, which are even less practical than Bethany's? You are aware wearing an armor is exhausting, and mages are not exactly body builders?

Merril has chainmail under her robes and her chest is covered. See:



And if you check a video where she first joins the party, you can she always had it, and had her chest covered.

And the mage robe designs in DAO in general were lacking. The PC didn't have robes with chainmail on or under them either. But that's all available in DA2.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:43 .

[Grieving Natashina]

TheBioticAssassin wrote...

If being scantily clad matches the character's personality, I don't see what the problem is. Isabela is a sexually active pirate, and she isn't afraid to show it. Morrigan uses her body to manipulate men and gain an advantage over them, as Veruin has mentioned. Both of those women dressing like they do fits.

Now, if we happened meet Aveline in Inquisition and she's suddenly wearing an Isabela-esque outfit, I'd be concerned. That's because it doesn't match her personality. She a modest, loyal, and strong warrior, and dressing like Izzy doesn't seem like something she would do.

And, honestly, Bioware has been good with things like this. The devs won't suddenly change their minds and decide to force all women to wear "chain mail bikinis." As a female gamer, I'm not worried the least bit, and I don't think they're the game company you should be directing this concern towards.

Besides, some women (or men) might want to dress their female characters in the armor you describe -- chain mail bikinis and whatnot.  Shouldn't they be given the option to do so? Why should they be left out?

This.

Also, people complain about Bethany's chest and yet...Varric running around with his thin leather vest wide open has no mention?   He's got a big mouth, a flashy presence and the most impractical armor next to Isabella and Merill.  Merril is a mage, and starts in the Primal tree, so it's easy to get Rock Armor going on her.  There is a built in excuse.  Isabella, from a defense perspective, is poorly geared.  If she gets hit, it shows.  That is, if the bad guy can catch her.

Varric is awesome, but he's neither as fast as Isabella nor a mage like Bethany or Merril. He shows much more skin than Bethany...and no one mentions this?  Or is it supposed to be different because he's a guy? 

Like with most fantasy games, it just seems to be silly costume design for the characters.  Some other RPGs are quite worse (slides her eyes towards Final Fantasy.) The actual armors avaiable for the PC as well as for characters like Aveline don't seem overly sexualized in the slightest.  I can safely say that Thedas won't start to resemble the armor from the Heavy Metal comics any time soon.

With the mage robes, I thought most of the design of the mages gear (the dunce caps, oh gods) in Origins was terrible anyways.  They are greatly improved in the sequel.  

Modifié par Starsyn, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:47 .

[Red Panda]

MasterScribe wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

The last thing the artists need to do is base their direction on some flimsy moral crusade. There should be ugly women, pretty women, sexualized women, all different types.

You're saying a variety of different kinds of displaying?

In roles that would make sense? Wearing clothing that would make sense?

A prostitute would wear more revealing clothing than say, a generic mook with a sword, who should be equipped with functional armor, for example.


If so, then I would agree.

So you think ONLY a prostitute should wear revealing clothing? 

'twas an example only.

If it makes sense, then revealing clothing would be okay. If it's a fight, not so much.

Wearing the right clothing for the job is the idea here.

[Gwydden]

OperatingWookie wrote...

'twas an example only.

If it makes sense, then revealing clothing would be okay. If it's a fight, not so much.

Wearing the right clothing for the job is the idea here.

Rogue and mage armor is not suposed to be protective. A little more or a little less is rather irrelevant there.

[Sentinel358]

Again, take a look at all the concept art and all the screenshots of inquisition i guarantee you wont see anything thats "over sexualized" theyre taking a much more realistic approach which i love to see

[I Tsunayoshi I]

MasterScribe wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

The last thing the artists need to do is base their direction on some flimsy moral crusade. There should be ugly women, pretty women, sexualized women, all different types.

You're saying a variety of different kinds of displaying?

In roles that would make sense? Wearing clothing that would make sense?

A prostitute would wear more revealing clothing than say, a generic mook with a sword, who should be equipped with functional armor, for example.


If so, then I would agree.

So you think ONLY a prostitute should wear revealing clothing? 

I'd mention that Varric could deflect sword blows with his chesthair, but that isnt the point of this thread.

Speaking of the point, Dragon Age has rarely had sexualized characters that didnt need to be.

Mass Effect on the other hand...

[Killdren88]

Dragon Age is tame compared to other Rpgs. Their bodies are covered effectively in armor. And as we have seen women guards and such they are completely fine. DA:O gets a pass because their armor actually covered skin. Unlike ridiculous JRPG where the more skin that shows the better the armor rating because F*** logic. And don't point to the Dailish armor because that is ONE armor. OP the only people you have to complain to are those mod Dragon Age that make sexualized Armor. And so what if robes on mages have chest bumps it cloth. And if you truly dislike Bethany's Makeshift armor which was made on the spot make her a warden.

As we have seen in DA:I Images. You have nothing to complain about, and if robes show chest bumps or you find an armor set or two that shows skin. Get over it and use the other armors.

Apologies if I seemed rude.

Modifié par Killdren88, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:45 .

[Red Panda]

Gwydden wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

'twas an example only.

If it makes sense, then revealing clothing would be okay. If it's a fight, not so much.

Wearing the right clothing for the job is the idea here.

Rogue and mage armor is not suposed to be protective. A little more or a little less is rather irrelevant there.

Let's be fair here... Armor should be protective to an extent even for those classes.

Mobility, flexibility, and comfort are the other big factors.

[Gwydden]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Let's be fair here... Armor should be protective to an extent even for those classes.

Mobility, flexibility, and comfort are the other big factors.

From a realistic standpoint? Yes, they should be.

However, by DA rules, they're not. Varric, Isabela, Anders, even Carver (who's a warrior)... Bethany is wearing more protective clothes than any of them.

[slimgrin]

MasterScribe wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

The last thing the artists need to do is base their direction on some flimsy moral crusade. There should be ugly women, pretty women, sexualized women, all different types.

You're saying a variety of different kinds of displaying?

In roles that would make sense? Wearing clothing that would make sense?

A prostitute would wear more revealing clothing than say, a generic mook with a sword, who should be equipped with functional armor, for example.


If so, then I would agree.

So you think ONLY a prostitute should wear revealing clothing? 

Uhh...he didn't say that. It should be based on the NPC's personality, like the difference between Aveline and Isabella. If that still offends people then really, who cares. They're at least being consistent with character.