9318 réponses à ce sujet

[naddaya]

Of course I posted a half-naked female Qunari though. Can't get an opinion on musculature if they are fully armored, can I? 

 

But yes, that was what I was looking for. I was curious if that was muscular enough of a torso for those who wanted them to be more robust.

 

You can't see anything but her boobs and abs. The abs I'm fine with. I'd like her to have a reasonably wide back and big shoulders and arms. You can't see those in the picture.

 

I mean at least something like Norn bodies #2 and #6 from Guild Wars 2. With bigger legs and shoulders possibly, the rest is perfect:

[DragonRacer]

Sorry Sasha, I like you, I really do- but this is a thread which has spent 90% of the time discussing the issues the women face in gaming and other media, and you posted a picture of a half naked potential Inquisitor, cocking her hip to the side and presenting her breasts to the viewer and asked us what we thought about her body.  I think that she's tall enough, and broad enough, if that's what you're looking for- but I think that I can't really judge anything else, since I would hope that her core is covered in game, and the picture doesn't offer us a clear view of her limbs and their musculature.

 

The image honestly reminded me of this fabulous piece:

 

[aTigerslunch]

Ahem, ahem.

 

Sure they did. Just not all of them.

Yeah, at least one army, only noble wore armor.  Reason I adjusted my post some. 

[Foxhound2020]

I don't know, she look a bit more covered up than heeman. He certainly has questionable attire.

 

[9TailsFox]

The image honestly reminded me of this fabulous piece:

 

[DragonRacer]

 

They had shields. From what I remember of the movie anyway.

 

That is, at least, SOMETHING.

 

EDIT: But to add, I feel it's... weird... for men or women to run around in battle half-naked. 

[9TailsFox]

They had shields. From what I remember of the movie anyway.

 

That is, at least, SOMETHING.

 

EDIT: But to add, I feel it's... weird... for men or women to run around in battle half-naked. 

Yes Shield and spear combat style is main focus.

[Bugsie]

Did the Spartans really fight with virtually no body armor?

No. The movie 300 has the Spartan soldiers fighting nearly naked without any form of body armor protecting them. Body armor was a valuable asset to the real Spartan soldiers. 300 author Frank Miller commented on this alteration in an Entertainment Weekly interview, "I took those chest plates and leather skirts off of them for a reason. I wanted these guys to move and I wanted 'em to look good. ... Spartans, in full regalia, were almost indistinguishable except at a very close angle."

(from history vs Hollywood)

In addition to this, the real '300' also had an army of slaves.

I wanted to address the post about the Picts and women fighting, and the description of a picture of a segmented worm as a nematode, but it's late here and this pedant Biologist and amateur historian needs sleep.

[Gwydden]

(from history vs Hollywood)

In addition to this, the real '300' also had an army of slaves.

I wanted to address the post about the Picts and women fighting, and the description of a picture of a segmented worm as a nematode, but it's late here and this pedant Biologist and amateur historian needs sleep.

Maybe not the Picts themselves (there's not enough evidence to properly support that claim), but in several Celtic tribes both in the continent and in the islands women participated in battle. I'm talking ancient, not medieval history.

[AkiKishi]

There is not a whole lot of armour that will stop an arrow. Even less that will stop high power crossbow. White armour was only worn by the nobility because it was really expensive. Normal soldiers never wore armour approaching that level. Breastplate and helmet if they were lucky.

 

Not wearing armour is a psychological thing is some cultures, no fear of death, really unnerved the Romans when they tried to go north of the wall. But in most cases it's practical and cost related. A lot of knights going on crusade discovered that heat and armour is not a great combination.

[themikefest]

They had shields. From what I remember of the movie anyway.

 

That is, at least, SOMETHING.

 

EDIT: But to add, I feel it's... weird... for men or women to run around in battle half-naked. 

They also had proper training. That's why they're able to work in unison with each other during combat. They knew what the other was doing and could help each other in protection if needed

[naddaya]

Plate armor was cumbersome and expensive, but even light armor can protect from non-fatal but annoying and distracting stuff like scratches, falls on moderately sharp surfaces, indirect hits etc. Not wearing any doesn't make much sense.

[AkiKishi]

They also had proper training. That's why they're able to work in unison with each other during combat. They knew what the other was doing and could help each other in protection if needed

 

Fighting in formation is very different. The shield covers the person next to you. Fighting a typical legionary one on one is hilarious because the sword reach is so short that the shield gets in the way. In most cases, it's better to just drop the thing and get inside the longer reach. Anything bigger than a heater can be a liability. 

 

The important thing to remember is that armour design should be practical. That does not always mean fully covering, but rather adaptive to the climate and the type of weapons one would expect to face as well as the tactics employed.

[Gwydden]

Plate armor was cumbersome and expensive, but even light armor can protect from non-fatal but annoying and distracting stuff like scratches, falls on moderately sharp surfaces, indirect hits etc. Not wearing any doesn't make much sense.

Many things people did in the olden times wouldn't make sense to us. Going to battle with not even clothes on shows either an incredible arrogance or an a remarkable lack of concern for one's life and well being. Yet it happened.

 

Human beings don't always make as much sense as we like to think 

The important thing to remember is that armour design should be practical. That does not always mean fully covering, but rather adaptive to the climate and the type of weapons one would expect to face as well as the tactics employed.

I think the qunari wearing lots of heavy armor makes very little sense. They live in a jungle close to the equator, and armor doesn't provide much protection against mages, their most common enemies.

[naddaya]

Many things people did in the olden times wouldn't make sense to us. Going to battle with not even clothes on shows either an incredible arrogance or an a remarkable lack of concern for one's life and well being. Yet it happened.

 

Human beings don't always make as much sense as we like to think 

 

True enough. Also, most people believed in destiny. If someone died in battle it was regarded as the will of the gods, armor or no armor. The general mentality in DA is closer to modern times though.

[themikefest]

Fighting in formation is very different. The shield covers the person next to you. Fighting a typical legionary one on one is hilarious because the sword reach is so short that the shield gets in the way. In most cases, it's better to just drop the thing and get inside the longer reach. Anything bigger than a heater can be a liability. 

 

The important thing to remember is that armour design should be practical. That does not always mean fully covering, but rather adaptive to the climate and the type of weapons one would expect to face as well as the tactics employed.

Apparently they had no problem fighting with a shield and sword.

[AkiKishi]

Apparently they had no problem fighting with a shield and sword.

 

Romans ? Once the formation broke, broadswords could make very short work of them. It's why they never liked fighting in forests because that would break the formation. In places where they fought in forests,they often got beaten and needed some very overwhelming numbers. 

 

Auxliarly armour is more general purpose.

[Nefla]

I am actually surprised of what I have been reading recently in here. Some viewpoints are confusing and other seem just wrong when it comes to sexuality.

 

I would say this much.

To assume something is offensive, objectified, or just wrong because it has sexualized traits would be the real act of sexism.

 

No one should be ashamed because the decided to dress sexy for an occasion and neither should anyone feel ashamed if there are depictions of sexuality.

 

It's kind of like claiming someone got raped because they dressed sexy. In this case it seems some of the arguments I'm feeling in here is that someone has been objectified because they are sexy. That's just seems like a horribly sexist perception even if it comes from a female.

You're surprised that a thread full of women who want equal treatment and respect for women in games roll their eyes at a battle bikini picture? Really? There's nothing wrong with being sexy, or even wearing skimpy clothing. There are places and times where this is appropriate such as the beach, a nightclub, etc...and places where it's not appropriate such as in combat. As for objectification, sexual objectification is all about treating a person as a sexual object with no regard for their dignity so yes, this kind of thing applies. Such a picture tells us nothing about her personality or skills and is there to tantalize male viewers. Her attire makes no practical sense even from a barbarian "I don't wear armor" perspective. Large breasts like that are painful when running without an extreme amount of support (I'm talking 3 layered tight sports bras or some actual binding here) and those two straps she has on the upper part of her breasts offer no support. In addition, large breasts swinging free (and lets be real, they would fall out of that flimsy harness in 2 seconds) really throw off your balance. Any smart fighter would bind them down.

[Gwydden]

You're surprised that a thread full of women who want equal treatment and respect for women in games roll their eyes at a battle bikini picture? Really? There's nothing wrong with being sexy, or even wearing skimpy clothing. There are places and times where this is appropriate such as the beach, a nightclub, etc...and places where it's not appropriate such as in combat. As for objectification, sexual objectification is all about treating a person as a sexual object with no regard for their dignity so yes, this kind of thing applies. Such a picture tells us nothing about her personality or skills and is there to tantalize male viewers. Her attire makes no practical sense even from a barbarian "I don't wear armor" perspective. Large breasts like that are painful when running without an extreme amount of support (I'm talking 3 layered tight sports bras or some actual binding here) and those two straps she has on the upper part of her breasts offer no support. In addition, large breasts swinging free (and lets be real, they would fall out of that flimsy harness in 2 seconds) really throw off your balance. Any smart fighter would bind them down.

Though I agree with you, I must point out "barbarians" were hardly the only ones to fight that way.

[Nefla]

Though I agree with you, I must point out "barbarians" were hardly the only ones to fight that way.

I know, just an example. Either way you'd be an idiot not to bind your huge breasts no matter what type of athletics you were doing. (except swimming)

[TheChris92]

I really wish developers/publishers like Ubisoft would ball up and tell people to deal with it. They shouldn't have to explain why they excluded women from their game(s) 

 

It's their decision to do w/e they want, and if players don't like it, they don't have to buy the game. 

 

Nothing will come of this and the game will still go on to sell millions, with the loud minority still whining about things.

The skewered excuse they came with was certainly not warranted -- It's not about wanting to force Ubisoft to go beyond their generic characters like Desmond Miles or Aidan Pierce. They can have as many Ezio Audacity the Refrigerators as they want. It was how they interpreted the implementation of a female character as a feature, when trying to explain why none of the four seemingly identical white dudes couldn't have included at least 1 female, and/or at least some form of variation to the status quo.

Ubisoft isn't a victim here. They are professional game developers and could most certainly have handled their response much better.

[Gwydden]

I know, just an example. Either way you'd be an idiot not to bind your huge breasts no matter what type of athletics you were doing. (except swimming)

That top appeared in the comics (Rasaan was wearing it) and in female qunari concept art. The difference, of course, is that Rasaan isn't a fighter.

 

This actually reminds me of how the Seafolk sailors from The Wheel of Time would all go topless 

[AkiKishi]

That top appeared in the comics (Rasaan was wearing it) and in female qunari concept art. The difference, of course, is that Rasaan isn't a fighter.

 

This actually reminds me of how the Seafolk sailors from The Wheel of Time would all go topless 

 

I've never seen the comic, but in the concept the straps looked more substantial. I don't get the V line either, no practical sense to that. 

[Blue Gloves]

(from history vs Hollywood)

In addition to this, the real '300' also had an army of slaves.

I wanted to address the post about the Picts and women fighting, and the description of a picture of a segmented worm as a nematode, but it's late here and this pedant Biologist and amateur historian needs sleep.

Oh come on Bugsie- I'm a biomedical scientist myself, I know earthworms are not nematodes- it was a joke.  You try finding a picture of a roundworm with a wizard's hat and wand!

[Gwydden]

I've never seen the comic, but in the concept the straps looked more substantial. I don't get the V line either, no practical sense to that. 

This would be the comic:

 

Not dissimilar from the fanart, but then the woman above is not a warrior, or a fighter of any kind.