340 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

I actually would prefer to have better looking men in BioWare games, but that goes into the different ways attractiveness works between men and women and is really not on topic.

[Allan Schumacher]

Slow down. Let's tackle things one issue at a time.

 

First of all, I don't know about 'metal bikinis,' but you just quoted the reason straight from me. It establishes character, as I said. It's the reason why characters like Vivianne wear the clothing she wears instead of armor. Why a character established as a cat thief wears a cat suit. Why a priestess wears robes and why a scientist character wears a scientific-looking outfit. And yes, that means wearing them alongside characters that wear heavier armor.

 

So...what do you have to add here to convince me? You're not revealing any new information or reasoning. I already see what's happening.

 

There's Vivienne, and there's Aribeth.

 

One of this is much more interesting to me as a player, and I'm not sure what "characterization" Aribeth's armor really gives.  And yes, I recognize that Aribeth is a BioWare character.  We can certainly look to improve.

 

I have much less issue with Vivienne than Aribeth.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think it's also important to share the entire entry (which is sensationalist in and of itself) of the Vivienne blurb on armor (emphasis mine)

 

"A thousand arrows would pierce her breast before Vivienne would don beaten steel for so base an urge as protection. If one must wear armor, then have it flatter the form. Hide it beneath fine fabrics more becoming of one’s status, for steel alone will not protect you from the barbed tongues of Orlais."

[Mockingword]

Those 'idiots' would include the Dragon Age staff for you, then?

 

You're going to run into a lot of problems sneering at the idea of people appreciating beauty.

I think the reasoning behind some of their design decisions is flawed, yes. But on the whole, they do pretty well.

 

They may think that "Isabela needs no pants", but I doubt any member of Bioware staff has ever been stabbed in the thigh.

 

As for "appreciating beauty", I firmly believe that women, and people generally, can be beautiful without being degraded.

[Vapaa]

 

There's Vivienne, and there's Aribeth.

 

One of this is much more interesting to me as a player, and I'm not sure what "characterization" Aribeth's armor really gives.  And yes, I recognize that Aribeth is a BioWare character.  We can certainly look to improve.

 

I have much less issue with Vivienne than Aribeth.

 

Even in DAO, the difference between male and female version were sometimes laughable; the Ancient elven armor was kinda ok but the clothing with awesome stats I gave Leliana made her look like she came out of the Pearl.

 

But it was in 2009, DA2 was an improvement in that front, and so is DAI; Cass's armor is ten times more awesome with that Seeker's eye that it would ever be with a boobplate.

[Allan Schumacher]

Even in DAO, the difference between male and female version were sometimes laughable; the Ancient elven armor was kinda ok but the clothing with awesome stats I gave Leliana made her look like she came out of the Pearl.

 

But it was in 2009, DA2 was an improvement in that front, and so is DAI; Cass's armor is ten times more awesome with that Seeker's eye that it would ever be with a boobplate.

 

Yeah DAO had some eyebrow raisers.  I wouldn't be surprised if DAI still has some, but I think we're getting better in general.

[TKavatar]

One of Vivienne's outfits does have a rather revealing boob window...

[Bob from Accounting]

I think the reasoning behind some of their design decisions is flawed, yes. But on the whole, they do pretty well.

 

Tell me. What exactly do you imagine is the 'reasoning' for ever making a female character beautiful? Even if she wears armor you like or never sees combat and thus doesn't need it.

 

Why is she given pretty eyes? Perfect skin and hair? Flawless smile?

 

Does she need those pretty eyes?

Does she need that perfect skin and hair?

Does she need that flawless smile?

 

Is it necessary? Does her characterization depend on it? Could she function as a character without it?

 

If she can function as a character without it, why does she have it?

[Allan Schumacher]

Tell me. What exactly do you imagine is the 'reasoning' for ever making a female character beautiful? Even if she wears armor you like or never sees combat and thus doesn't need it.

 

Why is she given pretty eyes? Perfect skin and hair? Flawless smile?

 

Does she need those pretty eyes?

Does she need that perfect skin and hair?

Does she need that flawless smile?

 

Is it necessary? Does her characterization depend on it? Could she function as a character without it?

 

If she can function as a character without it, why does she have it?

 

The issue you need to ask is more: "Why are they almost always portrayed that way?"  Because it's never an issue with a single instance.

And then ask "Is that a good thing?"  (My answer is "No" by the way).

 

 

What's your opinion on Aribeth's armor?  Why do you think BioWare gave her that outfit?

[KaiserShep]

Yeah DAO had some eyebrow raisers.  I wouldn't be surprised if DAI still has some, but I think we're getting better in general.

 

So far only DA:O had some stuff that made me raise an eyebrow, but DA2 was pretty good about it. If anything, the only armor that really raised my eyebrows was this wacky thing from the Warrior Pack DLC. It's like an Incan sun god decided to take up residence in Kirkwall.

[Fredward]

So far only DA:O had some stuff that made me raise an eyebrow, but DA2 was pretty good about it. If anything, the only armor that really raised my eyebrows was this wacky thing from the Warrior Pack DLC. It's like an Incan sun god decided to take up residence in Kirkwall.

 

****** I'm fabulous.

[Mockingword]

Tell me. What exactly do you imagine is the 'reasoning' for ever making a female character beautiful? Even if she wears armor you like or never sees combat and thus doesn't need it.

 

Why is she given pretty eyes? Perfect skin and hair? Flawless smile?

 

Does she need those pretty eyes?

Does she need that perfect skin and hair?

Does she need that flawless smile?

 

Is it necessary? Does her characterization depend on it? Could she function as a character without it?

 

If she can function as a character without it, why does she have it?

The reasoning is that people prefer fiction with 'beautiful' characters in it. I have no problem whatsoever with fiction about 'ugly' characters, but the fact is that Western media has spent over a century telling people that they should be repulsed by certain aspects of physical appearance, and now the result is that characters that display those characteristics simply do not attract audiences, because nobody wants to look at them.

 

Whether or not 'beauty' is important to characterisation really depends on the type of character, and the story she's in. Is she vain? Is she shy? Are people jealous of her? Do many people lust after her? How does she feel about that? What does being 'beautiful' even mean in this setting?

 

But making a character 'beautiful' is not at all the same as sexualising them. Belle in Beauty and the Beast is portrayed as 'beautiful', it's right there in her goddamn name. Tess, in Tess of the d'Urbivilles is portrayed as 'beautiful'. The 'beauty' of these characters is in fact a fairly important part of their characters, because they have to deal with the result of being beautiful (ie; being lusted after and victimised by men who do not respect them). But their respective stories do not dehumanise Belle or Tess the same way that being sexualised for the audience's titillation would.

 

Sexualisation, by its very nature, is almost never necessary. Sexualisation is the act of making a (typically female) character unnecessarily sexy, for the pleasure of a (typically male) audience. Sexualisation goes hand-in-hand with objectification. By sexualising a character, you are making them feel like less of a person and more of an object.

 

Sexualisation is antithetical to characterisation. You're not asking the audience to identify or sympathise with a sexualised character, you're asking them to fantasize about using that character for their own personal pleasure.

[Bob from Accounting]

I think it's fine. Haven't played Neverwinter Nights, so it would depend somewhat on the tone of the game.

 

Interesting picture. Real strong focus on her leaning her neck back. Exposed. Very submissive. You wouldn't ever see a male character in that pose.

 

As to why the developers designed it, I don't think there's any more complicated a reason than they liked the way it looked.

[Bob from Accounting]

The reasoning is that people prefer fiction with beautiful characters in it.

 

Sexualisation, by its very nature, is almost never necessary. Sexualisation is the act of making a (typically female) character unnecessarily sexy, for the pleasure of a (typically male) audience. Sexualisation goes hand-in-hand with objectification. By sexualising a character, you are making them feel like less of a person and more of an object.

 

Okay...it kinda seems like we've just gone in a circle. Make no mistake: Eyes, hair, skin, and other facial attributes are every bit as important to a character being 'sexy' as their chest and hips. More so, perhaps.

 

So again, what reason is there which makes those features 'necessary'? Rarely is a female characters beauty an element of the story. Are you suggesting female characters cannot be 'sexy' unless it's a plot point?
 

[Vapaa]

One of Vivienne's outfits does have a rather revealing boob window...

 

From what I gather, it's a mix and match thing, so if you mix a outfit with clevage with a shoulder pad that doesn't cover clevage you get a boob window; the same shoulder pad with a no-clevage outfit (or the same outfit with a cleavage-concealing shoulder pad) result in a fully concealed character.

[Mockingword]

Okay...it kinda seems like we've just gone in a circle. Make no mistake: Eyes, hair, skin, and other facial attributes are every bit as important to a character being 'sexy' as their chest and hips. More so, perhaps.

 

So again, what reason is there which makes those features 'necessary'? Rarely is a female characters beauty an element of the story. Are you suggesting female characters cannot be 'sexy' unless it's a plot point?
 

I'm saying that if it's not a plot point, then there's no good reason for a character to be 'sexy' when a 'plain' or even an 'ugly' one can achieve the exact same tasks. But we make our characters 'beautiful' according to modern standards, because we know that people are going to have to imagine them or look at them for potentially hours at a time.

 

You're absolutely correct that eyes, hair, skin and other facial attributes are exactly as important to characterisation as being sexy.

 

Which is to say, none of them matter at all, unless the story makes them matter.

 

If you can't connect to a character with the 'wrong' hair or eye colour, then that's your drama, and not an issue with the storytelling or characterisation.

[Bob from Accounting]

So...you're saying it's bad. That unless a woman's attractiveness is an element of the story, she should be plain or ugly. Is that right? Which would be upwards of 90% of female characters in fiction.
 

[Mockingword]

So...you're saying it's bad. That unless a woman's attractiveness is an element of the story, she should be plain or ugly. Is that right? Which would be upwards of 90% of female characters in fiction.
 

No, I'm not saying it's bad, except insofar that our modern standards of beauty have sexist and racist implications.

 

Sexualisation is bad, because the dehumanising effects of it harm women in real life. But having your characters be 'beautiful', whatever that means for you, is perfectly fine. But if your idea of beauty requires a character to be sexualised, then I'd say that's a problem, yes. If only because it prevents you from connecting to anyone on an emotional level.

 

But your assertion that being good-looking is an inherently important part of characterisation is false. Stories almost never comment on the fact that their characters are considered attractive. How can it be an important part of the character if it doesn't affect their life or events in any way?

[Bob from Accounting]

I keep trying to get you to define what this 'Sexualisation' of yours actually is and you keep wiggling out of it.

 

Clearly, it's not just about boobs or butts, since you just admitted pretty eyes and faces are just as important. Nor is it 'unnecessary beauty' because you just said it's perfectly okay to have beautiful characters whose beauty isn't an element of the plot.

 

So what is it? I want a strict, precise, definition that doesn't contradict either of these two points. What is 'Sexualisation?' It's not boobs or butts, and it's not unnecessary beauty.

[Mockingword]

I keep trying to get you to define what this 'Sexualisation' of yours actually is and you keep wiggling out of it.

 

Clearly, it's not just about boobs or butts, since you just admitted pretty eyes and faces are just as important. Nor is it 'unnecessary beauty' because you just said it's perfectly okay to have beautiful characters whose beauty isn't an element of the plot.

 

So what is it? I want a strict, precise, definition that doesn't contradict either of these two points. What is 'Sexualisation?' It's not boobs or butts, and it's not unnecessary beauty.

I defined it over and over for you, you just don't ****** read, obviously, or else you never would've come up with the ridiculous idea that my argument is "Pretty people are bad herp derp."

 

It actually pretty much is about boobs and butts, I think I and everyone else you've talked to has made that pretty damn clear. By drawing attention to the woman's cleavage or ass, and taking it away from her face, you are discouraging people from engaging with her as a person, and encouraging them to think of her as a sex toy.

[Bob from Accounting]

Hmm. Bit of a minor misunderstanding on my part there. But we got there in the end, so it's all good.

 

Anyone, in your mind, it's perfectly okay to have as gorgeous of a face as possible, because that doesn't contribute to a woman being sexually alluring, but she shouldn't have full breasts or hips because that does make her sexually alluring. Because the evolutionary process that developed sexual selection in humans only worked below the neckline for some reason. That about right?

[Allan Schumacher]

I think it's fine. Haven't played Neverwinter Nights, so it would depend somewhat on the tone of the game.

 

Can you understand how someone may not think it's fine?  Because that seems like it could be part of the problem here.

 

Aribeth de Tylmarande is a Paladin charged with helping defend the waterdhavian creatures so they can be used to cure the plague that is ravaging the city of Neverwinter.  She is pretty much the person that tasks the player character throughout the first two acts of the game.

 

What do you think her outfit would even suggest about her characterization?  You think she's submissive because of her pose?  What if she wasn't?

 

For more information on Aribeth, read this: http://forgottenreal...h_de_Tylmarande

 

 

So...you're saying it's bad. That unless a woman's attractiveness is an element of the story, she should be plain or ugly. Is that right? Which would be upwards of 90% of female characters in fiction.

 

No, no one is saying that.  Variety.  There's less of it for women than there is for men.  Which is how this all got started when you replied to a poster that pointed out that the depiction of women in media isn't accurate, and postulated that it becomes difficult for both men and women to identify with women in media because of such things.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

Anyone, in your mind, it's perfectly okay to have as gorgeous of a face as possible, because that doesn't contribute to a woman being sexually alluring, but she shouldn't have full breasts or hips because that does make her sexually alluring. Because the evolutionary process that developed sexual selection in humans only worked below the neckline for some reason. That about right?

 

No, it's not.

[Mockingword]

Hmm. Bit of a minor misunderstanding on my part there. But we got there in the end, so it's all good.

 

Anyone, in your mind, it's perfectly okay to have as gorgeous of a face as possible, because that doesn't contribute to a woman being sexually alluring, but she shouldn't have full breasts or hips because that does make her sexually alluring. Because the evolutionary process that developed sexual selection in humans only worked below the neckline for some reason. That about right?

Not really? Being 'sexy' is not the same as being sexualised. Sexualisation is when undue attention is paid to these attributes, by the work in which the character appears.

 

Miranda is 'sexy', but when the camera deliberately clings to her ass, she is being sexualised. The player is being encouraged to pay attention to her butt, rather than the words that are actually coming out of her mouth, which would tell you infinitely more about her character than her hips ever could.

 

And that is why sexualisation is a detriment to characterisation. It distracts you from engaging with them, learning about them, or forming any sort of meaningful connection with them, in favour of looking at their bodies for some fleeting titllation. It encourages you to disrespect them by implying that the only purpose of their presence is to arouse you.

 

Of course, Miranda does not exist purely or the purpose of arousing (assumed male) players. But when the camera deliberately takes you away from her face and forces you to look at her ass, it is undermining her characterisation.

[Bob from Accounting]

Not really? Being 'sexy' is not the same as being sexualised. Sexualisation is when undue attention is paid to these attributes, by the work in which the character appears.

 

Miranda is 'sexy', but when the camera deliberately clings to her ass, she is being sexualised. The player is being encouraged to pay attention to her butt, rather than the words that are actually coming out of her mouth, which would tell you infinitely more about her character than her hips ever could.

 

And that is why sexualisation is a detriment to characterisation. It distracts you from engaging with them, learning about them, or forming any sort of meaningful connection with them, in favour of looking at their bodies for some fleeting titllation. It encourages you to disrespect them by implying that the only purpose of their presence is to arouse you.

 

Okay. That's fair. So it's okay for female characters to be beautiful, okay for them to have full breasts and hips, so long as the narrative doesn't pay undue attention to those traits?

[Mockingword]

Okay. That's fair. So it's okay for female characters to be beautiful, okay for them to have full breasts and hips, so long as the narrative doesn't pay undue attention to those traits?

Yes.