2576 réponses à ce sujet

[eyezonlyii]

Well what are you then though? It just sounds like instead of promoting a full blown extreme form of repression, it's like a very tame version 21st century version. It just seems like the exact same thing. I can't think of anything more inconsequential to a game in many ways than the kind of outfit a character has, but so many people seem to have made it a crusade (yes a crusade) to make sure they follow certain (fundamentally) moral standards.

 

There was one in WoW that caught my attention in the beta for WoD, but it was gone because yes the heavily Christian-ized player base or whatever complained. I kind of miss the days when they didn't know video games existed. There was also a breast size reduction in Wildstar if I remember. It's like none of those things ultimately make any difference whatsoever in those games, most of which focus on massive amounts of slaughtering and killing, but no issue is taken with that, nope none at all. It's the same thing in GoT, violence? Fine. Sex? Abominable.

 

So you guys don't burn women at the stake for the slightest hint of sexual expression, fine, progress acknowledged, instead you just try really hard to take the fun out of video games by eradicating all forms of sexual expression. Forgive me for not being so excited that you simply dropped 'fanatic' from the equation.

I think you're taking it to an extreme that no one is arguing for. 

 

Most people probably don't have an issue with breast sliders or revealing clothing. For most, I would wager, the issue is when those aspects of the game design are the focal point of a character rather than a character who has those points. For instance, many people bring up Isabela. Her design works; she was boxum, risque and sexually open. She was also a pirate captain.

 

The same look and aesthetic wouldn't work for Aveline or Merril. Sure Merril could have been shown with more skin showing, and it could have worked if it was part of the Dalish culture being more about one's natural self rather than anything sexual.

 

And there is the difference. It's the intention behind the presentation. So I'm sure most people would be ok with bigger breasts, and more revealing clothing so long as it wasn't just presented from the straight male viewpoint, where the goal is titillation of that viewpoint, but also from a woman's perspective (whether straight, gay bi, or anywhere else along that spectrum) where the goal is more of an overall aesthetic appeal, or even titillation from that perspective.

 

That last point leads into a whole different discussion however. 

[9TailsFox]

Well at least everyone agree to change ugly mage hat with sexy hat.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Her clothes provide the best mobility and serve as a distraction for enemies. You get lost watching that cleavage and then Bela kills you.

 

The mobility argument would be somewhat valid if she didn't also wear 10 pounds of jewelry. I'm also not quite certain skin-tight clothing, huge boots and a E cup chest are ideal for being mobile, but I suppose that's down to character design.

 

If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's that we can change companion armor in Inquisition so that we don't have to stomach designs we don't like. Between Isabela's attire, Merill's slightly too shiny armor and Fenris's... thing... I would have really liked to put them in something else.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, this thread has certainly gotten a lot more hostile then when I was last here. Let's calm down, everyone. 

[Cyonan]

Well at least everyone agree to change ugly mage hat with sexy hat.

 

 

 

That is an awesomely sexy hat.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

The mobility argument would be somewhat valid if she didn't also wear 10 pounds of jewelry. I'm also not quite certain skin-tight clothing, huge boots and a E cup chest are ideal for being mobile, but I suppose that's down to character design.

 

If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's that we can change companion armor in Inquisition so that we don't have to stomach designs we don't like. Between Isabela's attire, Merill's slightly too shiny armor and Fenris's... thing... I would have really liked to put them in something else.

To be fair, if Isabela's jewelry were hollow, as opposed to solid gold, or even made of certain lightweight alloys, she'd be fine. But I don't think Bela's clothing was designed to be mobile. It was designed to fit her viewpoint. She's open and a bit gloaty about her sexuality, it's an important part of herself *to her*. That's the caveat.

 

As for the multitude of people who say 'if it's ingame, don't wear it', well, it almost never turns out like that. Every woman was forced to wear boobplate in ME, until you got to ME3, which had one non-boob design. In Origins, heavy armour meant showing boob all the time. No choice.

 

Also, metal armour built too closely to the body beneath it can chafe, and removes even more of the body's natural ability to torque than it should. 'Uniboob' for all, is designed with padding, in the forms of leather, maybe chainmail, in mind, along with wiggle room (a very small amount), to make sure one can still move should they fall/bend over.

[Pirate of Ferelden]

That is an awesomely sexy hat.

 

Every mage I played rocked that hat, even arcane warriors!

[Cyonan]

Every mage I played rocked that hat, even arcane warriors!

 

In previous DA games I never wore a hat as a mage because of how hilariously bad I thought they looked =P

 

Although my Inquisitor mages are definitely going to be rocking that new hat.

[9TailsFox]

I think you're taking it to an extreme that no one is arguing for. 

 

Most people probably don't have an issue with breast sliders or revealing clothing. For most, I would wager, the issue is when those aspects of the game design are the focal point of a character rather than a character who has those points. For instance, many people bring up Isabela. Her design works; she was boxum, risque and sexually open. She was also a pirate captain.

 

The same look and aesthetic wouldn't work for Aveline or Merril. Sure Merril could have been shown with more skin showing, and it could have worked if it was part of the Dalish culture being more about one's natural self rather than anything sexual.

 

And there is the difference. It's the intention behind the presentation. So I'm sure most people would be ok with bigger breasts, and more revealing clothing so long as it wasn't just presented from the straight male viewpoint, where the goal is titillation of that viewpoint, but also from a woman's perspective (whether straight, gay bi, or anywhere else along that spectrum) where the goal is more of an overall aesthetic appeal, or even titillation from that perspective.

 

That last point leads into a whole different discussion however. 

This is problem, most people have problem and don't want choice, and want sexualised armour removed in all video games in existence. In one topic When I say we don't need more kill animations, better have more make more friendly interactions like hugging, responses wasn't pleasant. Slaughter people is fine but naked body is bad and will make us evil sinners   And Maker forbids we use naked body for enjoyment.

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

[eyezonlyii]

One reason for the argument against more "friendly" animations is that those actions are only done in very specific situations. Like one doesn't walk up to a random person/business partner and give them a hug, or a pat on the back. In this case it's easier to add a killing animation, because that is the main interaction of the game. Though maybe some more intimate animations could be done with the LI's (hugs, kisses, hand holding at a few points).

[Voragoras]

Such a distinction is pointless and meaningless to me. It just comes across as a pair of euphemisms for "unrealistic I like" and "unrealistic I don't like", respectively. "Chainmail bras", as you call them, are just another fantasy trope to me, as much as dragons and magic and the like.

 

I see your point, in that it's a very subjective matter dependent on the person talking and their preferences, but I still maintain that there's a significantly larger cognitive leap required to think "chainmail bikini = protective" than there is to think "rock armour = protective". For someone in the thick of battle (within the context of a video game, since we both know anybody wearing it in real life would be in serious danger) and tanking a lot of damage, rock is going to go a lot further in protecting you from blows than a bikini is, no matter what it's made of, speaking purely logically.

 

Not that I'm defending the usage of rock armour, by the way, because I find it a little eye-roll inducing myself. I like my armour to look cool as heck, without resorting to the AND NOW I WEAR A MOUNTAIN! kinds of ridiculous. That's more comical than awesome to me, like War's design from Darksiders - made me snigger, not bask in its overly elaborate glory.

 

imo, this is just a difference of perspective we can't reconcile. You seem to be putting all armours that bear even the remotest hints of being unrealistic into the same group as ones that're fantastically so, while I believe there are gradients of stupidity and that some are acceptable/understandable breaks for aesthetic/design purposes while others are beyond unbelievable.

 

tl;dr My opinion is that there needs to be some kind of maneuverability in what's acceptably unrealistic and what isn't, otherwise all games would end up looking very stylistically similar and become quite dull to look at and play as, but you can't go over the top with it or else it's going to come across as something embarrassing that stands out starkly in a universe you may be trying to portray with some gravity.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Kefka2:  You think I'm a Christian?  You think I'm religious at all?  No silly person - you're jumping at shadows and fighting for your small cause because you think I'm judging you - when really, it's you who's judging me.  It's interesting how okay it is for you to condemn me - a person you don't even know - for being things I'm not. 

My, my - you're so protective of your vapid materialism you're willing to become such a hypocrite.

 

You think I don't want sexualized armor because sex makes me uncomfortable... of course, it HAS to be that reason because that puts me in the precious little box you need me to be in to spread your hate. 

 

You think I love the violence - that it's okay to have violence and not sex.  ANOTHER judgement it's okay for you to make which is totally incorrect but which you need to fit me into the mold of your self-perceived enemies. 

 

I'd play a game without a single combat element in it... and the hilarious part is THAT game I'd probably be totally fine watching people walk around with exposed skin. 

But you wouldn't know that - and you wouldn't want to hear that - because it's not your perfect little picture of the world where you're victimized by the big mean moralist bullies.

 

Bioware decides what goes in this game - this thread is discussing what people want.  If BIOWARE puts sexy armor in... you won't find me mentioning it once - anywhere.  But if I were asked if I thought it at all interesting to watch my party members who are fighting darkspawn do so in dresses or bikinis... I'd say: "No thanks." 

[bEVEsthda]

<Yawn>

It depends on the game, and game world.

"Sexy" armor does not belong in DA. Period.

 

That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with that, in a game where the fantasy world is inspired by Frazetta, Vallejo, Royo.

 

Now all those who want to be patted on the back for presenting a politically correct opinion, please feel patted on the back and go away.

I have a resistance against the politically correct, and I'm afraid I do not respect it much. But I do not want to see "sexy" armor in DA:I. Because it simply doesn't fit in the DA universe.  In my opinion.  (Which is right, o c, as always  ).

 

P.S. and I loathed what DA2 did to Isabela.  DA2 was sooo sh.....

[Star fury]

I came into this thread expecting to see a bunch of practicality/realism elitists. My expectations were met.

 

Why do people care what other people have access to? Having "unrealistic" sexualized armor in the game as an option doesn't affect you. The simple solution is don't use it. People that prefer that style of armor (ie. a lot) can use it, and likewise you can choose only to use your historically accurate Arthurian chainmail.

I support realistic armour for men and "unrealistic" sexualized one for women. I'm sure it's a balanced and fair position.

 

 

The mobility argument would be somewhat valid if she didn't also wear 10 pounds of jewelry. I'm also not quite certain skin-tight clothing, huge boots and a E cup chest are ideal for being mobile, but I suppose that's down to character design.

 

If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's that we can change companion armor in Inquisition so that we don't have to stomach designs we don't like. Between Isabela's attire, Merill's slightly too shiny armor and Fenris's... thing... I would have really liked to put them in something else.

I don't think Bela's necklace and earrings wear 10 pounds. Do you propose a breast reduction surgery for Isabela? That's blasphemy! Burn, heretic!

[Grieving Natashina]

<Yawn>

It depends on the game, and game world.

"Sexy" armor does not belong in DA. Period.

 

That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with that, in a game where the fantasy world is inspired by Frazetta, Vallejo, Royo.

 

Now all those who want to be patted on the back for presenting a politically correct opinion, please feel patted on the back and go away.

I have a resistance against the politically correct, and I'm afraid I do not respect it much. But I do not want to see "sexy" armor in DA:I. Because it simply doesn't fit in the DA universe.  In my opinion.  (Which is right, o c, as always  ).

 

P.S. and I loathed what DA2 did to Isabela.  DA2 was sooo sh.....

This (except for the Isabela part, but agree to disagree there) and...

 

Well, this thread has certainly gotten a lot more hostile then when I was last here. Let's calm down, everyone. 

This.  I can understand folks being offended, but no need to start getting this aggressive.  Ignore lists are good.

 

@Kekfa: I disagree with you as well to the extreme you are taking this, and I'm not religious either.  Rather than make blanket assumptions about other people because they disagree with you, why don't you just leave religion out of this?  I know that one of my friends on the forums is a Mormon and they still wouldn't fit into that mold you're speaking of.  

[FumikoM]

<Yawn>
It depends on the game, and game world.
"Sexy" armor does not belong in DA. Period.
 
That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with that, in a game where the fantasy world is inspired by Frazetta, Vallejo, Royo.
 
Now all those who want to be patted on the back for presenting a politically correct opinion, please feel patted on the back and go away.
I have a resistance against the politically correct, and I'm afraid I do not respect it much. But I do not want to see "sexy" armor in DA:I. Because it simply doesn't fit in the DA universe.  In my opinion.  (Which is right, o c, as always  ).
 
P.S. and I loathed what DA2 did to Isabela.  DA2 was sooo sh.....

Well one could say being against sexy armor like Isabela's is then being PC..

[Puppy Love]

Unfortunately I believe armor that show of our breasts a bit more are unique to female followers, like Sera's. The female protagonist will probably have to be content with armor that always make our breast look flat. Which is kinda annoying since I also prefer to have larger breasts in games. I love curves (or would love to have I should say), and since I can't have that outside the virtual world I at least want it in the virtual one. 

Yeah, and honestly this kind of crap is seriously pissing me off.  The players ability at self expression is always super limited in design in terms of expressing different personalities, meanwhile the npcs, whether in combat or otherwise can wear whatever the hell they want, and express themselves however.  If an NPC is hard like Aveline, she gets plate, sexual and risque like Isabella, can wear practically nothing , or wear armor with their chest exposed like Varric, whatever...  the... NPC wants, period.  There's zero restriction on the developers NPC characterization. 

 

PCs on the other hand pretty much limited to a single clothing concept really, nothing we wear has any personality, there's no expression, its just armor, and drab robes.

 

Is like everything is made for the PC to be as neutral and genetic as possible.  Well now that we can find an armor we like and upgrade it, is time we push away from this generic crap, and start having some personality.  Make different armors, with them trying to express different kinds of characterization, so people can have characters who's dress fit their personality and self expression.

 

If someone makes a rogue, and want sexy minstrel/bard gear, they should be able to get it, screw the "practical" crap, if they want to dress like a more sailor rogue, with less armor, since sailors don't wear lots of armor, because heavy armor at sea is damn stupid, they should be allowed to.  Is time we take the shackles off our characters, and let them be more than just a bland suit of armor. 

 

I mean we can't have long hair thanks to apparent issues, no matter what we have two voices per character, there's only so much dialogue choices, ect, why are we soooo limited in armor/clothing variety?  It doesn't matter if we have 100000000 different armors if they all fit the exact same very few characterizations.  For example, you can vary armor to fit the knight in shining armor archetype forever, you could have a thousand and one, knight in shining armor, armor sets, and it would not change that you only have 1001 ways to dress as a knight in shining armor and nothing else what so ever.

 

Is time they put more effort into different archetypes for their armor, let players express which archetype their character dresses like.  I mean is that really so much to ask?

[eyezonlyii]

Yeah, and honestly this kind of crap is seriously pissing me off.  The players ability at self expression is always super limited in design in terms of expressing different personalities, meanwhile the npcs, whether in combat or otherwise can wear whatever the hell they want, and express themselves however.  If an NPC is hard like Aveline, she gets plate, sexual and risque like Isabella, can wear practically nothing , or wear armor with their chest exposed like Varric, whatever...  the... NPC wants, period.  There's zero restriction on the developers NPC characterization. 

 

PCs on the other hand pretty much limited to a single clothing concept really, nothing we wear has any personality, there's no expression, its just armor, and drab robes.

 

Is like everything is made for the PC to be as neutral and genetic as possible.  Well now that we can find an armor we like and upgrade it, is time we push away from this generic crap, and start having some personality.  Make different armors, with them trying to express different kinds of characterization, so people can have characters who's dress fit their personality and self expression.

 

If someone makes a rogue, and want sexy minstrel/bard gear, they should be able to get it, screw the "practical" crap, if they want to dress like a more sailor rogue, with less armor, since sailors don't wear lots of armor, because heavy armor at sea is damn stupid, they should be allowed to.  Is time we take the shackles off our characters, and let them be more than just a bland suit of armor. 

 

I mean we can't have long hair thanks to apparent issues, no matter what we have two voices per character, there's only so much dialogue choices, ect, why are we soooo limited in armor/clothing variety?  It doesn't matter if we have 100000000 different armors if they all fit the exact same very few characterizations.  For example, you can vary armor to fit the knight in shining armor archetype forever, you could have a thousand and one, knight in shining armor, armor sets, and it would not change that you only have 1001 ways to dress as a knight in shining armor and nothing else what so ever.

 

Is time they put more effort into different archetypes for their armor, let players express which archetype their character dresses like.  I mean is that really so much to ask?

But look at your opening examples, Aveline and Isabela ONLY have those two choices (and they never change clothes by the way). And there is an armor customization option, we just don;t know how deep the customization goes. The thing is, however, the components of said customization, even in a super deep crafting mechanic, would all come from Thedas and as such fit into the customs, aesthetic and visuals of that world. Using your knight armor example, here's how I would do customization:

 

SEX

Male or female

SIZE

Light, medium, heavy, massive

TEMPLATE

Fereldan, Orlesian, Antivan, Dalish, Rivani, Chasind

 

From there you get to add, subtract, and modify patterns, colors, and some ornamental flairs. We know Fereldan would probably be more utilitarian; Orlesian would definitely be more ornate, and the others would have their differences. Essentially the game would give you an outline and you get to color inside those lines to your heart's content.

[Voragoras]

^ I like that idea, quite a lot. The same armour set with slightly different styles and rendering would make playing your own imagined characters so much more fulfilling, if you could express them through clothing as well as your physical facial/body features, while also (I don't think) not being too taxing to design, since it's altering the same set compared to thinking up a new one. You might have to surrender some of the quantity, but I'd imagine you'd get that back in terms of quality, which I think is a fair trade.

[aTigerslunch]

Well what are you then though? It just sounds like instead of promoting a full blown extreme form of repression, it's like a very tame version 21st century version. It just seems like the exact same thing. I can't think of anything more inconsequential to a game in many ways than the kind of outfit a character has, but so many people seem to have made it a crusade (yes a crusade) to make sure they follow certain (fundamentally) moral standards.

There was one in WoW that caught my attention in the beta for WoD, but it was gone because yes the heavily Christian-ized player base or whatever complained. I kind of miss the days when they didn't know video games existed. There was also a breast size reduction in Wildstar if I remember. It's like none of those things ultimately make any difference whatsoever in those games, most of which focus on massive amounts of slaughtering and killing, but no issue is taken with that, nope none at all. It's the same thing in GoT, violence? Fine. Sex? Abominable.

So you guys don't burn women at the stake for the slightest hint of sexual expression, fine, progress acknowledged, instead you just try really hard to take the fun out of video games by eradicating all forms of sexual expression. Forgive me for not being so excited that you simply dropped 'fanatic' from the equation.

It is pushing a little far too extreme. However, I noticed violence is more accepted than sex in some cases. I have couple family members that doesnt care if a head is blown into chunks but a stripper bar is a big deal. I wont go further than that though, but using Religion wasnt a good thing to add to post. I try to avoid talking about it.

[Healoz]

Awesome armour every day. Although I can't think of any revealing armour in any DA games. I guess Morrigan counts, but she did have a reason for not wearing that much.

[AresKeith]

But look at your opening examples, Aveline and Isabela ONLY have those two choices (and they never change clothes by the way). And there is an armor customization option, we just don;t know how deep the customization goes. The thing is, however, the components of said customization, even in a super deep crafting mechanic, would all come from Thedas and as such fit into the customs, aesthetic and visuals of that world. Using your knight armor example, here's how I would do customization:

 

There was an old blog post about how the companion customization is for DAI

[Puppy Love]

I'd rather have one outfit that represents me then a million that don't.  NPCs having one outfit is not a point against them, if that outfit fits them.

[boissiere]

I just hope you can put any stat and upgrade in any armor so that I can have awesome armors with awesome looks!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This (except for the Isabela part, but agree to disagree there) and...

 

This.  I can understand folks being offended, but no need to start getting this aggressive.  Ignore lists are good.

 

@Kekfa: I disagree with you as well to the extreme you are taking this, and I'm not religious either.  Rather than make blanket assumptions about other people because they disagree with you, why don't you just leave religion out of this?  I know that one of my friends on the forums is a Mormon and they still wouldn't fit into that mold you're speaking of.  

Out of curiosity, are you referring to me?