2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

I can't believe Tiger liked one of my posts!

 

Anyway, I'm just annoyed at the way sex is treated with such brazen inconsistency, and not simply by the masses who are most certainly more extremist in this regard than the people who play DA or watch GoT, but also by such elevated individuals who seem to view themselves as invulnerable in this respect.

 

GoT has literally graphic pornographic sex and violence, it has genital mutilation, castration, it has everything under the sun, but for some crazy reason, an overly sexaulized outfit in a JRPG or even in the rare instances it shows up in DA or something is cause for concern? That illustrates a massive mismatch in priorities. As much as I like things in GoT (which DA was partially inspired by), the obsession with breasts never seems to raise concern by frequently the same people who turn around and spit on some random visual novel character design, or Super Smash outfit, or whatever. Nevermind the fact that for all the sexy outfits in games like Fire Emblem or Star Ocean, not one of those games features full on nudity or graphic sex. I'd venture DA with it's conglomeration of sex scenes has more overall skin showing and sex than in every hot outfit game combined.

 

But no, outfit shows some cleavage? That is infinitely worse than all that. Please.

[Remmirath]

Choice is good. That's my general stance. However, "sexy" armour has always struck me as simply quite silly, and I quite honestly don't understand why anybody would ever pick it over more realistic armour. Especially not in its more extreme forms. To be clear, I also dislike armour that's impractical for other reasons, although it is usually somewhat less blatantly impractical and somewhat less prevalent, as well as less like to be afflicted only upon female characters. It's also more likely to be a mistake rather than intentional, which means it will annoy me ever-so-slightly less.

People will always mod that kind of stuff in anyhow. No reason to put it in the base game when it makes no sense to exist. Clothing should come in a variety of flavours and all that, but what's the point of armour that doesn't even do the job of protecting you from blows? I don't mind if robes or even leather armour has some less practical variants (although I think ideally one would be able to come up with something that people would still consider to meet their requirements for being attractive, but would also make sense in the context of the game), but at least have any reasonably heavy armour be practical.
 

Well ok, but something tells me that's not the case generally, and that something is well evolution.
 
I get that Bioware is already focusing on 'underrepresented audiences' or whatever it is, but I'm sure the vast majority of those types of people still care about sex or attractiveness in one way or another.

"Those types of people" is rather vague, but from context, I'm assuming that you're speaking of asexual people? In which case I would say that, no, most do in fact not care about sex or sexual attractiveness (which is clearly the kind of attractiveness you're speaking of). Granted, this may not be what you meant, in which case you may be correct.

I care about aesthetics. I find realistic armour much more aesthetically pleasing than the armour people apparently find sexy, and it has the added bonus of actually making sense to wear into a fight. Well, really, it's more that it actually makes sense to wear into a fight, and has the added bonus of being more aesthetically pleasing. I could not care less about sex and sexual attractiveness, except that apparently they are often used as an excuse for ridiculous armour designs and silly designs for female characters in general, and that's annoying.
 

Ugh.. I wasn't questioning anyone's orientation. It's like the other poster said, it's more like the existence. There are literally tons of people interested in romances aren't there? I assume they are also interested in sex? I assume they are also interested in characters looking good?

Lots of people are interested in the romances, yes. A reasonable number aren't. Those people may or may not be interested in sex (I don't know, I'm sure some of them aren't, but I'm not interested in romances in the first place), and characters looking good is a very subjective thing.
 

I just wish people would rewind the clock back through time with all the politics and complicated intrigue and remember being that 14 or 15 year old kid that just had a crush on that, you know, other person. It's good, it's healthy, positive.

It's neutral, it's healthy in the sense of not being unhealthy, and again, it's neutral. And no, not everybody can mentally rewind the clock in the way you are describing, because not everybody has ever had that experience (or would have wanted to). You seem to be assuming that everybody is like you, and that's not the case.
 

Male uniboob armour ...

Actually, that's a fairly typical example of breastplate shape (which really does not need to change if the person wearing the suit of armour is female).
 

I'm still just curious though, what is this other thing that people are so interested in pursuing instead? I'm not worried about anyone judging me for wanting a girl (in this instance) to have a hot outfit. This seems like a perfectly cool thing to want. Plus there's nothing actually sexualized about that beyond making the girl look good. Most games with hotter outfits have far less overt sex than Dragon Age. DA is all about tame outfits but lots of actual carnal sex and imagery. If that's not backwards, I don't know what is.

I take it you care you primarily about the blowing of people up using massive weapons and just the general slaughtering of people?

There are all sorts of other things to pursue in life. As in, everything else. Seriously. Knowledge, fun, adventure, creativity, and many other things.

As for in Dragon Age or computer games specifically? Well, there's always roleplaying your character and being interested in the story... and yes, the combat is interesting to me, but not for the massive weapons/slaughter angle (I'd much rather have less massive weapons), but rather for the tactical angle and the impact it can potentially have on the story. If the combat system were more realistic and more involved, I'd also enjoy the combat for its own sake on a deeper decision-making level, but that's likely not going to be the case.

[aTigerslunch]

Yes, cause I agreed with some of it, not all of it though.    The religion thing was much, and not what I would like.  However, that comments about the sex thing is cause I seen it personally happen and know what point you made with it, hence my previous post before this one.
 

The basis is, choice. Have options to wear armor that does and doesn't show cleavage. Those that like that may use it and those that don't, can ignore that. Optional for anyone is always the best way to go. Usual complaint is that there is no choice given in those cases in some other games, which has turned off some women.

[Muspade]

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

 

Isabela hardly wore any armor...It was just mostly cloth.

[someguy1231]

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.

 

In a fantasy game, such "gradients" are pointless and absurd, in my opinion. After all, the very definition of fantasy is that it contains elements that are unrealistic. The reason I'm focusing so much on the word "unrealistic" is that when people criticize sexy armor in a fantasy game, they're most likely to use that word. Frankly, it seems like a pathetic attempt on their part to deflect accusations of prudishness, so they criticize them from the "unrealistic" angle instead, even though, as I've been pointing out, fantasy games are full of such "unrealistic" elements that don't elicit such scrutiny. I'm far more concerned about whether such sexy armor matches the tone of said fantasy than by its mere existence in fantasy games.

[Annarl]

Personally I want functionality. That doesn't mean it can't look good as we have seen by the many shots of Cassandra.

[Voragoras]

In a fantasy game, such "gradients" are pointless and absurd, in my opinion. After all, the very definition of fantasy is that it contains elements that are unrealistic. The reason I'm focusing so much on the word "unrealistic" is that when people criticize sexy armor in a fantasy game, they're most likely to use that word. Frankly, it seems like a pathetic attempt on their part to deflect accusations of prudishness, so they criticize them from the "unrealistic" angle instead, even though, as I've been pointing out, fantasy games are full of such "unrealistic" elements that don't elicit such scrutiny. I'm far more concerned about whether such sexy armor matches the tone of said fantasy than by its mere existence in fantasy games.

 

Well, I think there's a substantial difference in how believable something is as armour when you compare rock armour to this, and it's frankly a little embarrassing that you're pretending otherwise. Sure, Havel's Set is bonkers if you translate it to the real world, but you can surely see how it's at the very least believable as a protective design. If not, I think this debate should end here, because I can't fathom how to penetrate your obstinacy in arguing that there should either be hyper-realism at all times about everything, or there should be no attempt at realism at all and everything ever is acceptable.

 

I mean, it's one thing to have revealing armour that fits a character's opinions or worldviews - the example in this thread being Isabela's clothes, which again are less about strict and definitive realism and more about expressing her personality through a creative design choice - and it's another to just arbitrarily edit the armour designs to suddenly be more sexual when they're worn by females, purely on that condition alone, especially when the edits are so stupid.

[someguy1231]

Well, I think there's a substantial difference in how believable something is as armour when you compare rock armour to this, and it's frankly a little embarrassing that you're pretending otherwise. Sure, Havel's Set is bonkers if you translate it to the real world, but you can surely see how it's at the very least believable as a protective design. If not, I think this debate should end here, because I can't fathom how to penetrate your obstinacy in arguing that there should either be hyper-realism at all times about everything, or there should be no attempt at realism at all and everything ever is acceptable.

 

I mean, it's one thing to have revealing armour that fits a character's opinions or worldviews - the example in this thread being Isabela's clothes, which again are less about strict and definitive realism and more about expressing her personality through a creative design choice - and it's another to just arbitrarily edit the armour designs to suddenly be more sexual when they're worn by females, purely on that condition alone, especially when the edits are so stupid.

 

I'm not "pretending" anything. People, incredibly enough, have different ideas about what makes for "effective" armor. Rock armor may be "protective", but how maneuverable is it? That's the point I was making earlier about rock armor being "unrealistic". It may protect you from a blow, but will it allow you to intercept and strike back at your enemy? It appears you missed that point I was making. Rock armor isn't ineffective because it's not "protective"; it's ineffective because the wearer would barely be able to move in it.

 

"penetrate your obstinacy in arguing that there should either be hyper-realism at all times about everything, or there should be no attempt at realism at all and everything ever is acceptable."

 

I have never made such an argument. I'm just stating that, unlike some people here, I don't find the mere existence of sexy armor abhorrent in certain fantasy games. I've also stated why I don't like it when people criticize such armor as being "unrealistic". If you don't like it just because you personally find it tacky or whatever, fine, then say so. Just don't try to hide behind "realism" as the reason, considering the fantasy genre in general is diametrically opposed to realism.

 

Those two pics you posted are from two different games (Dark Souls and TERA Online) with very different tones and atmospheres, so I think your point about "believability" is irrelevant. Dark Souls is a game with a dark and serious tone, so sexy armor wouldn't work there, while rock armor does because it fits the games grim, low setting. TERA Online, on the other hand, is a high fantasy game with a heavy focus on aesthetics over practicality, so sexy, stylish armor works just fine there. Fantasy games shouldn't all be judged by the same uniform standard. What works in one might not work in another. In other words, don't judge TERA Online by how much it's like Dark Souls. Judge it by how well it does what it's supposed to do.

[Cyonan]

I'm not "pretending" anything. People, incredibly enough, have different ideas about what makes for "effective" armor. Rock armor may be "protective", but how maneuverable is it? That's the point I was making earlier about rock armor being "unrealistic". It may protect you from a blow, but will it allow you to intercept and strike back at your enemy? It appears you missed that point I was making. Rock armor isn't ineffective because it's not "protective"; it's ineffective because the wearer would barely be able to move in it.

 

A lot of people who say they want "realistic" armour really mean that what they want is the impression that that the thing will protect you from enemy attacks rather than being 100% realistic.

 

Rock gives that impression while a platekini doesn't, even if you wouldn't be able to move in rock armour.

[Voragoras]

^ This poster basically summed up what I was trying to get across in less words, and more coherently. Read that instead.
 

I'm not "pretending" anything. People, incredibly enough, have different ideas about what makes for "effective" armor. Rock armor may be "protective", but how maneuverable is it? That's the point I was making earlier about rock armor being "unrealistic". It may protect you from a blow, but will it allow you to intercept and strike back at your enemy? It appears you missed that point I was making. Rock armor isn't ineffective because it's not "protective"; it's ineffective because the wearer would barely be able to move in it.
 
I have never made such an argument. I'm just stating that, unlike some people here, I don't find the mere existence of sexy armor abhorrent in certain fantasy games. I've also stated why I don't like it when people criticize such armor as being "unrealistic". If you don't like it just because you personally find it tacky or whatever, fine, then say so. Just don't try to hide behind "realism" as the reason, considering the fantasy genre in general is diametrically opposed to realism.
 
Those two pics you posted are from two different games (Dark Souls and TERA Online) with very different tones and atmospheres, so I think your point about "believability" is irrelevant. Dark Souls is a game with a dark and serious tone, so sexy armor wouldn't work there, while rock armor does because. TERA Online, on the other hand, is a high fantasy game with a heavy focus on aesthetics over practicality, so sexy, stylish armor works just fine there. Fantasy games shouldn't all be judged by the same uniform standard. What works in one might not work in another. In other words, don't judge TERA Online by how much it's like Dark Souls. Judge it by how well it does what it's supposed to do.

 
You do have some good arguments here, in that the differences in game atmosphere does make a huge difference in how acceptable a certain armour would be and how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief, and how well they fit in with the settings around them.
 
I don't have anything against sexy or revealing armour in and of itself, but the point I was trying to make in contrasting the two armours is that they're both extreme examples, but one is still more believably protective as an armour set than the other. It was meant to illustrate what I'm saying about gradients of believability, and how you can use "realistic" to describe rock armour but not a bikini armour set. I wasn't trying to force a set algorithm of armour detail onto all fantasy games.
(I would also include the game's context as factoring in how believably unrealistic something would be - I don't have a problem with TERA's armour designs, because the male ones are equally as flamboyant, only in different ways.)
 
Also, a side note, but the ineffectiveness of Havel's Set is pretty well-translated into the game. It's so heavy that you either need Havel's Ring to give you enough strength to move at a pace faster than a crawl through magical ability enhancement, or you need to have godlike amounts of endurance gained from farming and levelling up to insane degrees. It's tacitly acknowledging that this armour is hella difficult to wield, and you need hella stats in order to do so with any efficiency.
 
I kinda feel like I'm fighting a battle I don't really care too much about, though, and what I'm saying is probably muddled by the fact that it's nearly 4am. At the end of the day, the existence of more sexualised armour on females doesn't bother me, as long as I can choose to keep the male variant if I want to. Which I nearly always do.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

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

Yeah, the two pictures illustrate well what was always an annoyance for me... what we can't see our characters topless with nipples, but we can see f**king ugly Mother's bare breasts and oh look she even has nipples?  Hate to say it (I'm an American myself) but that just seems to me like typical backward American mentality of "sex bad, blood good"  I mean, I have no problem with seeing Mother bare-breasted, I think it adds to how scary she is, but the shock for me was seeing THAT after our characters kept on bras (and especially Morrigan's case) in their topeless scenes it was just so out of place when I can strip down my female warden and she's wearing a bra... why isn't Mother?

[Puppy Love]

I mean, it's one thing to have revealing armour that fits a character's opinions or worldviews - the example in this thread being Isabela's clothes, which again are less about strict and definitive realism and more about expressing her personality through a creative design choice - and it's another to just arbitrarily edit the armour designs to suddenly be more sexual when they're worn by females, purely on that condition alone, especially when the edits are so stupid.

My issue is that as NPCs are allowed to have options to express their opinions and world views, but our characters are not.  It feels like there's a statement being made, it's being forced on our characters, whether we agree with it or not, and is ignored by the NPCs who are the only ones allowed to buck this odd trend, which only applies to the player. 

 

I agree with not having skin showing just to have skin showing on women.  It can be done artfully, in accordance with archetypal clothing or costumes, ect.  How a person chooses to dress is a large part of their expression, there's very little player outfits I've seen that feel like they're expressing anything.  Everthying feels like an odd hodgepodge of masculine inspired stuff.

 

I'd like more clothes that imply a personality more than dude who fights things, sometimes worn by a girl also.

 

Is like the ball and the lack of a gown for the PC.  While I understand that they ran into limitations preventing it, if the NPC women are all in gowns and I'm in a pants suit, it feels like how my character expresses her gender role/views is being not only decided for her, but is in complete contrast to my own, and being flaunted all around me by npcs everywhere.

 

I'm just sick and tired of being jealous of NPCs when my character is supposed to be the most important character around.  Every NPC gets to express themselves, I'm generic masculine gender neutral expressionless armor 2.0...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yeah, the two pictures illustrate well what was always an annoyance for me... what we can't see our characters topless with nipples, but we can see f**king ugly Mother's bare breasts?  Hate to say it (I'm an American myself) but that just seems to me like typical backward American mentality of "sex bad, blood good"  I mean, I have no problem with seeing Mother bare-breasted, I think it adds to how scary she is, but the shock for me was seeing THAT after our characters kept on bras (and especially Morrigan's case) in their topeless scenes it was just so out of place.

Bioware is Canadian, not American. 

[Voragoras]

^^ I agree with most of this post, actually, and that's what I'd ideally like to see more of in games. The option to choose whether or not you want to wear a certain style of armour or clothing to better represent the character you want to play, rather than being forced into picking a bikini option, or being forced into wearing the equivalent of a scrapyard of plate.

[Han Shot First]

Yeah, the two pictures always were an annoyance for me... what we can't see our characters topless with nipples, but we can see f**king ugly Mother's bare breasts?  Hate to say it (I'm an American myself) but that just seems to me like typical backward American mentality of "sex bad, blood good"

 

It is odd that grotesque portrayals of nudity (broodmothers and banshees) are apparently less likely to cause a fuss than portrayals of nudity in sexual situations. (Liara's sideboob & naked backside in ME1)

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Bioware is Canadian, not American. 

 

They still have to cater to American standards when releasing games here.  Check out the "Sexxbox" story about Mass Effect 1 from Fox News.   But yeah, if American standards were more like Europe, we'd have bare breasts but less blood... and I am sorry, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Han Shot First]

They still have to cater to American standards when releasing games here.  Check out the "Sexxbox" story about Mass Effect 1 from Fox News.   But yeah, if American standards were more like Europe, we'd have bare breasts but less blood... and I am sorry, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

Australia is a fairly large market as well.

 

The Witcher 2 Sexed Down for Australia

[someguy1231]

Yeah, the two pictures illustrate well what was always an annoyance for me... what we can't see our characters topless with nipples, but we can see f**king ugly Mother's bare breasts and oh look she even has nipples?  Hate to say it (I'm an American myself) but that just seems to me like typical backward American mentality of "sex bad, blood good"  I mean, I have no problem with seeing Mother bare-breasted, I think it adds to how scary she is, but the shock for me was seeing THAT after our characters kept on bras (and especially Morrigan's case) in their topeless scenes it was just so out of place when I can strip down my female warden and she's wearing a bra... why isn't Mother?

 

Blame the ESRB. For some reason, they seem to have less objections to nudity if it's used to horrify rather than titillate.

[Gregolian]

No...  all female armor must be like Ivy's from Soul Caliber.  

 

/sarcasm

[someguy1231]

A lot of people who say they want "realistic" armour really mean that what they want is the impression that that the thing will protect you from enemy attacks rather than being 100% realistic.

 

Rock gives that impression while a platekini doesn't, even if you wouldn't be able to move in rock armour.

 

If that's the case, then they shouldn't use the word "realistic" to describe it. Fantasy gamers suspend their disbelief all the time regarding armor in the setting. Whether it's for the sake of Rule of Fun/Cool/Sexy/Impression of Protection or whatever is irrelevant to me.

[slimgrin]

I want this. Seems a reasonable and practical alternative. No doubt meets or exceeds the SJW rating of armor to flesh ratio. 

 

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

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!

 

Maybe not 10 pounds, but I'd wager giant gold necklaces are actually worse for mobility and dexterity than anything save mail or plate. To say nothing of sneaking around with such implements. Not a big deal, but still.

 

Maybe not breast reduction, but I always found that her character design was just too over the top. Yes, I get it, she's a sexy pirate who loves sex and dresses to show she loves sex and did I mention sex?. That's fine, but she doesn't really require nearly a foot of cleavage to back it up, not to mention I'm pretty certain a fairly lithe body like hers could only get to that size through a boob job.

 

It's not a big issue, really. It's still better than utter stupidity like mail bikini. But I'm glad that Bioware 1) cut down on that sort of design and 2) allowed us to change companion outfits so that, had they kept that design, we could still change it to suit our taste.

 

I'll also add that in theory more choice is always good, but in practice you may want your game to stick to an art style. Dragon Age has enough difficulty on that front, I find, and it seems to me Inquisition is trying to rectify this by grounding the setting a bit more (not a lot, but still). Really, apart from Iron Bull's manly pecs, so far all the armor we saw was very tame, moreso than in the previous two games. Personally, I dig it a lot, albeit I understand that may dismay some folks. But if Bioware has to draw a line somewhere as to what armor design they want in their game, I'd much, much rather they take the semi-realistic approach they took in Inquisition. I really don't want the series to pull a Mass Effect and have companions skipping about in hard vaccum practially topless, or women in ''military uniform'' with skirts, flowing long hair and tigh-high boots.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

 

Australia is a fairly large market as well.

 

The Witcher 2 Sexed Down for Australia

 

Yeah Australia is one country that is stricter than the USA, although at least they are strict across the board from what I've seen, they don't like the ultra violence either.

Blame the ESRB. For some reason, they seem to have less objections to nudity if it's used to horrify rather than titillate.

 

Well, right but the ESRB is the American rating board, so they subscribe to the American standard.