2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Voragoras]

No, that's not how they see it. To them what you are asking for would make the game less fun. Try to wrap your head around that please. (who am I kidding, you won't try)

 

Pretty much this. I find myself enjoying playing a game a lot more when I'm wearing a set of armour I feel powerful and cool in, and overly gaudy/sexual things don't tend to do that for me. It makes me roll my eyes, not take it seriously, which is fine for a game that doesn't really want to be taken that way, like TERA, but for a game set in a grimy medieval European world with political intrigue and racial tensions simmering under the threat of annihilation, like DA:O? No way. Ruins all of my fun.

 

Your example of J-RPGs also don't have outfits comparable to the chainmail bikini. Even SquEnix, which is pretty infamous for daft character designs, don't have their characters running around in that - they merely design their outfits with personalities in mind, rather than practicality. It's not asking for authentic protective believability, it's giving you an image of what that character is like through what they're dressed in, e.g. Yuna with her traditional kimono contrasted with Lulu and her more mature and "gothic" dress. Both represent who's wearing them in a way that generic armour wouldn't.

 

I honestly don't understand what your endgame point is. That all armour should be Lollipop Chainsaw-level, or... What?

[Seraphim24]

If you ask me what people prefer, as the OP did, about this choice, I would go with sexy, I've given lots of reasons, I don't like other's peoples reasons against it.

 

I wouldn't begrudge people to like what they want if I wasn't convinced that they liked the exact same thing I do but for other societal pressures or non-real reasons are picking otherwise. However, I'm obviously getting nowhere with that, so instead I'll just not begrudge people to post about what they want and read disagreements that fit into a nice little box, not ones that actively challenge their sensibilities, and since most people are just interested in talking about Hellenic Greece or whatever I don't need to be here anymore.

[Voragoras]

If you ask me what people prefer, as the OP did, about this choice, I would go with sexy, I've given lots of reasons, I don't like other's peoples reasons against it.

 

And we're discussing your reasons for your choice, but they don't make any sense. You've just said that anybody who doesn't like bikini armour is a prude who hates all sexuality and has a fatal allergy to fun and happiness, which is blatantly not true.

[PhroXenGold]

All I've seen are more reality arguments for the most part, which in my mind I already thought were pretty silly by stating that the game has freaking dragons and magic and a whole host of other things that aren't real at all. I don't know how anyone makes reality arguments in video games after that point.

 

I see this kind of comment a lot when regarding fantasy games, and, while there might some level of poor word choice on behalf of us saying we want "realism", it's a decent shorthand and things like this really display a basic lack of understanding of what we're after. And that, fundamentally, is internal consistency. Regardless of what the content of a fictional world is, said world should have rules by which it works, and it should follow them. Otherwise, it will fail at the most basic goal of storytelling - suspending belief. If the way in which the setting works is clearly presented, and something then comes along and utterly ignores that, it breaks immersion. It makes it harder to suspend your belief and pretend that the fiction world you're experiencing is real. Of course, breaking the rules of a setting can, if done well, add to a story - for example, if the big bad can use spells that don't adhere to the way magic works in the setting - however, this has to be carefully done and just throwing out things not adhering to those basic rules willy-nilly without explanation is very poor storytelling that results in an un-immersive world.

 

So, yes, having magic and dragons isn't realistic. But the way in which magic works, the way in which dragons behave, should be consistent. And the same applies to armour. I don't have a fundamental issue if, right from the beginning, the game clearly demonstrates - or even better, outright states - that having actual functionality from armour is unnecessary (likely because of magic). In such a setting, chain-mail bikini's are fine. On the other hand, full plate really isn't. There absolutely no reason to wear a full suit of armour when it does nothing. To see a character in full plate next to one in a few scraps of mail is inconsistent and thus immersion breaking.

 

Dragon Age has set out to present the opposite - in Thedas, armour does protect you. The thickness of armour, the coverage it gives, the materials it is made of, even the quality of craftsmanship, all of these things effect the protection armour offers. So if a character suddenly turns up exposing most of their skin while still having the same level of armour protection as a suit of full plate, it is again inconsistent. It breaks the fundamental rules by which the setting functions. So, yeah, to be fair, saying we want "realistic" armour might not be the exact best term. Instead, what we're really looking for is armour that is consistent with the mechanics of the Dragon Age world. And that happens to be armour that roughly corresponds to that used in our history.

[SamanthaJ]

If you ask me what people prefer, as the OP did, about this choice, I would go with sexy, I've given lots of reasons, I don't like other's peoples reasons against it.

 

I wouldn't begrudge people to like what they want if I wasn't convinced that they liked the exact same thing I do but for other societal pressures or non-real reasons are picking otherwise. However, I'm obviously getting nowhere with that, so instead I'll just not begrudge people to post about what they want and read disagreements that fit into a nice little box, not ones that actively challenge their sensibilities, and since most people are just interested in talking about Hellenic Greece or whatever I don't need to be here anymore.

"You don't like what I do and I don't like your reasons for it so I choose to believe that you're lying because my tastes are superior and everyone has to share them."

 

Is that what I should be getting from this? Because that's what I'm getting from this. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

All I've seen are more reality arguments for the most part, which in my mind I already thought were pretty silly by stating that the game has freaking dragons and magic and a whole host of other things that aren't real at all. I don't know how anyone makes reality arguments in video games after that point.

Actually, there was a very well done documentary that went into the fact that dragons could have existed. What I mean by that is that everything a dragon does in works of fiction can be physically possible. For example, instead of breathing fire magically they could have two glands in their throats that are fired like a spitting cobra and when the two mix together and are exposed to oxygen they combust. So instead of fire they actually breath napalm. 

[Andir]

I see this kind of comment a lot when regarding fantasy games, and, while there might some level of poor word choice, things like this display a lack of understanding of what we're after. And that, fundamentally, is internal consistency. Regardless of what the content of a fictional world is, said world should have rules by which it works, and it should follow them. Otherwise, it will fail at the most basic goal of storytelling - suspending belief. If the way in which the setting works is clearly presented, and something then comes along and utterly ignores that, it breaks immersion. It makes it harder to suspend your belief and pretend that the fiction world you're experiencing is real. Of course, breaking the rules of a setting can, if done well, add to a story - for example, if the big bad can use spells that don't adhere to the way magic works in the setting - however, but just throwing out things not adhering to those basic rules willy-nilly without expectation is very poor storytelling.

 

So, yes, having magic and dragons isn't realistic. But the way in which magic works, the way in which dragons behave, should be consistent. And the same applies to armour. I don't have a fundamental issue if, right from the beginning, the game clearly demonstrates - or even better, outright states - that having actual functionality from armour is unnecessary (like because of magic). In such a setting, chain-mail bikini's are fine. On the other hand, full plate really isn't. There absolutely no reason to wear a full suit of armour when it does nothing. To see a character in full plate next to one in a few scraps of mail is inconsistent and thus immersion breaking.

 

Dragon Age has set out to present the opposite - in Thedas, armour does protect you. The thickness of armour, the coverage it gives, the materials it is made of, even the quality of craftsmanship, all of these things effect the protection armour offers. So if a character suddenly turns up exposing most of their skin while still having the same level of armour protection as a suit of full plate, it is again inconsistent. It breaks the fundamental rules by which the setting functions. So, yeah, to be fair, saying we want "realistic" armour might not be the exact best term. Instead, what we're really looking for is armour that is consistent with the mechanics of the Dragon Age world. And that happens to be armour that roughly corresponds to that used in our history.

the thing is, though, that is already exists within the DA universe. take the qunari in da2 for example. all the ones shown had 'unrealistic' armor. i understand your point and agree with it in certain occasions,  but dragon age is not such an occasion. the fact that it is already present is a point in itself. you can't disregard that has been apparent in the world. like i mentioned before, even a companion in this game has such armor. so then, my question is; why should you completely restrict the pc from such armor, if it is indeed optional, when other in the world are already visibly wearing said armor? if it is a choice, i am still trying to reason why it annoys others so much that they wish to take that choice from others when they themselves don't have to use it?

[Voragoras]

the thing is, though, that is already exists within the DA universe. take the qunari in da2 for example. all the ones shown had 'unrealistic' armor. i understand your point and agree with it in certain occasions,  but dragon age is not such an occasion. the fact that it is already present is a point in itself. you can't disregard that has been apparent in the world. like i mentioned before, even a companion in this game has such armor. so then, my question is; why should you completely restrict the pc from such armor, if it is indeed optional, when other in the world are already visibly wearing said armor? if it is a choice, i am still trying to reason why it annoys others so much that they wish to take that choice from others when they themselves don't have to use it?

 

Don't allow me to speak for this other poster, but I don't think they're arguing against having a choice, just that being forced into having a chainmail bikini isn't justifiable simply by saying "eh it's fantasy whatever".

 

Also, the qunari are also like 7ft tall with grey skin and horns. Presumably they have naturally tougher skin and don't need to wear armour.

[PhroXenGold]

"You don't like what I do and I don't like your reasons for it so I choose to believe that you're lying because my tastes are superior and everyone has to share them."

 

Is that what I should be getting from this? Because that's what I'm getting from this. 

 

It's kinda odd, but Kefka really reminds me of some very religious people I've met (particularly fundamentalist Protestants)*. It's not that they think their belief/tastes/preferences are superior. It's that they cannot even comprehend that anyone could think differently from them, as their views are, to them, so obviously right that the concept that anyone could disagree with them doesn't even occur to them.

 

*before anyone jumps on me, I am not saying all such people are like this, just that several of those I've met have been

[PhroXenGold]

the thing is, though, that is already exists within the DA universe. take the qunari in da2 for example. all the ones shown had 'unrealistic' armor. i understand your point and agree with it in certain occasions,  but dragon age is not such an occasion. the fact that it is already present is a point in itself. you can't disregard that has been apparent in the world. like i mentioned before, even a companion in this game has such armor. so then, my question is; why should you completely restrict the pc from such armor, if it is indeed optional, when other in the world are already visibly wearing said armor? if it is a choice, i am still trying to reason why it annoys others so much that they wish to take that choice from others when they themselves don't have to use it?

 

 

What companion has had revealing armour? Isabella had revealing clothing,  but that's not relevant to armour. The difference in protection between her showing off her cleavage and her not showing it of would be minimal.

 

And regarding Qunari, well, yes, DA2 established quite clearly that they do not typically wear significant armour. What it didn't establish (unless I missed something) is why they don't. Is it because, as Voragoras suggested, they have extremely tough skin and don't need to? Or is it, perhaps, a cultural thing? Do they regard armour to be a sign of weakness? Or is it due to their origins? Do they come from a part of the world where heavy armour could be a problem (e.g. jungles or deserts) [and maybe as such it has become part of their culture?]? These are all perfectly plausible explanations. And then, even more importantly, there's the fact that we don't know what the implications of Qunari not having armour is. If those Qunari in DA2 had been in armour, would their armour value have gone up? I would certainly expect so. As such, it is not completely inconsistent. From a consistency point of view, there's nothing wrong in a setting like DA's in having people, or groups of people that don't wear armour, or, hell, even those who wear stripperific armour, provided that the consequences of them doing so are consistent with the mechanics of the setting (of course, anyone who did wear stripperific armour in such a setting would be an idiot, and should be presented as such - seeing people in chainmail bikinis is immersion breaking because they shouldn't do anything protection wise, so why would people wear them?). The real problem comes when revealing armour provides the same protection as "realistic" armour. That is the real immersion breaker. 

 

Now, if we saw groups of Qunari where there was a mix of very heavily armoured and unarmoured ones that had the same stats, then we would have an inconsistency. And similarly, if Bioware did put a chain mail bikini into DA:I, I wouldn't really mind providing it had zero armour value, beacuse, again, it wouldn't be inconsistent with the rules of the setting which state that the more armour you wear, the more protective it is.

[Seraphim24]

"You don't like what I do and I don't like your reasons for it so I choose to know that you're lying because my tastes are superior and everyone has to share them."

 

Is that what I should be getting from this? Because that's what I'm getting from this. 

 

Almost, I fixed the relevant word.

 

It's kinda odd, but Kefka really reminds me of some very religious people I've met (particularly fundamentalist Protestants)*. It's not that they think their belief/tastes/preferences are superior. It's that they cannot even comprehend that anyone could think differently from them, as their views are, to them, so obviously right that the concept that anyone could disagree with them doesn't even occur to them.

 

Funny because I just looked at an article about Justice Scalia arguing that the constitution allows the court to favor religion over non-religion and wanted to vomit.

 

I just don't buy into being so open minded your brain falls out, you know what I mean? I want you people to feel safe in assuming that while people have tons of differences, come from a variety of backgrounds, and are often interested in diverse things, just about everyone is interested in sex in one way or another such that you should embrace your affection for that revealing outfit and not worry about being judged for it.

 

I see this kind of comment a lot when regarding fantasy games, and, while there might some level of poor word choice on behalf of us saying we want "realism", it's a decent shorthand and things like this really display a basic lack of understanding of what we're after. And that, fundamentally, is internal consistency. Regardless of what the content of a fictional world is, said world should have rules by which it works, and it should follow them. Otherwise, it will fail at the most basic goal of storytelling - suspending belief. If the way in which the setting works is clearly presented, and something then comes along and utterly ignores that, it breaks immersion. It makes it harder to suspend your belief and pretend that the fiction world you're experiencing is real. Of course, breaking the rules of a setting can, if done well, add to a story - for example, if the big bad can use spells that don't adhere to the way magic works in the setting - however, this has to be carefully done and just throwing out things not adhering to those basic rules willy-nilly without explanation is very poor storytelling that results in an un-immersive world.

 

So, yes, having magic and dragons isn't realistic. But the way in which magic works, the way in which dragons behave, should be consistent. And the same applies to armour. I don't have a fundamental issue if, right from the beginning, the game clearly demonstrates - or even better, outright states - that having actual functionality from armour is unnecessary (likely because of magic). In such a setting, chain-mail bikini's are fine. On the other hand, full plate really isn't. There absolutely no reason to wear a full suit of armour when it does nothing. To see a character in full plate next to one in a few scraps of mail is inconsistent and thus immersion breaking.

 

Dragon Age has set out to present the opposite - in Thedas, armour does protect you. The thickness of armour, the coverage it gives, the materials it is made of, even the quality of craftsmanship, all of these things effect the protection armour offers. So if a character suddenly turns up exposing most of their skin while still having the same level of armour protection as a suit of full plate, it is again inconsistent. It breaks the fundamental rules by which the setting functions. So, yeah, to be fair, saying we want "realistic" armour might not be the exact best term. Instead, what we're really looking for is armour that is consistent with the mechanics of the Dragon Age world. And that happens to be armour that roughly corresponds to that used in our history.

 

Well, I thought I was done but I was actually kind of interested in this one. First of all, I feel I don't find that, I find games with armored characters and provocative characters side by side and it doesn't really phase me. Second, how can people complain about the existence of so many tropes and their incessant irritation, but then promote them on the other hand with scary sounding terms and phrases like realism and internal consistency?

 

The reason I said it was interesting though was because I wouldn't rule out that some factor like that enhances the message that some entertainment product has to offer. It's something I've been thinking about in the context of various anime and JRPG things like SAO or Star Ocean, which fundamentally contain similar substantive messages and plenty of hot-ish characters, but seem to differ in their overall impact. It seems to me this relates more to how that substantive message is leveraged, maybe the impact is different because of these things you are mentioning.

 

It seems to me western games often have the opposite issue, the way a thing is communicated grabs your attention, but the actual thing which you are being offered is generally blegh.

 

That implies that the campaign against sexuality is an issue of elevating form over substance, how you communicate ideas (being consistent, making the world make sense, understanding the relationship with the audience). Those things are of tremendous value in increasing the impact of the experience.

 

However, I would argue that those things are simply means, the notion of internal consistency or certain realities should not be used as a substantive moral idea to be transmitted. That sounds like what's going on here, you people want to value the way the DA world impacts people's experiences by strong internal consistency or something, which is fine, but I'm saying that it wouldn't damage that perspective by inserting a different message, namely one that is much more friendly to images of sex and sexuality. The world from the ground up could have been created as more playful and fun, without sacrificing the need to keep that world together. Two completely consistent worlds, one which is too tame, and another one which is much more fun.

 

Believe it or not I wrote a paper on this about the extraordinary success of the Nazi's in building a successful and functioning state of great power, how that was an amazing thing. However, the purpose for which they built this state was (obviously) amazingly flawed. The attempt to make the means to an end, the abstract form which accomplishes a goal, an end of itself, is the western folly that has been perpetuated from the ancient Greeks on into the present day, I wish it would end.

 

I don't think DA's world is that morally shallow... particularly not Origins... but it's a pretty obvious bias in all aspects of it.

 

Oh right, I'm supposed to just say things like "I like cute outfits," so I don't offend anyone, right, sorry.

[Andir]

Don't allow me to speak for this other poster, but I don't think they're arguing against having a choice, just that being forced into having a chainmail bikini isn't justifiable simply by saying "eh it's fantasy whatever".

 

Also, the qunari are also like 7ft tall with grey skin and horns. Presumably they have naturally tougher skin and don't need to wear armour.

it that's the case, my apologies. i agree that no one should be forced into such armor (like in the dalish female origin). i just see a lot of people who flat out don't want it in the game, even if it's completely optional. 

 

and that could be but it remains to be seen. if so, i would very much appreciate such armor for my own qunari. if my skin is armor, why wear more to weigh you down?  ; o (though there are more in-game examples of this armor as well. Isabela, Tallis, etc. the point i was making is that such armor already exists in the world, so the immersion breaking point is a bit moot. not that it is not valid, only that has already been broken by this point.)

 

Edit:

 

What companion has had revealing armour? Isabella had revealing clothing,  but that's not relevant to armour. The difference in protection between her showing off her cleavage and her not showing it of would be minimal.

 

And regarding Qunari, well, yes, DA2 established quite clearly that they do not typically wear significant armour. What it didn't establish (unless I missed something) is why they don't. Is it because, as Voragoras suggested, they have extremely tough skin and don't need to? Or is it, perhaps, a cultural thing? Do they regard armour to be a sign of weakness? Or is it due to their origins? Do they come from a part of the world where heavy armour could be a problem (e.g. jungles or deserts) [and maybe as such it has become part of their culture?]? These are all perfectly plausible explanations. And then, even more importantly, there's the fact that we don't know what the implications of Qunari not having armour is. If those Qunari in DA2 had been in armour, would their armour value have gone up? I would certainly expect so. As such, it is not completely inconsistent. From a consistency point of view, there's nothing wrong in a setting like DA's in having people, or groups of people that don't wear armour, or, hell, even those who wear stripperific armour, provided that the consequences of them doing so are consistent with the mechanics of the setting (of course, anyone who did wear stripperificarmour in such a setting would be an idiot, and should be presented as such). The real problem comes when revealing armour provides the same protection as "realistic" armour. That is the real immersion breaker.

 

Now, if we saw groups of Qunari where there was a mix of very heavily armoured and unarmoured ones that had the same stats, then we would have an inconsistency. And similarly, if Bioware did put a chain mail bikini into DA:I, I wouldn't really mind if it had zero armour value, beacuse, again, it wouldn't be inconsistent with the rules of the setting which state that the more armour you wear, the more protective it is.. 

tallis. and that is missing the point, kind of? isabela still fought in her clothing. (and it is still categorized as armor, with upgrades even.) we have gotten such armors in the past, even. 

 

qunari wear the armor, regardless of why, it's present. i was simply extending that if they can be allowed to wear such attire, so should the player character. so, as long as you are penalized for wearing armor that doesn't look realistic you're okay with it in game? what about penalties to these 'realistic armor'? should they loose mobility and not be able to run when wearing it? if so, than sure. so long as this 'unrealistic armor' also got bonuses like dexterity. which has already happened in previous dragon age games with 'unrealistic' armor.  let me try to understand, now that you have somewhat clarified (?): you are okay with it in game, even if that's inconsistent in a certain aspect (why would they wear armor that offers nothing), so long as the bonuses/affects to it seem more realistic? (not being condescending, just trying to clarify) if so i understand your point. and if this is your point, i can agree as long as the choice do to such is still included for those who want it.

[Han Shot First]

As for this amusing perception that nudity in battle is "unrealistic", one may remind you about ancients and warmer climates.

 

 

I agree that some cultures historically fought with little or no armor.

 

In an earlier post in this thread I had stated that I wouldn't have minded the female Dalish 'armors' if the entire culture was portrayed as forest raiders/skirmishers who wore little or no armor, and the men looked something similar to this:

 

 

The issue with the Dalish women is that the male Dalish are heavily armored in comparison. 

[Voragoras]

it that's the case, my apologies. i agree that no one should be forced into such armor (like in the dalish female origin). i just see a lot of people who flat out don't want it in the game, even if it's completely optional. 

 

and that could be but it remains to be seen. if so, i would very much appreciate such armor for my own qunari. if my skin is armor, why wear more to weigh you down?  ; o (though there are more in-game examples of this armor as well. Isabela, Tallis, etc. the point i was making is that such armor already exists in the world, so the immersion breaking point is a bit moot. not that it is not valid, only that has already been broken by this point.)

 

Yeah, I don't want it to be removed, just implemented better. One of my characters would prefer a practical full-body set, whereas another one might choose to go with a stylised version, and I would like that to be a choice and not just a blanket of EVERYONE GETS A BIKINI.

 

I think the break in immersion comes mostly from the fact that the male variants are always fully outfitted, but for some reason the armour becomes scanty when the exact same set is worn by a female. If there was a similar theme for both genders, I doubt there would be so much contentious debate.

[MrMrPendragon]

Ask and ye shall receive:

----

 

Well I said sexy armor on women....

 

You got my order wrong

[Andir]

Yeah, I don't want it to be removed, just implemented better. One of my characters would prefer a practical full-body set, whereas another one might choose to go with a stylised version, and I would like that to be a choice and not just a blanket of EVERYONE GETS A BIKINI.

 

I think the break in immersion comes mostly from the fact that the male variants are always fully outfitted, but for some reason the armour becomes scanty when the exact same set is worn by a female. If there was a similar theme for both genders, I doubt there would be so much contentious debate.

x3 lol and oh definitely. i want the options for those who want it, and that means both genders. when it looks completely different depending on your gender it loses me. i mean, why couldn't the male dalish flaunt his belly if he wanted to? blasphemy i say! (or the reverse. sensible options for both. it should depend on the armor set, not gender.) 

[Lennard Testarossa]

The issue with the Dalish women is that the male Dalish are heavily armored in comparison. 

 

Why is that an issue?

[Joseph Warrick]

Why is that an issue?

 

Because enemy weapons do not distinguish the sex of the victim. It doesn't make sense that only one of the sexes needs protective gear.

[PhroXenGold]

Funny because I just looked at an article about Justice Scalia arguing that the constitution allows the court to favor religion over non-religion and wanted to vomit.

 

I thought you probably weren't religious, hence why I thought it odd you reminded me of such people

 

I just don't buy into being so open minded your brain falls out, you know what I mean? I want you people to feel safe in assuming that while people have tons of differences, come from a variety of backgrounds, and are often interested in diverse things, just about everyone is interested in sex in one way or another such that you should embrace your affection for that revealing outfit and not worry about being judged for it.

 

It's not about being open minded. It's about accusing people of lying simply because they have different views to you. I'm not saying you should agree with their views. I'm not even saying that you shouldn't try and change their views. But you have basically been accusing people of not actually holding the views they claim to.

 

Well, I thought I was done but I was actually kind of interested in this one. First of all, I feel I don't find that, I find games with armored characters and provocative characters side by side and it doesn't really phase me. Second, how can people complain about the existence of so many tropes and their incessant irritation, but then promote them on the other hand with scary sounding terms and phrases like realism and internal consistency?

 

This is where I find your reply gets interesting, as this is the only part that actually even vaguely addresses the post you quoted, and you toss off the entire thing with a vague "oh, but I don't care". You haven't event attempted to address the points I made. I'm not complaining about things because they are tropes, and as such why should it matter whether I use "scary sounding terms" (wait, what? How are they in  any way scary. there just a simple straightforward description of what I, and may other people like to see in their fiction and are widely used). I'm complaining about things that break immersion and prevent the suspension of belief. Which is arguably the most fundamental thing for fiction to avoid.

 

And yeah, this is where you suddenly go off on a initially vaguely related but ultimately completely unrelated tangent.

 

The reason I said it was interesting though was because I wouldn't rule out that some factor like that enhances the message that some entertainment product has to offer. It's something I've been thinking about in the context of various anime and JRPG things like SAO or Star Ocean, which fundamentally contain similar substantive messages and plenty of hot-ish characters, but seem to differ in their overall impact. It seems to me this relates more to how that substantive message is leveraged, maybe the impact is different because of these things you are mentioning.

 

(funny how you criticise me for using language like "internal consistency" when you come up with something like that last sentence)

 

It seems to me western games often have the opposite issue, the way a thing is communicated grabs your attention, but the actual thing which you are being offered is generally blegh.

 

That implies that the campaign against sexuality is an issue of elevating form over substance, how you communicate ideas (being consistent, making the world make sense, understanding the relationship with the audience). Those things are of tremendous value in increasing the impact of

the experience.

 

What campaign against sexuality? There isn't one involved here (well, maybe the stupid underwear in DA:O might've been to some extent, but that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic). This is basically what my, and I suspect others' problem with your posts here. You keep brining up stuff like this that is not relevant. Do some people in the world object to sexuality? Yes. Is it bad? Mostly. Is it in any way shape or form relevant to putting revealing armour in Dragon Age. No. Seriously. NO.

 

However, I would argue that those things are simply means, the notion of internal consistency or certain realities should not be used as a substantive moral idea to be transmitted. That sounds like what's going on here, you people want to value the way the DA world impacts people's experiences by strong internal consistency or something, which is fine, but I'm saying that it wouldn't damage that perspective by inserting a different message, namely one that is much more friendly to images of sex and sexuality. The world from the ground up could have been created as more playful and fun, without sacrificing the need to keep that world together. Two completely consistent worlds, one which is too tame, and another one which is much more fun.

 

Now, to me, the "tame" world is the one that isn't prepared to reflect the consequences of what it presents. The one that puts forward idealistic views like "you can look like however you want". The one that doesn't have the courage to show you what would happen if you tried to fight with a bare midriff (hint - you get a sword stuck through it) and instead handwaves it away.

 

And to be honest, DA (the focus of this topic) is actually quite friendly to sex and sexuality. Far more so than any (non-eroge) Japanese game I've played. But it presents it in a much more plausible, believable way. Not "oh, you can run around showing off cleavage", but it actually addresses things like sex in a reasonably positive way - as in, you can have it pretty freely with consenting people of both sexes. Compare to Japanese games and anime which tend to shy away from even the thought of sex (unless they're hentai, which I hope you would agree is not in any way positively promoting sexuality) [fecking crystal dragon thing is not how you transfer prana....]

 

Believe it or not I wrote a paper on this about the extraordinary success of the Nazi's in building a successful and functioning state of great power, how that was an amazing thing. However, the purpose for which they built this state was (obviously) amazingly flawed. The attempt to make the means to an end, the abstract form which accomplishes a goal, an end of itself, is the western folly that has been perpetuated from the ancient Greeks on into the present day, I wish it would end.

 

That you claim to have written such a paper makes me very dubious. The Nazi's did not build a successful and functioning state. They built a ramshackle mess based around contradictory and inconsistent principles that was doomed to collapse from the start. They did do very well at creating the illusion of a successful state, but look deeper and the flaws, not just with the purpose, but with the state itself, were evident. The most obvious one being the economy, which, under all the flashy projects and massive government spending like remilitarisation and autobahns was crumbling under unsustainable spending (the only reason it kept on going for as long as it did was due to the Nazi's looting other countries) 

 

I don't think DA's world is that morally shallow... particularly not Origins... but it's a pretty obvious bias in all aspects of it.

 

Oh right, I'm supposed to just say things like "I like cute outfits," so I don't offend anyone, right, sorry.

 

No, you're just supposed to stop accusing people of lying just because they disagree with you. You're supposed to stop suggesting that opposing revealing armour is about suppressing sexuality (because it isn't in any way shape or form). Get it yet?

 

(Sorry, I'm being fail at these forums and can't figure out how to break up quotes so I've replied to individual points in red)

 

Oh, and just as a random aside, this is what the character in my avatar looks like when in human form. Yeah. Guess I'm really offended by cleavage...

[Han Shot First]

It's worth repeating that female armor designs that look like they provide full protection, can also look sexy. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

[dirk5027]

 Oh my word, she's showing skin, she broke my immersion....Eunice get the lawyer on the phone, this is not gonna fly !!!!

Many of you are a hoot

[PhroXenGold]

tallis. and that is missing the point, kind of? isabela still fought in her clothing. (and it is still categorized as armor, with upgrades even.) we have gotten such armors in the past, even. 

 

qunari wear the armor, regardless of why, it's present. i was simply extending that if they can be allowed to wear such attire, so should the player character. so, as long as you are penalized for wearing armor that doesn't look realistic you're okay with it in game? what about penalties to these 'realistic armor'? should they loose mobility and not be able to run when wearing it? if so, than sure. so long as this 'unrealistic armor' also got bonuses like dexterity. which has already happened in previous dragon age games with 'unrealistic' armor.  let me try to understand, now that you have somewhat clarified (?): you are okay with it in game, even if that's inconsistent in a certain aspect (why would they wear armor that offers nothing), so long as the bonuses/affects to it seem more realistic? (not being condescending, just trying to clarify) if so i understand your point. and if this is your point, i can agree as long as the choice do to such is still included for those who want it.

 

Tallis...yeah, forgot about her (wishful thinking perhaps?). Her outfit is indeed pretty revealing. But from what I remember, it doesn't give her much armour.

 

The rest though, well, not really. Because realistic armour shouldn't  significantly impact on the wearer's dexterity. That was kinda the point of armour design - to give as much protection as possibly while still allowing the wearer to fight freely. It would be noisier, so no sneaking around, but you don't do that mid-combat anyway. The only reasons for someone expecting to be in the front line of combat not to wear heavy armour were either climatic - in very hot regions of the world, overheating could be a problem - or financial - i.e. you couldn't afford it. Similarly, revealing armour wouldn't make you more dexterous.

 

And this is where I run into the problem with "revealing" armour (in the sense of mail and heavier. Leather is barely armour so it doesn't really bother me that much). There is no logical reason for wearing it if you expect to get into a battle. So if I see a character wearing it in a setting that roughly follows the same mechanics as reality when it comes to armour, it breaks immersion, because for the character to do so implies that they're an utter idiot. 

 

But yeah, I don't mind giving the player access to it (even without drawbacks), providing it's optional, as I can just ignore it. It's when it appears elsewhere in the world that I have immersion problems. I mean, sure, if there was a cult of warrior women that fought in chainmail bikinis, fine, as long as it was clear that a) the rest of the world thinks they're nuts and b ) they have zero armour.