Oh my god I totally forgot about the broodmother, yes a mass of completely naked breasts is completely realistic and unobjectionable but a Dalish Elf showing a bare midriff is a godawful disgusting thing that needs to be covered immediately.
Until I see a campaign by SJWs (or whoever) to cover up the brood mother I feel compelled to treat any further attempts to defend the need for covering on PCs and their outfits as a complete exercise in futility, as that is hypocrisy cranked far past 11 and into the 90s on a scale of 1-10.
It seems to me a far easier solution is just to embrace the joy of cute outfits and the skin they show and leave those that feel the need to judge alone with their 900 lb conglomeration of female biology, as well as their petty hatreds and compulsion to make everyone as unhappy as they are.
You are entirely missing the point. There is nothing inherently wrong with nudity or with showing skin. It doesn't make sense for
armour to show skin for the sake of showing skin, because it is there to bloody well protect you. If there were a culture in Dragon Age with armour akin to that which one would see from a very hot climate, that would be fine -- so long as this was applied equally to both male and female armour, of course -- but having chain or plate or what with pieces missing is silly. Culturally different armour is great. Skimpy armour for the sake of it is not. Even in cultures who wore relatively very little armour, the first thing they would cover up are the vital areas.
I don't mind if people have revealing casual clothing, and I don't even mind if they're completely naked if it makes sense in the context of the game. Armour should at least look like it can provide protection -- or if it's the case of a society with unarmoured warriors, then it should provide only as much armour protection as wearing no armour would.
Second, maybe I'd believe people that say they value the realism or whatever if they didn't always mod the crap out of their games into sexy characters for everyone, or continually play tons of games that have sexy characters. From my perspective, their words are essentially meaningless until their actions actually follow the commentary. Dragon Age itself is already sex and relationship filled to the brim.
I don't mod the game in that way, ever. I doubt most people who want realistic armour do. I will occasionally mod it in the opposite direction, if I can find more realistic armour mods. Generally speaking I don't mod games at all. As for playing games with sexy characters, considering how high a percentage of games that currently is, I don't think it's a useful statistic as it's hard to get away from that if you want to play a wide variety of games. I don't play any JRPGs, although the prevalence of skimpy outfits isn't the main reason (I don't like fixed characters and I don't like the mechanics). I won't utterly ignore every game that has unrealistic armour, for example, although it will be a mark against it. If I have a choice between two otherwise completely equal games I will play the one with the better armour first, although I might get around to playing both eventually.
I don't know a single person in the universe that isn't basically actively interested in sex in one way or another, and when it comes to entertainment they are going to proritize appearance and general need for stuff to look cool or attractive. So consequently I don't really care what they say, it just smells like BS to me.
So because you don't personally know anybody who has a certain viewpoint/orientation/opinion you believe they don't exist? Do you apply this to all cases, or is it just in the case of being interested in sex? As I said before, I have absoloutely no interest in sex. None. It is less interesting to me than watching paint dry. I do know other people who are of the same opinion. There are many other such people, although a relatively small percentage of the overall population, yes. You not personally knowing any does not make that false.
You also don't seem to believe that other people's idea of cool can be different from yours.
It's common, not typical ... but as I said, that kinda armour with a clear uniboob would work for everyone. I don't think male players would be enthused about wearing it though, I certainly don't see many re-enactment armours of similar design.
BTW, can someone explain to me why a big deal is made about force directing creases in breast-armour but this kind of historical male armour with an incredibly sharp horizontal crease between the chest and the hoop at the hip gets a free pass? According to the exagerations of the breast-armour disparagers a mittelhau would bisect you with that kind of structural weakness.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Poor word choice. There are very few breastplates designs which are completely flat, and the great majority of breastplate designs would work equally well for women as for men.
It wouldn't be as bad as some people make it out to be, no. It is weaker than it would be if it didn't have a dip in it, it would be terribly uncomfortable if one assumes that it's actually form-fitting (and wouldn't leave room for proper padding beneath the armour in that case). It would suck if you were to fall face-down in it, but I don't think it would crack the sternum except in a freak accident. Personally I also think it looks ridiculous, but it offers no positive protective features and does create some problems (albeit not as many as often claimed), so it does not make sense as a general choice. It would be very unlikely to be the death of a warrior who did choose that, but I would not expect it to be a common choice.
I have less of a problem with it than I do actively revealing armour. It's not something I would ever choose, nor is it something I would choose for my female characters.
Something like that seems like a perfect combination of a nicely shaped, practical, medieval times styled female's armor.
Yes, this is an excellent example of reasonable armour. It's only different from what a similar male suit of armour would look like in terms of sizing and fitting (so really no more different than any two given suits of platemail will be), it's practical, and it even looks good. Far better, in my opinion, than various skimpy armours.
Almost, I fixed the relevant word.
You do not know that people are lying. You assume. You have no way of knowing. All you know is that you would be lying if you said the same thing, and for some reason you assume that means that everybody else is. This is deeply flawed logic.
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.
Just about everyone is not everyone, and there is nothing that says that people who are interested in sex have to want it everwhere. I really like pepper as a seasoning, to give an analogy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to want it on all of my food. I'm sure that for many people who are interested in sex this same argument can essentially be applied to this case: they don't need or want it everywhere, and sometimes it actually gets in the way.
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.
Dude, the world could've been built like that, but it wasn't. It's not supposed to be "playful and fun". There are plenty of games out there that are. Not every game must be. (Also, I don't consider that kind of "playful" to be fun, only wearisome.) Why, then, should only the armour be? (Not that I think such armour is actually anything other than annoying, but leaving that aside for the moment.) It already seems pretty darn friendly to images of sex and sexuality. We've got romances, brothels, and all sorts of stuff. Heck, our whole bloody society is incredibly friendly towards such things. Turn on the TV and look at any ad or TV show, look at just about any advertising, read most books... seriously. It's everywhere. That's great for people who like that sort of thing, but it isn't so great for those of us who don't. It gets tiresome. It's not a moral objection. It's a "do we really need this here, too, where it doesn't even make sense?" objection.
Again, I repeat, it's not a moral argument. You are the one trying to make it into one. Perhaps from your side it is, but from the other side it is not.
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.
Quite true. I'd still not like the skimpy variants, and avoid them, and find them silly -- but I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed if it didn't so often end being a case of "here's this cool armour, oh wait, female characters get this silly thing instead".
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
