2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Edit: Also, how the **** was Godwin's law invoked in a thread about armors?

Because say whatever you like, but they had outstanding uniforms.

[Voragoras]

This is funny because she is talking with the VA of Kaidan and saying that to a woman that turns into a wolf. Got to love Regina.

 

I knew I heard his voice before! I can't believe I didn't make the connection.

 

God, this show turned into such a campy joke and a parody of itself, but for some reason I still take precious time out of my day to get up to date with the episodes.

[Voragoras]

whos the girl in the middle? shes got something special about her, idk what it is but shes gorgeous

 

Meghan Ory, who plays Ruby/Red in Once Upon A Time. I agree with you.

[Voragoras]

damn i gotta watch that show

 

Well, the first season is good (imo), but it devolves pretty fast into a nonsensical mess, to the point where I'm now just treating it as a goofy superhero-type reimagining of classic fairytales. Makes it more entertaining.

[Remmirath]

...you are playing games with sexy outfits that might be badly made or incoherent in their worldbuilding, or super-coherent consistent games like DA that have crap outfits. There is no reason the two can't co-exist.

Yes, there is, because throwing sexy outfits onto everything is incoherent worldbuilding... unless you are coming up with a whole list of reasons why it would actually work out great to wear those into combat, which then makes it into a whole design goal, which does not really mesh well with trying to provide a dark and gritty setting (how well Dragon Age does at that to begin with is really not relevant to this). Also, I'm reasonably certain that even most people who like sexy outfits aren't going to claim that all other oufits are therefore crap.

This is a matter of opinion and preference, and I am really not sure why you find that so hard to grasp. Your opinion is clearly different. That's fine. You're trying to tell other people not only that their opinions are invalid but that they aren't even really their opinions, which is not fine.
 

Yes, it's ok to have sex, to want sex, to be sexual, to be playful and silly and gentle. To have sexy outfits, to just chill. Heck it's ok to assume that those unspoken things dangling in the air are real and emotionally you should seize them with your hands.

Uh, yeah. Nobody is saying it's not okay. Seriously, I don't believe that one single person in this entire thread has said it's not okay. It is also okay to not have sex, to not want sex, to not be sexual, and to be playful in an entirely different fashion or not playful at all. You seem very focused on telling people that those things are not okay for some reason, all the while complaining about your perception that people are trying to tell you that the way you are/want to be is not okay -- which nobody is telling you in the first place. What they are telling you is that they do not like skimpy armour. Nobody's even telling you that you shouldn't like it. They are saying that they don't believe it belongs in this game, or any game that's striving for a decent measure of plausibility specifically with regards to armour. Not even clothing. Just armour.

I don't even know what you're getting at with that last sentence. It's very vague.
 

Indeed, if this is your overwhelming goal good luck to you, may the diehard people play it and no one else really care. If I had known that was the objective from the beginning, I would not have shown interest. I think it's because I literally have no other major western games that I care about anymore, virtually all of them are consigned to their anti-sexual agendas in one way or another. This one less so, but it's feeling like peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Nice misleading quote fragment there. The quote marks around "playful and fun" are a rather important part of the statement I was making, which (since apparently it must be spelled out) is that shockingly enough people have different ideas of fun. Your idea of fun apparently includes scantily clad warriors, and indeed requires them. Mine does not, and indeed, that goes directly against my idea of fun -- thus the quote marks. I also do not want a playful atmosphere in a game that otherwise has a serious tone. That would come off as strange. To me, skimpy armour would be just as out of place and distracting as half the characters wearing clown suits into battle for no apparent reason.

I honestly don't know where you're getting this anti-sexual agenda stuff from. I see many games with romances, many games with sex scenes and brothels and what, and many -- most! -- games even have what you want most in revealing outfits. You seem to believe that unless everything you come across has one specific element -- revealing armour -- not only is it anti-sexual, but so are western games in general, and I am not seeing the logic in this conclusion.
 

I don't even care anymore, I really don't, whatever. It was never going to make or break the game, perhaps that's why I was so fascinated by it, it seemed like this particular point that people cared about more than anything. The most important thing is the absence of heart, which doesn't necessarily relate to this topic so... whatever...

Speaking for myself at least, there are many things I care more about. Most of them are battles that have already been lost with regards to this game. Purely in terms of visuals, yes, realistic armour is fairly high on my list of things I want out of a game (I would also very much like realistic weapons, but I get the feeling that's not happening). All visuals take a back seat to gameplay in what I what from a game, however.
 

So, to equate it back to the topic at hand, the inclusion of more revealing or sexy armor in no way requires you to wear it, and if it did then I would see where one would have an objection, just as I would object to straight marriage being abolished along with gay marriage being allowed. But that's not what would happen in either scenario. If you don't want to wear them, don't wear them... Why must people campaign so hard to keep the option closed unless it's cause you have moral objections like those against same-sex marriage do?

It's not quite the same. Games have limited resources, and quite often, it has in fact meant that if there is revealing armour you have to wear it, for some if not all of the game. I distinctly recall several games where I either didn't make a female character at all because most or all of the armour was like that, or did, and then realised that there were only two or three suits of armour in the entire game that looked halfway reasonable... and weren't even nearly the best ones. It often means that male characters get completely adequate armour, and female characters get ridiculous cutaway armour, by putting on what is supposedly the very same suit of armour.

If it's actually a case of just having one or two armour sets, equally revealing for male and female characters and not the best ones in the game, with no less a number of protective suits of armour than it would've been if the skimpy suits of armour were not there, I'm totally cool with that. No skin off my back. I'll just ignore them. So long as they aren't showing up on every third female NPC, of course.

That hasn't been the case in any game yet. That is why people are jumpy on this topic.

Given that there's some level of armour customisation, I would say it's entirely reasonable to offer the ability to modify existing armour sets to be more revealing. That still lets you have that character choice, but doesn't imply that there are large numbers of people running around the world who would rather show some skin than protect their vital organs. Plausibility is preserved, choice is offered, all is good.

I'll try a different analogy. Let's say that you are very fond of chocolate. You are going to attend a barbecue, which is billed as being entirely concerned with grilled meats of various descriptions. You want to attend this barbecue, perhaps because every other aspect of the event appeals to you, but the only way you like meat is if it is dipped in chocolate. It is totally reasonable to bring a pot of chocolate with you so that you and anyone else, if they choose, may dip the steak into the chocolate before eating it. It would even be reasonable to request from the host that they set aside one extra piece of steak for you, pre-chocolate dipped for your enjoyment. It would not be reasonable for you to insist that a certain percentage of the steaks be chocolate dipped. It certainly wouldn't be reasonable to insist that, say, a quarter of the steaks given to brown-haired individuals be dipped in chocolate, but none of the others (because you like seeing brown-haired people eat chocolate dipped steaks, or because you yourself are brown-haired). That last is how revealing armour has been handled in every game I have seen thus far, with the chocolate dipped steaks being the revealing armour, and the brown-haired individuals being female characters.

[schall_und_rauch]

 But if the best tanking stats are on the tanking tank top, I will make the saddest puppy face at the game.

Oh come on, there is no better way to tank than in a tank top. That's what they are made for.

[Hadeedak]

Oh come on, there is no better way to tank than in a tank top. That's what they are made for.

 

If I have to tank in a tank top, I expect my survivability to tank.

[Cyonan]

Oh come on, there is no better way to tank than in a tank top. That's what they are made for.

 

Real men tank shirtless and use their glorious beard to block enemy attacks.

[Hadeedak]

I guess I could tank in my tank top from inside a tank, but using a tank to tank seems sillier than tanking in a tank top, so that'd tank my immersion faster.

 

I love you, English.

[eyezonlyii]

Tanks for all the jokes. I can't tank anymore.

[President of Boom]

"You're hot."

"No, you are."

"No, you are!"

"Stop it! You are!"

"NO! YOU ARE!"

"NO! YOU! ARE! La, la, la, la, la, la... I can't hear you!"

"FUS RO DAH!!! Now look what you made me do."

 

 

Oh, sorry, what was this thread about again? Ah yes, stripper armour. Yeah, no, I think I'm good.

[PhroXenGold]

I could give you that paper if you wanted I guess, but it's like 27 or 28 pages I'm kind of doubtful you are reading into it. I had a more philosophical interest, it was also about Germany in the post-war period and so on, how successful they were at building a state during that period. I think the idea was something like their extreme pride in systems and logic seemed to just overtake whatever humanity they possessed. I'm not saying you guys are Nazis, but that same tendency to champion the method or system as the substance itself seems to show up all the time. Now I have the same instinct that this occurs here, you are playing games with sexy outfits that might be badly made or incoherent in their worldbuilding, or super-coherent consistent games like DA that have crap outfits. There is no reason the two can't co-exist. 

 

Actually, I would be interested. I'd like to see how you could possibly reach the conclusion that Nazi Germany was a successful and functioning state. And I'd love to see if such a paper has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable publication....

 

 

And you are basically calling us Nazis. Here's a tip for the future, if you ever use the phrase "I'm not .... but....", then you are doing whatever you claim your not.

 

Anyway yeah seriously... this is about

 

SEX-y Outfits

 

Yes, it's ok to have sex, to want sex, to be sexual, to be playful and silly and gentle. To have sexy outfits, to just chill. Heck it's ok to assume that those unspoken things dangling in the air are real and emotionally you should seize them with your hands.

 

YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT. NO-ONE HERE OBJECTS TO "SEXY" OUTFITS IN GENERAL. WE OBJECT TO "SEXY" OUTFITS IN SITUATIONS WHERE ONLY AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT WOULD WEAR THEM. GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD.

 

But honestly, it seems like you guys are very focused on making sure, what was it

 

Indeed, if this is your overwhelming goal good luck to you, may the diehard people play it and no one else really care. If I had known that was the objective from the beginning, I would not have shown interest. I think it's because I literally have no other major western games that I care about anymore, virtually all of them are consigned to their anti-sexual agendas in one way or another. This one less so, but it's feeling like peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

 

THERE IS NO GODDAMN ANTI-SEXUAL AGENDA.  

 

I don't even care anymore, I really don't, whatever. It was never going to make or break the game, perhaps that's why I was so fascinated by it, it seemed like this particular point that people cared about more than anything. The most important thing is the absence of heart, which doesn't necessarily relate to this topic so... whatever...

[Seraphim24]

There is an anti-sexual agenda. Ok, let me put it this way, you continually seem to forget that this is a video game, designed to make people have fun, not strictly to reflect the realities or necessities of their daily life. 

 

You guys are just dragging way too much of reality in period, way too much of if I was going to go carpentering with my father level nonsense. No one cares, we're all here to have fun, that's the only objective, it's NOT complicated. Attractive outfits and people are fun, period, that should be the end of it. Your incessant mewling about the rules or the way the game needs to be just strikes me as silly, disingenuous, and obfuscating when games can be literally anything they want to be, they don't even have to be games at all. Bioware is where it is today because they had sassy rogues and handsome paladins adventuring you throughout the wilderness, slashing and hacking at things while enjoying a mug of ale, and then retiring to the nearest Inn. This mega-level puritanical BS movement that evolved since then, and which has made various games and media their punching bags needs to die. 

 

I can find plenty of games that have better outfits and are focused on "fun," and they are better games because of it. Again, I'll guarantee, with the most miniscule % chance of error, that NO ONE will ever vindicate DA historically or game-wise for being so hardcore and realistic in it's aesthetics. They might acknowledge the compelling game mechanics, or a few good characters or scenes, but the actual aesthetics of extreme chivalry and relative chastity will go down as bleh, sexually repressed, boring, and not making for a fun game. I'm not saying it's not going to sell at all, or that a handful of people will like it decently-ish, and another handful won't lie to prop the thing they decided needs to succeed, but really people are basically not going to care about Vivienne, or god I can't remember their names.. Blackwall and their obsessive need to be completely covered at all times. 

 

What more can I say though, if you guys are that heck-bent on being on the wrong side of that history, by all means. 

[Almostfaceman]

There is an anti-sexual agenda. Ok, let me put it this way, you continually seem to forget that this is a video game, designed to make people have fun, not strictly to reflect the realities or necessities of their daily life. 

 

You guys are just dragging way too much of reality in period, way too much of if I was going to go carpentering with my father level nonsense. No one cares, we're all here to have fun, that's the only objective, it's NOT complicated. Attractive outfits and people are fun, period, that should be the end of it. Your incessant mewling about the rules or the way the game needs to be just strikes me as silly when games can be literally anything they want to be, they don't even have to be games at all. 

 

I can find plenty of games that have better outfits and are focused on "fun," and they are better games because of it. Again, I'll gurantee, with the most miniscule % chance of error, that NO ONE will ever vindicate DA historically or game-wise for being so hardcore and realistic in it's aesthetics. They might acknowledge the compelling game mechanics, or a few good characters or scenes, but the actual aesthetics of extreme chivalry and relative chastity will go down as bleh, sexually repressed, boring, and not making for a fun game. 

 

What more can I say though, if you guys are that heck-bent on being on the wrong side of that history, by all means. 

 

 

Cool story, bro. 

[9TailsFox]

Is there any chance of dye btw?

When asked question about changing armour colours answer was always we looking into it so I hope so. Pinquisition. 

 

And can we stop fighting?

 

[Shadow Fox]

Yeah...

 

*Takes thread behind the barn and mercy kills it*

 

Let him die boys...just let him die.

[PhroXenGold]

There is an anti-sexual agenda. Ok, let me put it this way, you continually seem to forget that this is a video game, designed to make people have fun, not strictly to reflect the realities or necessities of their daily life. 

 

I...I just...what...seriously WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Having armour in games that is practical has abso-f******-lutely nothing to do with an anti-sexual agenda. It is purely about having armour that appear like it would actually protect people, because to do otherwise would be inconsistent and unbelievable.

 

You guys are just dragging way too much of reality in period, way too much of if I was going to go carpentering with my father level nonsense. No one cares, we're all here to have fun, that's the only objective, it's NOT complicated. Attractive outfits and people are fun, period, that should be the end of it. Your incessant mewling about the rules or the way the game needs to be just strikes me as silly, disingenuous, and obfuscating when games can be literally anything they want to be, they don't even have to be games at all. Bioware is where it is today because they had sassy rogues and handsome paladins adventuring you throughout the wilderness, slashing and hacking at things while enjoying a mug of ale, and then retiring to the nearest Inn. This mega-level puritanical BS movement that evolved since then, and which has made various games and media their punching bags needs to die. 

 

And fun in fictional setting, for many people (though, of course, not everyone), comes from being immersed in the setting. For us, seeing things that don't make sense, that aren't consistent with what the fictional world is presenting to us, like overly revealing armour, prevents us being immersed. There's nothing disingenuous in this what so ever. It has absolutely nothing to do with being puritanical. Where are you getting these ideas from? Have you read anything that people have posted in this thread at all?

 

I can find plenty of games that have better outfits and are focused on "fun," and they are better games because of it. Again, I'll guarantee, with the most miniscule % chance of error, that NO ONE will ever vindicate DA historically or game-wise for being so hardcore and realistic in it's aesthetics. They might acknowledge the compelling game mechanics, or a few good characters or scenes, but the actual aesthetics of extreme chivalry and relative chastity will go down as bleh, sexually repressed, boring, and not making for a fun game. I'm not saying it's not going to sell at all, or that a handful of people will like it decently-ish, and another handful won't lie to prop the thing they decided needs to succeed, but really people are basically not going to care about Vivienne, or god I can't remember their names.. Blackwall and their obsessive need to be completely covered at all times. 

 

I don't mind that you prefer to have revealing armour. I don't even mind why you prefer it. What I object to is your obsessive mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of everyone who holds a different view to you. And this paragraph completely sums that up. You keep bringing up things like "sexual repression" "chastity" and similar phrases that have absolutely nothing to do with why we prefer not to have revealing armour. No-one has even so much as suggested those things. We're not offended by bare flesh. We just think it's utterly stupid to go into battle looking like that. Which, frankly, it is. Now fine, if you can accept things like that it your RPGs, thats great. We can't. That's fine. That's the way things go in life, not everyone agrees. But that doesn't mean that we are part of some grand conspiracy to oppress sexuality. 

 

What more can I say though, if you guys are that heck-bent on being on the wrong side of that history, by all means. 

 

Seriously, again, what the Christ are you talking about? GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD: THERE IS NO ANTI-SEXUALITY CRUSADE WHEN IT COMES TO ARMOUR DESIGN. IT IS PURELY A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY IN COMBAT.

 

Oh, and just as a little extra, remember that, in the vast majority of games that have very revealing combat outfits, they're not there to "promote sexuality", they're there to give male gamers a boner.

[xkg]

In my previous post, I forgot to add the link.

Look up this guys page on the pinterest.

 

http://www.pinterest.../armored-women/

 

He has a nice images collection of various female's armors there.

 

From ridiculous like this one,

 

 

through fantasy like armors

 

 

even some oriental armors
 

 

to more realistic full armors.

 

 

 

Almost naked, semi naked, full armors - everyone can find something to his liking.

[Shadow Fox]

 

There is an anti-sexual agenda. Ok, let me put it this way, you continually seem to forget that this is a video game, designed to make people have fun, not strictly to reflect the realities or necessities of their daily life. 

 

I...I just...what...seriously WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Having armour in games that is practical has abso-f******-lutely nothing to do with an anti-sexual agenda. It is purely about having armour that appear like it would actually protect people, because to do otherwise would be inconsistent and unbelievable.

 

You guys are just dragging way too much of reality in period, way too much of if I was going to go carpentering with my father level nonsense. No one cares, we're all here to have fun, that's the only objective, it's NOT complicated. Attractive outfits and people are fun, period, that should be the end of it. Your incessant mewling about the rules or the way the game needs to be just strikes me as silly, disingenuous, and obfuscating when games can be literally anything they want to be, they don't even have to be games at all. Bioware is where it is today because they had sassy rogues and handsome paladins adventuring you throughout the wilderness, slashing and hacking at things while enjoying a mug of ale, and then retiring to the nearest Inn. This mega-level puritanical BS movement that evolved since then, and which has made various games and media their punching bags needs to die. 

 

And fun in fictional setting, for many people (though, of course, not everyone), comes from being immersed in the setting. For us, seeing things that don't make sense, that aren't consistent with what the fictional world is presenting to us, like overly revealing armour, prevents us being immersed. There's nothing disingenuous in this what so ever. It has absolutely nothing to do with being puritanical. Where are you getting these ideas from? Have you read anything that people have posted in this thread at all?

 

I can find plenty of games that have better outfits and are focused on "fun," and they are better games because of it. Again, I'll guarantee, with the most miniscule % chance of error, that NO ONE will ever vindicate DA historically or game-wise for being so hardcore and realistic in it's aesthetics. They might acknowledge the compelling game mechanics, or a few good characters or scenes, but the actual aesthetics of extreme chivalry and relative chastity will go down as bleh, sexually repressed, boring, and not making for a fun game. I'm not saying it's not going to sell at all, or that a handful of people will like it decently-ish, and another handful won't lie to prop the thing they decided needs to succeed, but really people are basically not going to care about Vivienne, or god I can't remember their names.. Blackwall and their obsessive need to be completely covered at all times. 

 

I don't mind that you prefer to have revealing armour. I don't even mind why you prefer it. What I object to is your obsessive mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of everyone who holds a different view to you. And this paragraph completely sums that up. You keep bringing up things like "sexual repression" "chastity" and similar phrases that have absolutely nothing to do with why we prefer not to have revealing armour. No-one has even so much as suggested those things. We're not offended by bare flesh. We just think it's utterly stupid to go into battle looking like that. Which, frankly, it is. Now fine, if you can accept things like that it your RPGs, thats great. We can't. That's fine. That's the way things go in life, not everyone agrees. But that doesn't mean that we are part of some grand conspiracy to oppress sexuality. 

 

What more can I say though, if you guys are that heck-bent on being on the wrong side of that history, by all means. 

 

Seriously, again, what the Christ are you talking about? GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD: THERE IS NO ANTI-SEXUALITY CRUSADE WHEN IT COMES TO ARMOUR DESIGN. IT IS PURELY A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY IN COMBAT.

 

Oh, and just as a little extra, remember that, in the vast majority of games that have very revealing combat outfits, they're not there to "promote sexuality", they're there to give male gamers a boner.

 

Dude just stop feeding the troll.

 

@xkg cool pics 2,3 and 4 are my faves.