Contrary to what people would have you believe, what looks good and what doesn't look is very frequently a fairly objective thing. I'm well aware of people's "disagreements," but the fact is you can predict people's responses to and attention towards media based on a hardened analysis of it's aesthetic value. There is more attractive, less attractive, and everything in between.
No, I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. If it were true, there would never have been such incredible variety of art over the centuries. We either wouldn't have modern art as a category or we never would've had any other sort of art, and people certainly wouldn't be split over whether they even consider it art. Trends in illustration, decoration, and everything else to do with aesthetics wouldn't come and go, and nobody would buck the trends.
Sexual attractiveness can be, to some small extent, objectively quantified, but only insofar as it relates to evolutionary principles. Aesthetics cannot be. That is part of their nature. There
are fairly universal aesthetic principles, but they aren't the sort of things you're talking about here, and even things such as the golden ratio aren't an infallible way to create an attractive composition, and some people consider compositions created on that basis to be bland and dull. Nothing that boils down to personal preference is universal. Harmony of colour, balance of composition, and that sort of thing are nearly universal, but some people prefer disharmonious colours and unbalanced compositions.
It's like when I see people watching the Miley Cyrus thing with the VMAs over and over and over, all the while criticizing it for what it is, I'm like yeah sure. If you really didn't like it or care for it you just wouldn't watch it.
Have you considered that perhaps the same people who are most critical of such things are
not the ones watching it, in the majority of cases? I barely know what you're talking about with that whole VMA thing, but if people are playing computer games that have armour they dislike, I guarantee you that in most cases it is because they like the other things about the game enough to put up with the armour.
The fact that you guys rely so heavily on sense and logic is nauseating, it suggests that you are using it as a crutch to navigate these unseen waters of sexuality and attractive outfits. That's fine and all, I'm sure it can be intimidating, but don't murder the messenger here. By the way, I do not see revealing or attractive as the norm at all, especially not in the video games, unless you are still playing at some arcade from the 80s. The shift towards more conservative themes and appearances has been steady and is frankly culminating at this point.
What's wrong with sense and logic? I find it odd (and, yes, illogical) that you argue against sense and logic, presumably therefore preferring instinct and feeling, yet claim that aesthetics are objective and therefore not dictated by feeling or instinct.
I haven't seen any shift towards conservatism. I've seen a very small number of games that actually treat female characters as equal to male characters with regards to armour (amongst other things that are not relevant to this thread). There have been a few games recently that have practical armour for all characters, but it's (unfortunately, from my point of view), hardly the norm. Dragon Age is mostly okay. Elder Scrolls games are mostly okay. Guild Wars 2 has a handful more than the token three suits of practical armour that its predecessor had, but there is still a huge difference between male and female armours. Most first-person shooters, if they have female characters at all, have them wearing something revealing instead of something practical. Either you are playing some very different games than I am, in which case I would love to know which ones they are, or the shift isn't there.
That is because of years and years and months of steady complaints on that front, and frankly maybe it's time to just abandon AAA gaming as having been entirely co-opted by a kind of Christian front, no, not the evangelical Christians, but the conservative movement birthed by nerds. Their brand of liberalism is more tolerable than some crazed guy on TV, but it's still frankly very moral and at least repressive to a degree.
Conservative liberalism, eh? Okay. I'm not seeing how enforcing that all games should have skimpy armour isn't repressive, but asking that at least a few games not have skimpy armour is.
It's far less terrifying or overt as you guys are making it out to be, here was a pretty cool one from Fire Emblem.
Is it hot? Yeah, is it too crazy? No. It's just meant to appeal to people, it's meant to be fun, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, I'm thinking of not playing DA:I for more reasons than just the outfits. I think it's the fact that there is so much attention and irritation at something I see as really mostly harmless, we're not even discussing core themes or which character lives or dies or things of that nature, it's freaking clothes that frequently has people so agitated.
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing I can't stand, personally. It offers no protective value, it looks to me quite silly, and I only hope it's not intended to be anything like armour (note that this discussion is in fact about armour, not clothing), because it sure doesn't look like it would be any better than a swimsuit with regards to protection. I wouldn't be able to take somebody wearing that seriously as a warrior. Or a rogue. Or a hiker. Or anybody who is, in fact, doing anything other than lounging around in their home or at best wandering about a city.
For you, it's just fun. It's supposed to appeal to a very select segment of people, which you happen to be a part of. For those of us who are not part of that segment (however you wish to categorise it: sexually attracted to women, particularly women in skimpy clothes; not desiring realism or the appearance thereof in games; not female), it doesn't come off as fun, appealing, or even entirely harmless.
If you had even once said, even once implied, that you thought that this standard of clothing should be applied
optionally to all characters evenly I doubt we would be having this discussion any more. Certainly, at that point, I would consider it harmless. Whether you intend it so or not, you are coming off as though you will not be happy unless all female characters have skimpy armour, and you don't care about what the male characters are wearing one way or another.
If I'm not mistaken though, there isn't even anything like that in DA:I for mages right? It was Morrigan, Dalish Elf, then nothing.
Chasind robes. Tevinter robes. Heck, most of the non-Senior-Enchanter robes. Then there's the fact that all of the light armours had deep necklines for female characters, and that the medium and heavy armours were sculpted in the chest area for them. Only the massive armours were actually equal.
Okay, first of all points for making a sillier analogy than even i am known for on other forums. Really, that is a feat when I think your analogy is off the wall silly, but as I am myself known for such things, I'll run with your analogy, this will be fun!
Hey, it was late and I was trying to come up with a harmless analogy.
Say I am part of a group that dips their steaks in chocolate. We are partially funding this barbecue. We aren't asking that all steaks be dipped in chocolate, and by all means if all brown-haired people must eat chocolate dipped steaks, then by that opposite respect, non-brown haired individuals can't? Well, I'm against that very much, as I am a blonde, and I want my steak dipped in chocolate! If every barbecue that has ever dipped steaks in chocolate has only made them available to brown-haired people, then they are doing it wrong, and nobody I agree with is asking them to do this, it's their own stupid idea on who should be eating chocolate steaks. No, I and my group want the chocolate-dipped steaks to be an OPTION for persons of every hair color...
Yeah, and that makes more sense (leaving aside the silliness of the analogy in general, of course). Options are fine. I don't think anyone in this thread is really against having the option, so long as it really is completely optional. Sadly, since there haven't yet been any games where it has been -- much less optional and equal -- people are a bit dubious of that happening and react accordingly. I know that I partly react so strongly to this argument because of many years of either not playing a female character or being stuck playing a female character wearing armour, for most of the game, which renders it difficult for me to take the whole game seriously.
To take it back to the topic at hand, and not the silly (but fun!) chocolate analogy, it may be Bioware Austin and not the Dragon Age team, but still it's Bioware, has made great strides in this area with Star Wars the Old Republic lately. They've made (with the help of a player on the forums that did the very thing we are doing here, only his focus was MEN) many revealing outfits that are not gender-restricted and are quite popular. Is everyone forced to wear them? Nope, you can still wear any of the many non-revealing armors they release regularly especially because by the nature of the game what you wear is just a "shell" and you can put any stats you want to on the armor (even the wrong ones arrgh the 55 KDY graduates... No, you are a sentinel don't stack willpower I don't care what you think about it increasing your force power, you are doing it wrong!). The revealing ones are maybe 25% of the armors released (some content packs have more, some have less). That's all I am asking, I can't speak for others in this thread, is some options for both genders. Trust me, if Bioware will let me make my male Inquisitor Conan the Barbarian, I will do so just as I will make Red Sonja. I will also have a female Inquisitor in full Templar plate too (well, I did in DA2, got it from Meredith.. not sure if they will have Templar plate for us in DAI, but I hope so)
So long as a similar range of options can be afforded without reducing armour to the level of a shell -- I really like armour, and acquired items in general, to have a potentially unique statistical impact -- I would be happy with that. I would not ever use the skimpy options, but so long as they're not an enforced part of the game world (as in, not found on NPCs unless for some reason that's really appropriate to their personality), are equally present between male and female characters, and aren't crowding other armour options out, I'm cool with as many as people want existing.
Like I believe I said before (although it was a ways back), I think that the best way to handle this with regards to Inquisition would be to have some skimpier options in customisation. That way, the general feeling of the setting is overall preserved, but if people choose, they can still have their PC dress in a more revealing way if they prefer.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
