Ce sujet est fermé
The big strawman in this thread at the moment is that people are conjuring up an image of the Conservative Brigade trying to remove all aspects of sexuality from every part of every video game ever, and that we all hate revealing attire regardless of context.
We just want sexy outfits to be a choice. Right now, it isn't.
The big strawman in this thread at the moment is that people are conjuring up an image of the Conservative Brigade trying to remove all aspects of sexuality from every part of every video game ever, and that we all hate revealing attire regardless of context.
We just want sexy outfits to be a choice. Right now, it isn't.
Indeed, not one person who said they prefer more realistic armors said anything about banning nudity from video games or removing depictions of sex. The preference for armor designs that are either drawn directly from history or inspired by them has absolutely no connection to morality police advocating censorship in video games.
In fact the people advocating for censorship in video games usually aren't gamers themselves. Take the controversy with Mass Effect 1 as an example. All the criticism came from talking heads who had not actually played the game.
Indeed, not one person who said they prefer more realistic armors said anything about banning nudity from video games or removing depictions of sex. The preference for armor designs that are either drawn directly from history or inspired by them has absolutely no connection to morality police advocating censorship in video games.
In fact the people advocating for censorship in video games usually aren't gamers themselves. Take the controversy with Mass Effect 1 as an example. All the criticism came from talking heads who had not actually played the game.
To be fair, there's only one person who's really been suggesting that censorship has anything to do with this...
The big strawman in this thread at the moment is that people are conjuring up an image of the Conservative Brigade trying to remove all aspects of sexuality from every part of every video game ever, and that we all hate revealing attire regardless of context.
We just want sexy outfits to be a choice. Right now, it isn't.
So, what's the solution? You want Bioware to spend time on making two sets of assets? Just so they can appease both conservative- and liberal-attire wearing folks? That's not going to happen. Too much extra work with too little payoff. So what they do is toe a line. Why is that such a big deal?
And yes, people can make sexy attire through mods. But people can also make demure outfits through mods, so that's a moot point.
Shhhhh! The Nazis might hear.
Guest_E-Ro_*
This thread just got terrifying.Shhhhh! The Nazis might hear.
not one person who said they prefer more realistic armors said anything about banning nudity from video games or removing depictions of sex. The preference for armor designs that are either drawn directly from history or inspired by them has absolutely no connection to morality police advocating censorship in video games.
I would say to the first part that this weakens their positions, not strengthens it. So purely stripper versions of nudity and graphic sex (as is also the case in GoT) are completely fine, whereas outfits that simply hint at sexuality are somehow very bad.
That's the funny thing about the realism arguments, they seem to just be used to manipulate people into getting what they want, which in this case means no provocative outfits but tons of graphic sex.
I would say to the first part that this weakens their positions, not strengthens it. So purely stripper versions of nudity and graphic sex (as is also the case in GoT) are completely fine, whereas outfits that simply hint at sexuality are somehow very bad.
That's the funny thing about the realism arguments, they seem to just be used to manipulate people into getting what they want, which in this case means no provocative outfits but tons of graphic sex.
You know, I was actually beginning to miss your ridiculous mischaracterisation of everyone who disagrees with you...
It hasn't worked the last dozen or so times, but, ah well, got nothing better to do then to spell it out to you again. No-one is objecting to provocative outfits. We're objecting to provocative outfits when wearing them would be downright retarded regardless of what your attitude to sexuality is.
I would say to the first part that this weakens their positions, not strengthens it. So purely stripper versions of nudity and graphic sex (as is also the case in GoT) are completely fine, whereas outfits that simply hint at sexuality are somehow very bad.
That's the funny thing about the realism arguments, they seem to just be used to manipulate people into getting what they want, which in this case means no provocative outfits but tons of graphic sex.
Uh..no.
It is all about being appropriate for the context. Outside of a few examples people generally didn't fight unarmored, because it leaves you completely unprotected and at a disadvantage versus any opponent who wears armor. People who did fight unarmored tended to either come from a raiding military culture, where the lack of equipment weighing you down or making noise might mitigate the lack of protection (raids and ambushes require some element of stealth), or they fought that way because they were too poor to afford armor. It doesn't make much sense for a warrior Inquisitor to be running around in 'armor' with lots of exposed skin that defeats the actual purpose of armor.
It might however make sense for a character being depicted in a romance scene for example, to either be nude or have nudity implied. To be clear I'm not necessarily saying that DA needs to have nudity either, just that I wouldn't complain if it showed up in a romance scene. It would at least make sense, whereas being naked in the middle of a battle would not.
Characters should be dressed (or undressed) appropriately depending on the situation.
So, what's the solution? You want Bioware to spend time on making two sets of assets? Just so they can appease both conservative- and liberal-attire wearing folks? That's not going to happen. Too much extra work with too little payoff. So what they do is toe a line. Why is that such a big deal?
And yes, people can make sexy attire through mods. But people can also make demure outfits through mods, so that's a moot point.
Yes, I want BioWare to spend time on making two sets of assets. They already spend their time making two unnecessary sets of assets by making a male armour and then a separate female armour that looks completely different and has become bikinified.
And yes, I know it's most likely not going to happen, but that doesn't change the fact that this (pretty much) is a fair compromise between the two camps.
Eh but couldn't I say it's realistic that no one would ever have time for sex during the inquisition? That some of them would be uninterested or unwilling to have sex? That there would be at least one that would insist on having sex with a white sheet over the person? I'm sure there are a bazillion ways to attack the 'realistic' notion that you have 9 people or whatever it is, all ready and primed to commit to overt sexual relationships during the course of the game. Shouldn't some stop halfway? Shouldn't one insist upon doing it only after the conclusion of the imminent threat from the darkspawn and all that? Shouldn't one stop at the moment before taking it all off to declare they don't lack the overwhelming desire all of a sudden? Shouldn't one be too shy? Shouldn't one have some kind of STD that makes it impossible? (I mean seriously, talk about something common in the 14th century)
Somehow those arguments never materialize though, it's only when someone isn't completely clothed in full body plate during a battle that these realism arguments pop up. The idea that all 9 characters are just completely ready and willing to shag you is never picked apart from a reality point of view, in fact, it's been increasingly demanded and assumed that it must be included in the game. I find the idea that all 9 are ready and willing to shag at the drop of a few gifts and positive dialogue options much more unrealistic and unsettling then the silliness by having an attractive outfit in combat, nevermind the ridiculous double jumps and stupid looking flourishes that all the party members do in combat (or that Iron Bull, a melee warrior, has nothing else on). From my perspective, just about every other thing in DA looks pretty dumb and unrealistic, but for whatever reason this is the one thing people pick on above the others.
Of course, you might add that this is because the game is supposed to be fun, and so certain liberties are taken, but then I would say why not make attractive outfits one of them? It's a game, after all. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, it strikes me that there is clearly something an attractive outfit that just sets people's neurons firing in all kinds of unexpected and extreme ways, that strikes me as brazenly irrational, and I'm still not sure why that is so.
Eh but couldn't I say it's realistic that no one would ever have time for sex during the inquisition? That some of them would be uninterested or unwilling to have sex? That there would be at least one that would insist on having sex with a white sheet over the person? I'm sure there are a bazillion ways to attack the 'realistic' notion that you have 9 people or whatever it is, all ready and primed to commit to overt sexual relationships during the course of the game. Shouldn't some stop halfway? Shouldn't one insist upon doing it only after the conclusion of the imminent threat from the darkspawn and all that? Shouldn't one stop at the moment before taking it all off to declare they don't lack the overwhelming desire all of a sudden? Shouldn't one be too shy?
Somehow those arguments never materialize though, it's only when someone isn't completely clothed in full body plate during a battle that these realism arguments pop up. The idea that all 9 characters are just completely ready and willing to shag you is never picked apart from a reality point of view, in fact, it's been increasingly demanded and assumed that it must be included in the game.
There is clearly something an attractive outfit that just sets people's neurons firing in all kinds of unexpected and extreme ways, that strikes me as brazenly irrational, and I'm still not sure why that is so.
To be honest, I rather agree with you on the first point. I find the "romances" in the game to be far to close to "player fantasy" rather than "believable characters". The exactly details of when, where and how they want to have sex aren't exactly foremost in my objections - more the willingness of them to fall in love with the player pretty much automatically if the player wants it - but yeah, seeing some more variety in that wouldn't hurt.
But again, you keep assuming that objecting to armour being revealing is something to do the fact that flesh is exposed from a sexual point of view. It's not. No-one in this thread has put forward that idea. Nor do we only object to revealing armour. We object to any armour, male or female, that it utterly impractical. I object to this just as much as a woman with her belly exposed:
Fighting with shoulderpads that size is utterly retarded. You cannot see sideways.
Shouldn't one have some kind of STD that makes it impossible? (I mean seriously, talk about something common in the 14th century)
STVs are cured by magic. Anders helps Isabela or Seneshal Bran with one.
To be honest, I rather agree with you on the first point. I find the "romances" in the game to be far to close to "player fantasy" rather than "believable characters". The exactly details of when, where and how they want to have sex aren't exactly foremost in my objections - more the willingness of them to fall in love with the player pretty much automatically if the player wants it - but yeah, seeing some more variety in that wouldn't hurt.
But again, you keep assuming that objecting to armour being revealing is something to do the fact that flesh is exposed from a sexual point of view. It's not. No-one in this thread has put forward that idea. Nor do we only object to revealing armour. We object to any armour, male or female, that it utterly impractical. I object to this just as much as a woman with her belly exposed:
I find it impossible that outfits doesn't have the same magnitude of relevance for many people as these other issues. How come that web series or whatever wasn't analyzing relationships in games generally, or as you say now massive pauldrons on armor?
Until all these inconsistencies are treated with the same degree of gravitas it's always going to strike me as prudishness on some fundamental level, picking it out this one random thing.
Of course, if and when this perfect world of total reality is finally created, I'd probably opt not to play it simply on the basis that even though that world is now completely internally consistent, the world itself is just too boring. Citing 'fun' doesn't satisfy people here obviously though.
STVs are cured by magic. Anders helps Isabela or Seneshal Bran with one.
It should of been Merrill that had it, DA has their characterization all wrong.
Eh but couldn't I say it's realistic that no one would ever have time for sex during the inquisition? That some of them would be uninterested or unwilling to have sex? That there would be at least one that would insist on having sex with a white sheet over the person? I'm sure there are a bazillion ways to attack the 'realistic' notion that you have 9 people or whatever it is, all ready and primed to commit to overt sexual relationships during the course of the game. Shouldn't some stop halfway? Shouldn't one insist upon doing it only after the conclusion of the imminent threat from the darkspawn and all that? Shouldn't one stop at the moment before taking it all off to declare they don't lack the overwhelming desire all of a sudden? Shouldn't one be too shy? Shouldn't one have some kind of STD that makes it impossible? (I mean seriously, talk about something common in the 14th century)
People will find time to have sex pretty much no matter what.
The only part that I'd say is really unrealistic is that before hand it mostly boils down to a "We'll bang, okay?" and suddenly the person is in love with you.
To be honest, I rather agree with you on the first point. I find the "romances" in the game to be far to close to "player fantasy" rather than "believable characters". The exactly details of when, where and how they want to have sex aren't exactly foremost in my objections - more the willingness of them to fall in love with the player pretty much automatically if the player wants it - but yeah, seeing some more variety in that wouldn't hurt.
x2
I just can't see why they'd fall in love, because the player is such a blank slate. They don't really have much two-way meaningful interaction beyond Character A treating the PC as a kind of listening post that occasionally helps them solve problems, so I don't see much chemistry there, and it's more fanservice than anything else for me.
People will find time to have sex pretty much no matter what..
I'd say it's the opposite, a lot of people will find almost any excuse not to have a relationship (oh I'm too busy, oh I have to take care of my parents, oh my career, oh my X). A bunch of demons pouring through a tear in the fade and the nearly imminent destruction of the world would qualify for most people I'd think. Don't both Europe and Japan have declining birth rates right now? But oh magically you step into the world of DA and you got 9 sexed up jack bunnies revvin to go, yeah... right.
If you want to press this point even further, I'd say that the burgeoning of sexual options in a game like DA is the precise evidence of people's unwillingness to engage real sexual relationships. Why go and have a real one when I can have my fake one in a game? This apparently seems to qualify for many people.
I'd say it's the opposite, a lot of people will find almost any excuse not to have a relationship (oh I'm too busy, oh I have to take care of my parents, oh my career, oh my X). A bunch of demons pouring through a tear in the fade and the nearly imminent destruction of the world would qualify for most people I'd think. Don't both Europe and Japan have declining birth rates right now? But oh magically you step into the world of DA and you got 9 sexed up jack bunnies revvin to go, yeah... right.
Sex isn't a relationship.
Sex isn't a relationship.
Oh my god, trying telling that to the freaking people of DA. My referencing of sex as a relationship reflects what I see in their games more than anything.
Anyway, my point is their riddled with holes all over, logically, at any rate. So that should bother people as much as any silly outfit.
Oh my god, trying telling that to the freaking people of DA. My referencing of sex as a relationship reflects what I see in their games more than anything.
idk, I just don't find it as unbelievable as you that, in a stressful time, someone would like another person to rely on and potentially have sex with. Gives an illusion of closeness and stability.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Of course, if and when this perfect world of total reality is finally created, I'd probably opt not to play it simply on the basis that even though that world is now completely internally consistent, the world itself is just too boring. Citing 'fun' doesn't satisfy people here obviously though.
idk, I just don't find it as unbelievable as you that, in a stressful time, someone would like another person to rely on and potentially have sex with. Gives an illusion of closeness and stability.
It seems just as realistic that someone would consider that stressful period all the more reason to second guess the idea to have sex at that time, but there aren't any characters like that in DA as far as I can tell.
Perhaps I should of picked something other than sex, ok, it's completely unrealistic that this fantasy world has absolutely no cities of any kind. It's unrealistic that health armor pots restore your life completely even when you are near death. It's completely unrealistic to revive someone after they have been dead. It's unrealistic not to have severe injuries to limbs that make it so you can't really move or walk well. It's unrealistic to not have the ability to set up camp almost anywhere and rest. It's unrealistic to have people always follow all your commands at whim, it's unrealistic for... any number of things.
Person with a hot outfit! Oh god! Take that out! My eyes! The pain of this! Bleh to that.
Grounded aesthetic =/= 100% realistic with no style. I want practicality to be an important consideration in art design, I don't want it to be a medieval combat sim.
Well then that makes the point that it's basically somewhat arbitrary to begin with, you are always striking some kind of middle point between style and grounded aesthetics. As part of that arbitrary decision, I'd say combat outfits are prime for being offered up and made fun for everyone.
I see Korean MMOs or Japanese games blend the two all the time, stylized but somewhat relevant, I don't know why that can't happen here.
Retour en haut
