Kinda amazing that we've progressed as collective societies around the world so much that we can now dictate what people make women look like and what outfits are and are not acceptable for them to wear.
Not like those barbaric times where people forced women to wear what they found acceptable, and dictated what outfits are and are not acceptable for them to wear.
There's a big difference in that a good portion of people who argue for more practical armour for female characters are, themselves, female. And again, it's only with regards to armour. I don't care if there are skimpy non-armour outfits, although I do think there should be choice there as well, for both female and male PCs. I don't want to see half the female guards wandering around with impractical armour, no. That undermines the suspension of disbelief.
Also, I for one would be equally annoyed if the general trend was that female characters got practical and realistic armour and male characters always ended up with skimpy armour. It's partly the inequality of it all that bothers me. Yes, I want practical armour for all my characters, and I do certainly believe that if it must be a choice of all or nothing, practical armour is the way to go -- because it makes sense, the function of it being to protect you while fighting.
And? Celtic warriors used to charge into battle naked against the romans, and often scared the crap out of the roman enemy.
If a certain culture in the game always fought naked, which would apply to both men and women, that would be fine with me, so long as it made sense within the setting.
I'll also point out (again) that this is not a question of armor/no armour, or one of clothing, but of practical armour/sexualised armour.
And if you want to talk about armor, here's a bigger, more important question. Does good armor actually mean making it 100% practical in all regards, even if it flies in the face of imagination or creativity? Practicality is dragon age origins armor, where every armor is the same, just with a different coat of paint on it. That's the thing about practicality, its boring. Its boring by design because its meant to be highly formulaic and mathematically meet a computated ratio between mobility and defense. You can't have practical, and have imaginative.
Yes, you can. So long as the armour has adequate protection and doesn't look like someone wouldn't even be able to move properly in it, it can look however people want it to. There's, historically even, quite a wide range of different armour and different ornamentation that has been applied to armour. Origins did have a dearth of unique armours, and DA II a dearth of unique armours that actually looked like reasonable armour, but that's a mostly separate issue.
I would also bring up how practicality is a constantly shifting thing, for example the various points in history pants were considered practical or impractical, and that when it comes to females, practicality is somewhat unfair because if shunns feminine qualites in favor of making females look more masculine by hiding all their traits behind layers of nondescript metal.
No. It does not. It looks
neutral. Somebody wearing a full suit of armour does not look either actively masculine or actively feminine. Further, insisting that "looking feminine" is more important than practicality in battle is both silly and insulting.
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.
Seriously, again? Nudity doesn't make sense in all situations, and neither do sexualised outfits. I don't have a problem with them where they do make sense. Outfits that hint at sexuality are fine. Armour that hints at it is different. Clothing and armour serve different functions. They are not the same thing except insomuch as they are both worn.
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.
I wouldn't have a problem with any of those things you suggest in the first paragraph, and I in fact agree that the romances are often strange and perhaps even problematic, but I frankly don't care enough about the romances to spend my time arguing about them. They're already entirely optional, as they should be, and clearly a lot of people are quite fond of them. It stretches the imagination a bit, but I don't find it completely unrealistic (although I
do think that they made more sense over the course of years in DA II than they have made in most other games).
I hate the unrealistic and cartoony way the combat animations have been trending, and I don't like Iron Bull's lack of armour at all. If I end up taking him in the party, I'll be getting him some real armour as soon as possibile.
So, yeah, I don't really like any of those examples you provided. I haven't mentioned them because this is a thread about armour, not about the other stuff. In fact, I have at various times in the past and in other threads spent a good deal of time pointing out the problems in the combat animations, the activated abilities, and so forth, as well as how I dislike the Friendship/Rivalry system, and think that there should be more of an emphasis on friendship with the NPCs and less on romance (and that it's weird that the romances are so automatic no matter what). I'd rather have less healing and have permanent injury or death as a chance, and so forth.
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.
People pick it out because female characters specifically have ended up with impractical and sexualised armour in a very wide variety of games for a very long time, often with no other options. It's a more common problem than the other ones, which tend to be more game specific
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.
What you're proposing isn't bloody well fun for everyone, or even most people. The fact that you're still arguing even after every single person in this thread who you have been arguing against has told you that they are completely fine with having skimpy armour as a customisation choice for PCs and don't care what you do in your own game, implies that you won't be satisfied unless all of the NPCs (and I'm willing to bet, since again you have never denied this, that this would be specifically and only all of the female NPCs) have "sexy" armour too and that is the opposite of fun in my opinion.
Most Korean MMOs and JRPGs I've seen are certainly stylised, but appear to be completely lacking any relevance to actual armour.
just curious; to those who want practical armor, would you care if a mage wore something more revealing? maybe even a rogue? or are you opposed to that too? (i really am just curious)
Since they are still trudging around through forests and mountains and such, and are still seeing combat, I'd like for most of those options to be practical as well -- but I do have different standards of practicality there. High heels and gauzy fabric is probably not what you want while adventuring, and rogues I believe should have practical leather armour, but I don't care nearly as much, no.
I don't want rogue armour that would be impractical to the level of Isabela's in DA II, for instance. That would not even be comfortable to tumble around in, and rogues do a lot of that. You would get bruised and scraped to hell like that, I assure you. Rogue armour that's more tight, or has fancy embellishments, or even is lowcut or what? Sure, so long as that's not all that's available for female characters, and so long as something equivalent is available for male characters.
As for mages, so long as they don't look like they're going to trip the moment they attempt to do more than walk slowly, I'm cool with it (with again the caveat that there should be practical outfits available as well and they should be in equal measure between male and female characters).
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
