2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

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.

 

I went away for 10 seconds, to gamefaqs, the very first thread I see "critically acclaimed games you couldn't get into," 14 pages of people declaring what they actually like instead of worrying about the way things are "supposed" to be in games or gaming. Of course, some things like Mass Effect fell into that category.

 

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive armor or outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously. I'm not interested in continually experiencing the division between the public and private face, where you need something like "commonly accepted requirements and rules of video gaming you hate," in order to wrestle out of the flood (IMO) of people going "you know, I like sexy armor" that pops up.

 

I'm trying to give people this opportunity so I can understand their character better, maybe if people started doing that (seriously, who doesn't like an attractive looking person being all hot), then I feel like there could be a serious discussion as to whether that substantively adds to the value to the game. My ultimate feeling is that it might not really make a difference one way or another, but I see no reason to get to that part yet.

[eyezonlyii]

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)

 

I would rather my mage wore some light armor anyway. Or at least pants because what's the point in looking fashionable if you're dead? Be sexy when in camp, protected on the field. An athlete wears proper protective gear for their sport, so too should a combatant.

I'm laughing because this beings back memories of my reaction to Miranda and Jack in ME2. 

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

I'm in that too. No sexy armor, only sexy clothing.

I Call that compromise.

 

Why? Why does it matter if you are not forced to wear it?

 

To give a different example, I am a fan of the Ford Mustang (especially the Shelbys).  I am not a fan of corvettes.  So, I say more mustangs, no more corvettes on the road!   But, you can keep them in your garage, is that a fair compromise? 

 

That's what I don't understand... if you are not forced to wear it, what does it matter if it exists?  I am not forcing you to drive a Ford Mustang, nor are you forcing me to drive a corvette, so why would it matter if we don't agree on which car is best?   We can both drive the car we like.  No need for a "compromise" when there isn't anyone having to give anything up.

 

God, this is like trying to explain LGBT rights to my mother... I always wondered if she had the same thick-headedness about civil rights in the 60s.  "Why are you so eager to give up your rights?"

[Cainhurst Crow]

lol, someone spilled their plate of mint armenian dolma all over the thread.

 

Tis to be expected when esoteric absurdist humor meets unwavering utilitarian commitment.

[Muspade]

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously.

 

(seriously, who doesn't like an attractive looking person being all hot), 

 

So I have to like retarded armor for you to take what I say seriously? It's not enough that I don't have a problem with Isabella strutting around with almost no protection?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Whats "LGBT?" Sounds like some sort of sandwich, but why would a sandwich need rights?

 

Because some delis want to restrict the marriage between a sandwich and delicious guacamole.

 

Thats what the Lettuce Guacamole Bacon Tomato association was made for, son. To right the wrongs of culinary bigotry.

[PhroXenGold]

I went away for 10 seconds, to gamefaqs, the very first thread I see "critically acclaimed games you couldn't get into," 14 pages of people declaring what they actually like instead of worrying about the way things are "supposed" to be in games or gaming. Of course, some things like Mass Effect fell into that category.

 

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive armor or outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously. I'm not interested in continually experiencing the division between the public and private face, where you need something like "commonly accepted requirements and rules of video gaming you hate," in order to wrestle out of the flood (IMO) of people going "you know, I like sexy armor" that pops up.

 

I'm trying to give people this opportunity so I can understand their character better, maybe if people started doing that (seriously, who doesn't like an attractive looking person being all hot), then I feel like there could be a serious discussion as to whether that substantively adds to the value to the game. My ultimate feeling is that it might not really make a difference one way or another, but I see no reason to get to that part yet.

 

Thing is, we've been explaining your motivations, our preferences, and thus by inference our characters to you for most of this thread. Except you then come back and tell us that, basically, we're lying. That our claims about preferring non-revelaing armour out of practicality aren't true and in fact we're just prudes who are trying to suppress sexuality. Until you actually listen to other people and accept that they are different from you, that they have different motivations and preferences from you, you wont understand them. Stop trying to fit other people into your own prejudices and start accepting them as what they are.

 

I have no problem saying I like sex. I have no problem saying I like looking at attractive women. I have no problem saying that I like looking at attractive women in skimpy - or even non-existent - outfits. Provided that it makes sense for them to wear those outfits (or lack of outfits...). And I don't know how many times I've had to say this in this thread, but sexuality is irrelevant to the topic at hand of whether people like "realistic" or "revealing" armour. And until you get this into your head, you simply will not be able to understand us.

 

Then of course, there's another matter: what people find sexy, what people find attractive, varies. Take, for example, this post from a few pages back:

 

That's such an unfair comparison though. Not only are you attempting to compare masculine vs. feminine, you're attempting to compare harsh vs. soft, light vs. dark, and two completely different styles of battle gear.

 

Something like this would be a much more fair comparison:

or

 

Captivating KS has put forward two outfits for women. Which is a more "attractive" or "sexy" outfit? Well, personally, I actually say the one on the right. Not because the other one offends me in any way, not because I'm "scared" of exposed flesh or want her to hide it "to protect the children" or other such crap. I wouldn't in any way shape or form want to stop women wearing such an outfit if they so chose (although, in all likelihood, that particular character is wearing that outfit because a guy thought it would be hot, which is always something to take into account when discussing "sexuality" of female outfits - are they design to let women express themselves, or are they designed by men to give men boners?). It simply does not appeal to my aesthetic tastes as much as Triss' gear. The latter is sleek, form fitting. It shows off her curves. It makes her femininity unquestionable. But yet it only hints at what is beneath without outright displaying it. And through this, it lets you use your imagination. It gives the sense of anticipation, of making you want to see whats under it. It tempts you with the building pleasure of watching her slowly peel off her clothing. It's a more subtle, but no less existent, sexuality than the "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" in your face sexuality of the one on the left. And that happens to appeal more to me. But I wouldn't by any means force a woman to wear that if she would rather wear the one on the left.

[Seraphim24]

I go to gamefaqs again this is what I see

 

Rumour: Nintendo Removed Tharja From Super Smash Bros. To Avoid A Higher Age Rating

I'm not the one that makes this stuff up. 

 

I posted the image of Tharja before this happened because I thought it looked pretty cool. Now this, North America and Europe are more conservative about sex, it's really just that simple.

 

http://www.nintendol...want_you_to_see

 

 

I have no problem saying I like sex. I have no problem saying I like looking at attractive women. I have no problem saying that i like looking at attractive women in skimpy - or even non-existent - outfits. Provided that it makes sense for them to wear those outfits (or lack of outfits...). .

 

I think that's maybe like the second or third time I've actually seen someone just say that though, it feels like you guys put in a lot of effort to convince people otherwise.

 

At least then I can say, ok, I feel like it makes sense to have those outfits because that's what realistically appeals to the person playing the game, not what accords with the sense of reality within the game. I care about the end result to the player, not necessarily about the means to achieve that end.

[someguy1231]

I'd hardly call the romances in Dragon Age games to be real(even from a digital perspective) relationships. They're basically 2-3 romance specific dialogue scenes, a hilariously awkward sex scene, then they apparently love you.

 

And that's exactly why I can't take anyone seriously who claims that DA is supposed to have a "grounded, realistic" tone and atmosphere. If players are willing to grant Bioware such artistic license when it comes to getting their rocks off with their player character, why can't they also grant some artistic license when it comes to armor designs?

 

Hell, I'll even go as far as to say that I find Bioware's laughable attempts at "romance" even more immersion breaking than the over-the-top sexy armor designs in TERA Online. Bioware tries to make you think that this is "true wuv", while TERA at least makes it very clear that they're more concerned with appearance over functionality.

[Remmirath]

I went away for 10 seconds, to gamefaqs, the very first thread I see "critically acclaimed games you couldn't get into," 14 pages of people declaring what they actually like instead of worrying about the way things are "supposed" to be in games or gaming. Of course, some things like Mass Effect fell into that category.

Okay. I'm sure there are some games like that for everybody, and I highly doubt that the most common reason for not being able to get into a game has to do with how revealing or not revealing the armour in the game is (although it could certainly be a contributing factor).
 

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive armor or outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously. I'm not interested in continually experiencing the division between the public and private face, where you need something like "commonly accepted requirements and rules of video gaming you hate," in order to wrestle out of the flood (IMO) of people going "you know, I like sexy armor" that pops up.

You are also attempting to browbeat people into admitting to an opinion that they don't actually hold, because you are unwilling to accept that people do not in fact hold that opinion. I am never going to "admit" that I have any interest in either sex or revealing armour, because I don't. I'm not going to lie about it. I don't think that anybody else in this thread who has said that they don't like one or the other is lying about it. You have no reason to believe people are lying aside from your belief that everybody on some basic level agrees with you whether they admit it or not, which you frankly have no evidence whatsoever for.
 

I'm trying to give people this opportunity so I can understand their character better, maybe if people started doing that (seriously, who doesn't like an attractive looking person being all hot), then I feel like there could be a serious discussion as to whether that substantively adds to the value to the game. My ultimate feeling is that it might not really make a difference one way or another, but I see no reason to get to that part yet.

If you are serious about attempting to understand people's character better, I suggest reading what they are saying, and accepting that it is actually their opinion. There cannot be a serious discussion if one of the participants refuses to even accept what anybody else is saying as the truth. You are refusing to even take seriously anybody who disagrees with you.
 

Why? Why does it matter if you are not forced to wear it?

It doesn't, so long as it's not also the default for the NPCs. Having at as an option for PCs is great. More options for PCs are always great, in my opinion.
 

Whats "LGBT?" Sounds like some sort of sandwich, but why would a sandwich need rights?

On the assumption that you are being serious here, it stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

I did my best.... Sorry. I actually really like the muted colours, simpler silhouette; I think the teal and olive are gorgeous. 

 

I wouldn't choose the first image because I don't like the winged-out style, and I find it too bright. 

 

What about this image, is it any better?

 

Okay, I'd pick that one! Rawr!

[Han Shot First]

Good god II feel like these points about realism don't go anywhere, didn't someone already say that the Celtics fought without any clothes or something like that? I'm sure whatever it is, you can find something in history backing it up.

 

 

While there are some examples throughout history of people who fought without armor, generally speaking they were from tribes who had a raiding military culture, where the lack of protection might have been seen as mitigated by having less equipment to weigh them down or spoil an ambush. Or it was just a case of the average warrior not being able to afford armor. Both apply to the Celts. Tribal warfare quite often wasn't so much about thousands and thousands of men gathering for large scrap as it was about raiding a rival's territory and stealing their livestock. Even later when the Celts came into contact with Rome some element of that raiding culture remained. Brennus for example wasn't interested in conquering Rome, his army was simply in it for the plunder. Many Gauls or Britons who fought (in vain) against the Roman conquests of Gaul or Britain did not wear armor, not out of choice, but because the average 'warrior' was essentially a poor peasant farmer or herder called up into temporary military service. He might be lucky and be able to loot a mail shirt from a fallen enemy, or he might have inherited one from an ancestor who had, but generally speaking he is much more likely to be unarmored. He can't afford it. Armor is expensive and in tribal societies usually it was primarily worn by the nobles or full time warriors serving as a noble's retainers, the class of people who could afford to purchase mail, neither of which made up the majority of the manpower in any tribal warband.

 

And in any case, the Romans conquered most of Celtic Europe. Only parts of northern Britain and Ireland remained 'free' from Roman rule, while before the rise of Rome various Celtic peoples had dominated Western Europe, much of central Europe and the Balkans, and had expanded into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). While there are many reasons for Rome's military superiority over the various Celtic peoples of Europe, part of Rome's military dominance was certainly due to equipment.

 

Also it should be pointed out that the whole 'Celts fought naked' thing is slightly exaggerated. There are a few historical accounts of it, but it seems to be exception rather than the norm. Chain mail in fact originated with the Celts. The Romans borrowed it from them, as well as the montefortino helmet:

 

[eyezonlyii]

And that's exactly why I can't take anyone seriously who claims that DA is supposed to have a "grounded, realistic" tone and atmosphere. If players are willing to grant Bioware such artistic license when it comes to getting their rocks off with their player character, why can't they also grant some artistic license when it comes to armor designs?

 

Hell, I'll even go as far as to say that I find Bioware's laughable attempts at "romance" even more immersion breaking than the over-the-top sexy armor designs in TERA Online. Bioware tries to make you think that this is "true wuv", while TERA at least makes it very clear that they're more concerned with appearance over functionality.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the DA romances, other than they are a bit rushed. I just believe (headcanon if you want) that I'm not seeing EVERY interaction between these people, so that some the relationship is going on behind the scenes (works better in ME when you can use the loading screens and Mass relays to this uh...effect)

[xkg]

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive armor or outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously. I'm not interested in continually experiencing the division between the public and private face, where you need something like "commonly accepted requirements and rules of video gaming you hate," in order to wrestle out of the flood (IMO) of people going "you know, I like sexy armor" that pops up.
 
I'm trying to give people this opportunity so I can understand their character better, maybe if people started doing that (seriously, who doesn't like an attractive looking person being all hot), then I feel like there could be a serious discussion as to whether that substantively adds to the value to the game. My ultimate feeling is that it might not really make a difference one way or another, but I see no reason to get to that part yet.

 
Dunno about the others but I am being serious. 
Yes I do like attractive outfits, when I play hentai games I really do.
 
When it comes to more serious, RPGs with a medieval theme, this is what I think :
 
 
Strength, confidence, attractiveness, beauty, practicality ...

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

And This - not funny, not sexy, not fitting the setting. A complete laughing stock.

 

Spoiler

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

So this has pretty much boiled down to two types of people....

 

GROUP ONE: We want this completely optional armor asethetic in our game, but we do not at all want to force you to wear anything you don't want to.

 

GROUP TWO: I dont' like that, I think you are a pervert and things like that do not belong in my game!  Their mere existence would ruin the game even if I never have to wear them, they exist. I am offended, sir!

 

So, really neither of the two groups is going to budge, this thread will continue and never be resolved until Dragon Age 4 comes out, at which point the thread will begin anew for it.

[PhroXenGold]

I go to gamefaqs again this is what I see

 

Rumour: Nintendo Removed Tharja From Super Smash Bros. To Avoid A Higher Age Rating

I'm not the one that makes this stuff up. 

 

I posted the image of Tharja before this happened because I thought it looked pretty cool. Now this, North America and Europe are more conservative about sex, it's really just that simple.

 

http://www.nintendol...want_you_to_see

 

 

I think that's maybe like the second or third time I've actually seen someone just say that though, it feels like you guys put in a lot of effort to convince people otherwise.

 

At least then I can say, ok, I feel like it makes sense to have those outfits because that's what realistically appeals to the person playing the game, not what accords with the sense of reality within the game. I care about the end result to the player, not necessarily about the means to achieve that end.

 

Are there some people in this world who object to female flesh being exposed? Yes. Do they have possibly too much influence over the mainstream media, particularly in the US? Yes.

 

Has anyone in this thread given any indication that they might be one of those people? HELL NO. From the word go, people have been objecting to revealing armour out of practicality, our of realism, out of consistency. YOU are the only person to bring sexuality into it.

[Cyonan]

I'm just seeing I guess if anyone has the courage to admit that they actually 'like' attractive armor or outfits like that. If people just accept that they like that and sex generally, then I could take their arguments that it has no place more seriously. I'm not interested in continually experiencing the division between the public and private face, where you need something like "commonly accepted requirements and rules of video gaming you hate," in order to wrestle out of the flood (IMO) of people going "you know, I like sexy armor" that pops up.

 

I don't think anybody here is saying that they don't like sex or attractive outfits, but if it makes you feel better:

 

Yes I like sex and I like seeing attractive women in revealing outfits. I'm not even against "sexy" outfits existing in games in general as it makes sense in certain games like Saint's Row that never took itself seriously from the start and I can run around blowing stuff up in a bath robe.

 

When it comes to a game like Dragon Age that takes itself a bit more seriously and is based more off western RPG design, I want to see the semi-realistic badass looking armours rather than the skimpy ones.

 

I mean I also like chocolate, but I don't want to eat it for every single meal. Occasionally I want a nice steak.

[eyezonlyii]

So this has pretty much boiled down to two types of people....

 

GROUP ONE: We want this completely optional armor asethetic in our game, but we do not at all want to force you to wear anything you don't want to.

 

GROUP TWO: I dont' like that, I think you are a pervert and things like that do not belong in my game!  Their mere existence would ruin the game even if I never have to wear them, they exist. I am offended, sir!

 

So, really neither of the two groups is going to budge, this thread will continue and never be resolved until Dragon Age 4 comes out, at which point the thread will begin anew for it.

I think it's more like:

[sarcasm ] Most everyone- We prefer our people to look like they belong in this setting created by Bioware with a certain theme, aesthetic and atmosphere in mind; especially while engaging in highly dangerous activites

 

Other people: ALALALALALA i want BEWBZZZZZ*

 

[/sarcasm ]

[Cainhurst Crow]

We need 4 camps.

1. Practicalists: Heavy utilitarians who only desire for all things to be dictated by practicality and logic. If its not full body armor or modern day equivilent dress, that's no good.

2. Pluralists: They believe in choice, the ability for multiple options to exist so that everyone can have their armor choice. Whether ultra revealing or classical knight attire, they want everyone to get at least some form of personal freedom for their characters.

3. Fictional Cyrenaics: Fun and enjoyment are the ultimate goals when it comes to fiction, anything else is unneccisary and a distraction. Doesn't matter the design nor the implications behind it, if its fun, its good to go.

4. Post-Modernists: It doesn't matter about the outfits because all it is, is imposing one world view upon another and forcing the creators to bend the knee to social constructs. Let the designers make the designes and stop perpetrating a collective lie.