Then why do people still believe that DA is "realistic"? Why do people still claim that sexy armor has no place in DA because it would be "unrealistic", while implicitly admitting that DA's depiction of romance and relationships is "unrealistic"? Why are relationships allowed to be "unrealistic" but armor isn't? And that isn't a variant of "but dragons, lol", as you put it. Romances between characters, at least characters who are supposed to be human or humanized to us, are independent of the setting they inhabit.
Like I said a few pages back, the reason I'm so hung up on words like "realistic" is that I think the most important thing about a game is that it be fun to play. I also think that realism is antithetical to fun and I've never played a game where an increased focus on "realism" made a game more fun for me. That's why it really irritates me that people are apparently being selective over where DA can be "realistic". Not only do I not like realism in games, the people who are advocating it seem to be hypocrites about it.
Yeah, realism is the wrong word. Most games that go for full on "realism" do indeed tend to be boring for me as well. But when I say I'm looking for "realism" in a game like DA, it's somewhat different from, say, ARMA. I'll point you at this post I made earlier in this thread that explains what people who say "realism" in regards to games like this mean:
I see this kind of comment a lot when regarding fantasy games, and, while there might some level of poor word choice on behalf of us saying we want "realism", it's a decent shorthand and things like this really display a basic lack of understanding of what we're after. And that, fundamentally, is internal consistency. Regardless of what the content of a fictional world is, said world should have rules by which it works, and it should follow them. Otherwise, it will fail at the most basic goal of storytelling - suspending belief. If the way in which the setting works is clearly presented, and something then comes along and utterly ignores that, it breaks immersion. It makes it harder to suspend your belief and pretend that the fiction world you're experiencing is real. Of course, breaking the rules of a setting can, if done well, add to a story - for example, if the big bad can use spells that don't adhere to the way magic works in the setting - however, this has to be carefully done and just throwing out things not adhering to those basic rules willy-nilly without explanation is very poor storytelling that results in an un-immersive world.
So, yes, having magic and dragons isn't realistic. But the way in which magic works, the way in which dragons behave, should be consistent. And the same applies to armour. I don't have a fundamental issue if, right from the beginning, the game clearly demonstrates - or even better, outright states - that having actual functionality from armour is unnecessary (likely because of magic). In such a setting, chain-mail bikini's are fine. On the other hand, full plate really isn't. There absolutely no reason to wear a full suit of armour when it does nothing. To see a character in full plate next to one in a few scraps of mail is inconsistent and thus immersion breaking.
Dragon Age has set out to present the opposite - in Thedas, armour does protect you. The thickness of armour, the coverage it gives, the materials it is made of, even the quality of craftsmanship, all of these things effect the protection armour offers. So if a character suddenly turns up exposing most of their skin while still having the same level of armour protection as a suit of full plate, it is again inconsistent. It breaks the fundamental rules by which the setting functions. So, yeah, to be fair, saying we want "realistic" armour might not be the exact best term. Instead, what we're really looking for is armour that is consistent with the mechanics of the Dragon Age world. And that happens to be armour that roughly corresponds to that used in our history.
Actually, sorry, reading your post again maybe I slightly misunderstood you. You might not've been quite questioning the use of "realism" the way I though you were. Or maybe you were. It's late, I'm sleepy 
But I'll leave that there anyway. Because overall, it does sum up what we're after - a believable world. And that is what we find fun to play. I'm not by any means going to claim everyone is like that. But of course I'm going to push for what I find believable and fun in a fatnatsy setting.
Anyway, in regards to romances, yeah, people, including myself, have been objecting to them not being believable in this very thread...
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
Yes. I am a little shallow that way. I claim anime and Square Enix did it to me and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. 
