2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Luminous]

Yeah, I mean, they're not awful, and I have enjoyed them (even Isabella's was good up to the point it became more than flirting and causal sex...), and indeed, I don't mind having some done in the "Bioware" style. I just wish at times there was more, well, uncertainty. More agency on behalf of the NPCs, rather than just being a matter of "if I pick the right dialogue, she'll sleep with me".

 

Oh, and I'm still in love with Jaheira...  

 

Well Alistair was a virgin for the longest time, so that was cool. It took a certain amount of work to get him to feel ready for sex.  

[Lady Luminous]

Maybe if an NPC initiated the contact (like Zevran), and actually tried to woo you. that would be cool.

 

Zev was one of my favourite ever companions!

[PhroXenGold]

Maybe if an NPC initiated the contact (like Zevran), and actually tried to woo you. that would be cool.

 

Yeah. Particularly if they kept trying after you said no. Little things like that. Because, you know, there are plenty of people like that IRL.

 

Additionally, and I know Bioware will never do this as it would alienate a lot of fans, but why not put some randomness into it? Some playthroughs a particular character will fall for you, other times they won't. So you pretty much have to go into the game the way your character would be: not knowing if the "apple of your eye" will return your feelings. Maybe she'll friend-zone you, maybe it'll be mutual love at first sight or maybe you'll have to woo her. And meanwhile, another NPC has fallen for you. But by the time you finally understand that your preferred love interest doesn't want you, the other has given up and is off "riding the Bull". No love for you this time...

[Commander Rpg]

The more protection the armor gives, the more heavier it gets.

Also, ancient armors were focused on protecting the vital points, or the crucial ones (torso, legs, forearms).

As the time progressed, those protections had been upgraded by adding more flexibility and more resistant materials; actually, the full plate armor is not as perfectioned and used as one could think, it required a long time to be worn, a long training to be used properly, and it was very expensive.

Today military forces don't arm their soldiers with the best available armors, because that would be too expensive.

[someguy1231]

Aesthetically it has that flavor. Realistic isn't strictly the right word, but it's easy to use for lack of a better one.
 

 

Then stop using that word. Surely people here can come up with a better one if that's not strictly the right word?

 

And whether a game has "sexy armor" or not isn't relevant to the art style it has. Games like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, TERA Online, most editions of Dungeons and Dragons, and Final Fantasy XIV all have large amounts of sexy armor, yet they also have very different aesthetics and art styles from each other.

 

 

"But dragons, lol" is silly too because the existence of an "unreal" creature doesn't make the humans less human either in their appearance or in their motivation to protect their vital organs. At least in the former way, pointing out unrealistic relationships is comparable in that they are also irrelevant to the aesthetic of the game. I admit it's not the best comparison I've ever made.

 

 

They're also irrelevant to "but dragons, lol". That is the point I was making. People will complain if they perceive romances between characters as "unrealistic" whether we're talking about fantasy, sci-fi, modern, historical drama, etc.

 

 

It's selective and not hypocritical, you're just reading too much into it. And some people do find the art style they are espousing, "fun." Surely you don't have a problem with that, even if the way they describe it isn't to your liking.

 

 

I don't see any difference between "selective" and "hypocritical" in this context. People oppose one thing for a game because it's "unrealistic", yet give a free pass to another thing while admitting that it's also "unrealistic". Sorry, but I can't see that as anything but hypocrisy.

 

And of course they find it "fun". I just think some people have really warped ideas of "fun". On the ME boards, alot of posters seriously wanted the Mako back because they thought it was "fun", even though it was about as "fun" to me as watching rocks erode. I also said something similar to players who wanted elevator loading screens from the original game back. I remember another thread in which I remarked in passing that I didn't think there was a single player who enjoyed the decontamination sequence on the Normandy in the original ME. But, lo and behold, several posters came out of the woodwork to declare that they did. All of those are textbook examples of "realism" destroying fun for me, and yet there were players who seriously believed that those were "fun". If their ideas of "fun" make me enjoy a game less, then yes, I do have a problem with it.

[Lady Luminous]

And of course they find it "fun". I just think some people have really warped ideas of "fun". On the ME boards, alot of posters seriously wanted the Mako back because they thought it was "fun", even though it was about as "fun" to me as watching rocks erode. I also said something similar to players who wanted elevator loading screens from the original game back. I remember another thread in which I remarked in passing that I didn't think there was a single player who enjoyed the decontamination sequence on the Normandy in the original ME. But, lo and behold, several posters came out of the woodwork to declare that they did. All of those are textbook examples of "realism" destroying fun for me, and yet there were players who seriously believed that those were "fun". If their ideas of "fun" make me enjoy a game less, then yes, I do have a problem with it.

 

If multiple people declare something fun, then maybe it's your idea of fun that's warped!

[Muspade]

I just think some people have really warped ideas of "fun".

Should I say the feeling is mutual? Unless your idea of fun is cutting the tongues of random children, then i'm not certain how any "fun" is warped.

[xkg]

Oh hahaha

You guys have to see this, seriously. I order you to watch it.

 

[someguy1231]

Ehh, ok. Why even waste your time reading the entire thread.

 

This sums up it perfectly. Every single argument is here.

 

 

Ugh, I loathe these "bingo" boards. They're just a pathetic attempt to invoke the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. All they accomplish is making the side that's using them look like schoolyard bullies.

[xkg]

Ugh, I loathe these "bingo" boards. They're just a pathetic attempt to invoke the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. All they accomplish is making the side that's using them look like schoolyard bullies.

 

It wasn't meant to be taken as a serious argument. Just to bring some more humor into this thread.

I just found it funny to see how many arguments from this board were used in this thread.

 

But "schoolyard bullie". Ihmmm... it is the first time I hear someone calling me like that because I have like ... a completely opposite personality.

[someguy1231]

It wasn't meant to be taken as a serious argument. Just to bring some more humor into this thread.

I just found it funny to see how many arguments from this board were used in this thread.

 

But "schoolyard bullie". Ihmmm... it is the first time I hear someone calling me like that because I have like ... a completely opposite personality.

 

I've seen many people post "bingo" boards like that in all seriousness. They're the ones I was referring to as "schoolyard bullies". I apologize if you took offense at that.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Yeah. Particularly if they kept trying after you said no. Little things like that. Because, you know, there are plenty of people like that IRL.

 

Additionally, and I know Bioware will never do this as it would alienate a lot of fans, but why not put some randomness into it? Some playthroughs a particular character will fall for you, other times they won't. So you pretty much have to go into the game the way your character would be: not knowing if the "apple of your eye" will return your feelings. Maybe she'll friend-zone you, maybe it'll be mutual love at first sight or maybe you'll have to woo her. And meanwhile, another NPC has fallen for you. But by the time you finally understand that your preferred love interest doesn't want you, the other has given up and is off "riding the Bull". No love for you this time...

 

I would have to say no to that, simply because I've had debates with people trying to get ALL flirting removed from Star Wars Old Republic (my kids shouldn't be forced into these romance situations) because their mere existence offends them.   So, no making the game actually give people like that a valid reason to complain would be bad. 

[xkg]

I've seen many people post "bingo" boards like that in all seriousness. They're the ones I was referring to as "schoolyard bullies". I apologize if you took offense at that.

 

All is fine, no hard feelings at all.

[Voragoras]

...Since when are gold and red not colours? (Not to mention that I find your example hideous and bulky.)

 

Leave Agrias out of this!

 

tbh, that's mostly the art style. All characters in that game look like that, with exaggerated and cartoonish figures/features.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

And of course they find it "fun". I just think some people have really warped ideas of "fun". On the ME boards, alot of posters seriously wanted the Mako back because they thought it was "fun", even though it was about as "fun" to me as watching rocks erode. I also said something similar to players who wanted elevator loading screens from the original game back. I remember another thread in which I remarked in passing that I didn't think there was a single player who enjoyed the decontamination sequence on the Normandy in the original ME. But, lo and behold, several posters came out of the woodwork to declare that they did. All of those are textbook examples of "realism" destroying fun for me, and yet there were players who seriously believed that those were "fun". If their ideas of "fun" make me enjoy a game less, then yes, I do have a problem with it.

 

You're looking like a bit of a hypocrite there. You,re allowed to find the Mako not fun, but these people cannot find it fun at all? You even add the ''to me'' bit, yet still fail to realize it's a subjective opinion?

 

I mean, my dear old mum finds Bridge, Tai Chi and knitting fun, and I'd rather watch paint dry than do any of these things. But that doesn't maker her idea of ''fun'' any less valid because it's less intensive than video games and football or whatever. I happen to think practical and grounded fiction is actually more fun than totally off the wall fiction (generally, of course, there are exceptions) because I can relate to it better and also understand it better. For anyone to assume I ''don't know what fun is'' because of that is as stupid as if I claimed that anyone who likes skimpy armor is a sexist douchebag.

[someguy1231]

You're looking like a bit of a hypocrite there. You,re allowed to find the Mako not fun, but these people cannot find it fun at all? You even add the ''to me'' bit, yet still fail to realize it's a subjective opinion?

 

I mean, my dear old mum finds Bridge, Tai Chi and knitting fun, and I'd rather watch paint dry than do any of these things. But that doesn't maker her idea of ''fun'' any less valid because it's less intensive than video games and football or whatever. I happen to think practical and grounded fiction is actually more fun than totally off the wall fiction (generally, of course, there are exceptions) because I can relate to it better and also understand it better. For anyone to assume I ''don't know what fun is'' because of that is as stupid as if I claimed that anyone who likes skimpy armor is a sexist douchebag.

 

I was responding to the claim that "surely I don't have a problem" with realistic things people want in games if those people think they're fun. I replied that it's irrelevant to me if they find them "fun". I think they make a game far less enjoyable to me, and thus I do have a problem with it. People are allowed to find whatever they want "fun". People are also allowed to say they don't find that "fun" at all.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Choice is the best route to go. That way, everybody wins. Personally, though, I think we all know how unprotective boob-shaped armor would be.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Choice is the best route to go. That way, everybody wins. Personally, though, I think we all know how unprotective boob-shaped armor would be.

 

That's all I am saying... choic is just that, a choice.  People act like we want to remove their realistic armor entirely, and most (if not all) of us do not wish that.  We just wish to be included too.

[Remmirath]

First of all, "realism" as used in this context is typically shorthand for a combination of plausability, verisimilitude, a general grounding and consistency, and so forth. It's not an implication that everything must be exactly like reality -- just that those of us who prefer realism in games prefer that at least enough elements of the setting be presented in a realistic and plausibile manner to give the setting the general feel of believability. It even makes the fantastic seem more fantastic to have a more grounded background, in my opinion.

If the shorthand of using realism for this annoys you, feel free to mentally replace it with plausability, verisimilitude, believability, or credibility.
 

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.

Hmm, to me it looks more like this:

GROUP ONE: I want female characters wearing sexy armour, because that's fun for me, so it's obviously actually fun for everyone. If you don't like it, you're against fun.

GROUP TWO: No, that's not fun for everyone. I'm cool with having that option, but let's leave the NPCs in practical armour, and make sure it's all equal between male and female characters, yeah?

So yeah...
 

I think this bias is rooted in the notion that completely serious people can't also be very sexual, sort of like Isabella and Aveline. You have one super serious incompetent type and one super outgoing tramp.

They can be. Nothing at all wrong with that. However, no, I don't think you'd find a completely serious person who is going to value looking sexy over surviving a battle.

I can't even tell any more whether you think that this discussion relates to all clothing and all aspects of the game or if you really don't see a difference between armour and clothing.
 

Everyone's trying to push their own subjective idea of whats "the dragon age theme and feel" without any proof to back up their claims.

They have said, in the past, many times. There were all sorts of quotes about how they were going for a "dark and gritty mature feel" and all that, not to mention various inspirations mentioned, and so forth. We're not just making this stuff up.
 

Screw genres and classifications, it's about universality now and everyone knows it. You can either claim it or fail at it and argue diversity of opinion is what prevented you from understanding what that happened to be at that moment.

It does appear to be trending that way, and personally, I find it a problem. I think that people are going to realise at some point that it's not the best way to go. Why? Because people do have individual tastes and opinions, and eventually people are going to get tired of everything trying (and inevitably failing) to be all things to all people. I know I'm already tired of it.
 

What fun is there in making sense tbh? And what is decided as making sense or not? Women weren't considered to logically be fighting in a battlefield during most of human history. Not believing in god was thought to be complete nonsense, violent insanity even, throughout most of time. Should we enforce these things into dragon age? Maybe reverse them given the power of the andrastian church and its matriarchy structure and say only women are allowed on battlefields and men are bared from doing most everything else other then kitchen and farm duties. Who decides what actually does and doesn't make sense anyway? Whose subjective viewpoint are we using to set our objective bar of measurment here?

I find it more fun if things make sense because I enjoy a believable, coherent setting. I enjoy the idea that this is something that could happen, assuming that the fantastical elements were present. I find it much more interesting if the characters in a world are reacting in a plausible fashion, and so forth.

Also, although it's true that it's always been rare, women have been fighting during most of human history. They weren't wearing chainmail bikinis.

I do agree that it's all subjective, but we can infer a fair amount of this from what we've already seen in Dragon Age and what BioWare has said about the setting, and so forth. Given that we see reasonably equal numbers of men and women fighting, there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't be wearing equally reasonable armour, for instance...
 

Considering crafting and customization is one of the big selling points for DAI, why not both?

Exactly! Let people customise their armour to be however they want it.
 

And of course they find it "fun". I just think some people have really warped ideas of "fun". On the ME boards, alot of posters seriously wanted the Mako back because they thought it was "fun", even though it was about as "fun" to me as watching rocks erode. I also said something similar to players who wanted elevator loading screens from the original game back. I remember another thread in which I remarked in passing that I didn't think there was a single player who enjoyed the decontamination sequence on the Normandy in the original ME. But, lo and behold, several posters came out of the woodwork to declare that they did. All of those are textbook examples of "realism" destroying fun for me, and yet there were players who seriously believed that those were "fun". If their ideas of "fun" make me enjoy a game less, then yes, I do have a problem with it.

Hey, I liked the Mako! It drove like a Hellbender in Unreal Tournament and everything.

Come to think of it, the Unreal Tournament series is a great example of a case where I really don't care if things are realistic. Unreal Tournament 2004 is my favourite of the series, and it's probably the least realistic of the bunch -- but it's Unreal Tournament, and the main purpose of the game is shooting your way to the top of the tournament. I don't care about the practicality of the armour, because contextually speaking, anyone fighting in the tournament knows they'll just respawn if they die anyhow.

That's all I am saying... choic is just that, a choice. People act like we want to remove their realistic armor entirely, and most (if not all) of us do not wish that. We just wish to be included too.

I think that most of us in this thread are, in fact, agreed that choice is best.

[Seraphim24]

It does appear to be trending that way, and personally, I find it a problem. I think that people are going to realise at some point that it's not the best way to go. Why? Because people do have individual tastes and opinions, and eventually people are going to get tired of everything trying (and inevitably failing) to be all things to all people. I know I'm already tired of it.

I think that most of us in this thread are, in fact, agreed that choice is best.

 

Whoa whoa, this desire to be all things to all people is the bastard child of diversity, not universality. Oh some people like open world, some people like harvesting plants, some people like extreme combat, some people like cute outfits and some people like The Black Knight. 

 

Universality is going you know what screw it all everyone wants to be the mega level of super attractive hero with a gleaming sword that destroys the black dragon and gets the hottest romantic attraction. That would significantly streamline the game-making process, but the pouting over diversity (by people no less than yourself) is why games get saddled with a bazillion different things in an attempt to please everyone. (because they're just different, you know?) In this case, I'm basically just referring to costumes.

 

This concept of 'meeting everyone's individual tastes' is precisely what erodes universality, and dumps a bazillion unwanted or undesirable features or things onto an otherwise simple surface.

[Remmirath]

Whoa whoa, this desire to be all things to all people is the bastard child of diversity, not universality. Oh some people like open world, some people like harvesting plants, some people like extreme combat, some people like cute outfits and some people like The Black Knight. 
 
Universality is going you know what screw it all everyone wants to be the mega level of super attractive hero with a gleaming sword that destroys the black dragon and gets the hottest romantic attraction. That would significantly streamline the game-making process, but the pouting over diversity (by people no less than yourself) is why games get saddled with a bazillion different things in an attempt to please everyone. (because they're just different, you know?) In this case, I'm basically just referring to costumes.
 
This concept of 'meeting everyone's individual tastes is precisely what erodes universality, and dumps a bazillion unwanted or undesirable features or things onto an otherwise simple surface.

I am speaking of putting all of that in one game, which I feel is not a good approach; that's what I think of when somebody refers to universality in game design, and also appears to be (to me) what you are talking about -- a false claim that everybody actually likes the same things, so smashing it all together in one game will appeal to everyone.

Diversity is having different games that specialise in different areas, and not attempting to appeal to absolutely everyone with every single game. It's having a game like you propose, but also having games focused on combat, games focused on open worlds, and so forth. I believe that you get higher quality games that way rather than trying to appeal at least to some minor extent to the largest band of people possible, which usually results in not really appealing completely to anybody.

[Dermain]

Not. In. The. Slightest.

 

is better for being purely conservative IMO. At least it has color.

 

The previous one had color...unless you happen to be colorblind...

 

No... it's really not.. lol. I'm not really putting a ton of effort into this exactly.

 

As to the Cryptid one that is definitely a lot better, however just from that game there were a few that I thought were pretty cool.

 

 

So...it seems you have a preference for Anime inspired art styles...

 

I wonder if this has anything to do with your preference of armor styles? 

 

I don't think either one is my favorite, but I thought that would be useful. I guess not.

 

The one you posted was one of the worst things I've ever seen though, I could probably a picture of just about anything and like it better. It's not just the (relative) absence of color.

 

Yes, and as I mentioned above you would likely find something anime inspired believing that it is the essence of practicality and style.

 

Please come back to this thread after you have figured out that not everyone has the same biases as you.

 

Whoa whoa, this desire to be all things to all people is the bastard child of diversity, not universality. Oh some people like open world, some people like harvesting plants, some people like extreme combat, some people like cute outfits and some people like The Black Knight. 

 

Universality is going you know what screw it all everyone wants to be the mega level of super attractive hero with a gleaming sword that destroys the black dragon and gets the hottest romantic attraction. That would significantly streamline the game-making process, but the pouting over diversity (by people no less than yourself) is why games get saddled with a bazillion different things in an attempt to please everyone. (because they're just different, you know?) In this case, I'm basically just referring to costumes.

 

This concept of 'meeting everyone's individual tastes is precisely what erodes universality, and dumps a bazillion unwanted or undesirable features or things onto an otherwise simple surface.

 

The concept of "meeting everyone's individual tastes" is how games make sales. If X, Y, Z groups have something they like in a particular game a company will make more money than if it only had something group X liked. 

 

Shockingly, game making is almost always revolved around making money. I will now await your response of finding examples where that wasn't the case.

[Seraphim24]

I would point to literally every successful original game concept ever made as having made tons of money without being specifically targeted these exact X, Y, Z groups. All of them were based around very simple and universal themes for the most part. Pretty much every game released by Nintendo is part of their attempts to appeal to "all gamers everywhere." Casual or hardcore. Super Mario 1 sold what... 41 million? That's more than every Bioware game combined ever. Of course, obviously they were interested in making money and having success, that's not the question, the point is they made that success money with universality not with diversity.

 

Nice attempt at building the controversial question into a given assumption, and then presenting a practically rhetorical superficial question. I'm going to start ignoring you if you keep that up here.

[eyezonlyii]

Nice attempt at building the controversial question into a given assumption, and then presenting a practically rhetorical superficial question. I'm going to start ignoring you if you keep that up here.

 

You mean like you constantly calling people liars when they state they aren't interested in sexy armor?