2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Voragoras]

I just say what I see, what makes sense, same as everyone.

 

Like this. I'm supposed to take at face value that Morrigan is just this pure mage character, and it's ok for mages to be different because it's somehow more "realistic?" Mages don't exist. Why don't mages wear armor? They could surely be protected, because it hinders their spellcasting? Spellcasting doesn't exist. I'm continually blown away by how so many people think this work of complete fiction needs rules or justifications for anything.

 

No, the reason that makes sense to me is that Morrigan's character as being more adventurous personality wise and this is reflected in her clothing, an overall profile created to be fun and interesting for the player. This reason drawn from my basic interpretation of humanity is much more sensible to me and so I adopt it.

 

Yes. Mages don't run into the heat of battle and tank all the hits, so they don't need to wear heavy, practical armour. Hence, more stylistic freedom for the character in what they wear. You've just explained a logical thought process and then dismissed it because "no i don't like that conclusion!". What?

[SardaukarElite]

I just say what I see, what makes sense, same as everyone.

 

Most people also listen to the other people in the conversation though. Sometimes that allows them to learn something, encounter new opinions, or even realise their own mistakes, but for the most part it's how they manage to form responses that are actually coherent.

[Han Shot First]

You said that you wanted designs that were more "inspired by history," I simply said, why can't attractive outfits be inspired by history? It's not like dating and sex and attractive outfits didn't exist in the previous 65 million years of human history. Simple as that.

 

No, you said my statement that the realism crowd was consistent in criticizing outlandish armor designs for either gender was 'tinged with sexism.' And you've been fairly consistent with that sort of behavior in this thread. When someone voices an opinion you disagree with, you resort to straw men and unfounded allegations of sexism.

 

I'm all for attractive armor designs inspired by history. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and not everyone is going to agree on what is or isn't attractive.

 

By the way, humans haven't been around for 65 million years.

[Seraphim24]

No you don't, you just throw around words try to brand people because they don't agree with what you want

 

Oh come on, the traditional interpretation of history is almost invariably tinged with sexism. So when people reference the value of traditional historical interpretations it's invariably invoking some degree of sexism. History books aren't filled to the brim with discussions of dating and rituals of sex and attraction, in fact they are utterly devoid of such material. Instead, it's populated with the work of politicians and leaders and war, as well as conflict.

 

So I conflated this enjoyment of that particular kind of history, as well as a desire to see that reflected, I invariably thought of sexism. History has been shared between the sexes from the beginning, in both romance and war, so automatically referencing history as a reason shouldn't automatically favor one side or the other.

[Voragoras]

Most people also listen to the other people in the conversation though. Sometimes that allows them to learn something, encounter new opinions, or even realise their own mistakes, but for the most part it's how they manage to form responses that are actually coherent.

 

Off-Topic, but is that Lydia Litvyak in your icon?

[SardaukarElite]

Off-Topic, but is that Lydia Litvyak in your icon?

 

Yes it is.

[Seraphim24]

 

No, you said my statement that the realism crowd was consistent in criticizing outlandish armor designs for either gender was 'tinged with sexism.' And you've been fairly consistent with that sort of behavior in this thread. When someone voices an opinion you disagree with, you resort to straw men and unfounded allegations of sexism.

 

By the way, humans haven't been around for 65 million years.

 

Hm, what is it then, 35 million? 15? 5? I can't remember.

 

See now you are saying "realism" though, that's different, you shifted there. If you had said 'realism' and not 'history' then we would just be back on that gravy train.

 

Look, I think I vaguely realized you are talking about realism again, not necessarily history, which doesn't have anything to do with sexism particularly, although I could see many ways it could find it's way in subconsciously. (Mages and rogues are usually females because probably on some level people see them as those kinds of fighters, it's also 'ok' for mages and rogues to have attractive outfits, but warriors (often men) can't, voila, what a coincidence).

 

Also frankly the rules have been arbitrarily founded in your favor from the beginning, so I'm not really keen on playing the game when those rules were created dis favorably. From my perspective, a game should be fun and entertaining, and a compelling argument should be made for realism, not the other way around.

[In Exile]

Hm, what is it then, 35 million? 15? 5? I can't remember.

 

See now you are saying "realism" though, that's different, you shifted there. If you had said 'realism' and not 'history' then we would just be back on that gravy train.

 

Modern humans I think are closer to 10,000 or 15,000 years? It depends on what you count as "modern" and "human". 

[Voragoras]

History books aren't filled to the brim with discussions of dating and rituals of sex and attraction, in fact they are utterly devoid of such material.

 

This is blatantly untrue. Social history is a very respectable part of historical analysis, and there are many, many such books available for anybody to peruse, if you search for them. Of course you'll only find discussions of war if you look for the breakout of the First World War and the events within it (which, again, would include workers' rights, unions, and the freedoms of individuals/businesses, so even then your point is invalid), but you don't have to look far to see that you'll also find books detailing the social revolution that followed it, discussing the political ramifications of increased liberty for women and the sexual revolution that the flappers represented.

 

Now you're just ignoring facts again.

[Han Shot First]

Oh come on, the traditional interpretation of history is almost invariably tinged with sexism. So when people reference the value of traditional historical interpretations it's invariably invoking some degree of sexism. History books aren't filled to the brim with discussions of dating and rituals of sex and attraction, in fact they are utterly devoid of such material. Instead, it's populated with the work of politicians and leaders and war, as well as conflict.

 

So I conflated this enjoyment of that particular kind of history, as well as a desire to see that reflected, I invariably thought of sexism. History has been shared between the sexes from the beginning, in both romance and war, so automatically referencing history as a reason shouldn't automatically favor one side or the other.

 

 

When people say they prefer armor designs inspired by history, it is shorthand for armor designs that provide complete protection to vital areas and that doesn't include features that would completely sacrifice practicality. It means they prefer designs that look like they could perform their intended function. That has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

[Seraphim24]

You know I would prefer that when people say they prefer armor designs inspired by history, that means

they prefer armor designs inspired by history, rather than they prefer armor designs that provide complete protection to vital areas and doesn't include features that would completely sacrifice practicality.

 

Just a crazy quirk of mine I guess.

 

This is blatantly untrue. Social history is a very respectable part of historical analysis, and there are many, many such books available for anybody to peruse, if you search for them. Of course you'll only find discussions of war if you look for the breakout of the First World War and the events within it (which, again, would include workers' rights, unions, and the freedoms of individuals/businesses, so even then your point is invalid), but you don't have to look far to see that you'll also find books detailing the social revolution that followed it, discussing the political ramifications of increased liberty for women and the sexual revolution that the flappers represented.

 

Maybe from wherever you are from, but U.S. HS/College is all about the guns germs and steel.

 

Also I'm thinking about women from like the Neanderthal era, this profound insular narcissism that women's history began in the 20s and 60s is not what I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure Unga the female Cro-Magnon farmer found a way to get hot for Durka the Rock smasher once upon a time. I'm saying the daily mores of sexual contact are usually not very preeminent in the analysis, and there's 5000 years of history to work with in that respect.

 

So, yeah I still say it's probably at least a fair bit sexist. It doesn't honestly matter at this point though? Han said he's talking about realism, which seems a lot more compelling to me than any historical argument.

 

Ok so since I'm a windmill and inane and so on, please, can someone elucidate, clearly and completely why, in a game with dragons, and magic, and tons of things that don't exist or have anything to do with reality, why suddenly clothes are an exception to this rule and are heavily burdened with restrictions concerning reality? I know people have been doing that for awhile in bits and pieces, but you claim I cannot be persuaded but I simply haven't seen the overpowering logic there. You all are so frustrated that I'm resorting to prudishness and sexism, but I'm defaulting to assumptions in the absence of that understanding. 

[Voragoras]

Maybe from wherever you are from, but U.S. HS/College is all about the guns germs and steel.

 

Also I'm thinking about women from like the Neanderthal era, this profound insular narcissism that women's history began in the 20s and 60s is not what I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure Unga the female Cro-Magnon farmer found a way to get hot for Durka the Rock smasher once upon a time. I'm saying the daily mores of sexual contact are usually not very preeminent in the analysis.

 

So, yeah I still say it's probably at least a fair bit sexist. It doesn't honestly matter at this point though? Han said he's talking about realism, which seems a lot more compelling to me than any historical argument.

 

And the American high school syllabus doesn't encompass all of historical inquiry ever, and it's your insular narcissism that chooses to dismiss this fact. Even Ancient Roman sources focus on the roles of important women where appropriate - for example, Fulvia, wife of Clodius Pulcher and Mark Antony, was very politically active and has been recorded as such - and modern scholarship has become increasingly interested in the specifics of gender dynamics across time.

 

Just because you don't make an effort to care about women in history doesn't mean that nobody does. There are countless records and papers on social history, and the only thing proven by your denials is your ignorance.

[Mirrman70]

You know I would prefer that when people say they prefer armor designs inspired by history, that means

they prefer armor designs inspired by history, rather than they prefer armor designs that provide complete protection to vital areas and doesn't include features that would completely sacrifice practicality.

 

Just a crazy quirk of mine I guess.

 

 

Maybe from wherever you are from, but U.S. HS/College is all about the guns germs and steel.

 

Also I'm thinking about women from like the Neanderthal era, this profound insular narcissism that women's history began in the 20s and 60s is not what I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure Unga the female Cro-Magnon farmer found a way to get hot for Durka the Rock smasher once upon a time. I'm saying the daily mores of sexual contact are usually not very preeminent in the analysis, and there's 5000 years of history to work with in that respect.

 

So, yeah I still say it's probably at least a fair bit sexist. It doesn't honestly matter at this point though? Han said he's talking about realism, which seems a lot more compelling to me than any historical argument.

 

Ok so since I'm a windmill and inane and so on, please, can someone elucidate, clearly and completely why, in a game with dragons, and magic, and tons of things that don't exist or have anything to do with reality, why suddenly clothes are an exception to this rule? I know people have been doing that for awhile in bits and pieces, but you claim I cannot be persuaded but I simply haven't seen the overpowering logic there.

 

My highschool was actually more focused on social and political history than military (Military History was in fact an elective). My College was also focused on a more Liberal-minded view of history. in response to that last thing you wrote, Magic and Dragons and the like are easily written off as fantasy because they don't exist in our world whereas clothes, armor and weapons come under closer scrutiny due to the fact the fact that they are indeed a part of our world. So people are easily able to subconsciously seperate dragons and magic into a Fantasy group and clothes and armor into a realism group. I find that more realistic armor can be made that is still stylized but the majority of things I have seen are more just things made because they look good and that doesn't float everyone's boat. neither side of this argument is right or wrong it simply diverse opinions on what is acceptable to have characters wear.

[xkg]

Hm, what is it then, 35 million? 15? 5? I can't remember.

 

Modern humans I think are closer to 10,000 or 15,000 years? It depends on what you count as "modern" and "human". 

 

OT:

More like 3-4 millions, at most.

Remember watching this on you tube not long ago.  I think Lucy's fossils (dated at 3.2m) are the oldest ones that can be directly linked with the modern human.

 

Not much of a human tho, almost an ape that came out of the tree.

 

Watch the entire video, its quite interesting.

(Lucy - 1h 13m 0s )

 

Spoiler

[Seraphim24]

And the American high school syllabus doesn't encompass all of historical inquiry ever, and it's your insular narcissism that chooses to dismiss this fact. Even Ancient Roman sources focus on the roles of important women where appropriate - for example, Fulvia, wife of Clodius Pulcher and Mark Antony, was very politically active and has been recorded as such - and modern scholarship has become increasingly interested in the specifics of gender dynamics across time.

 

Just because you don't make an effort to care about women in history doesn't mean that nobody does. There are countless records and papers on social history, and the only thing proven by your denials is your ignorance.

 

Care to answer the actual pertinent at the end there?

 

Also no offense but you talked about Fulvia as being "very politically active" Again a woman is relevant because is political? History defines women's relevance on it's terms, politics, war. Please point me to the textbook where people are going on and on about Maria Theresa's contribution to history by being nice and her sense of style? No, it was because she was a leader that she mattered.

 

Many women don't need your reckless assault on them under the guise of raising them to an 'equal' level. Many politicians are responsible for mass murder, where do you base your assumption that women's history needs to be defined by how violent and argumentative they are towards people? And why shouldn't this accommodate men also? While we're at it?

 

Plus what does that have to do with the topic? You guys are building this out into a whole bunch of areas that are only faintly relevant to the topic.

[Seraphim24]

My highschool was actually more focused on social and political history than military (Military History was in fact an elective). My College was also focused on a more Liberal-minded view of history. in response to that last thing you wrote, Magic and Dragons and the like are easily written off as fantasy because they don't exist in our world whereas clothes, armor and weapons come under closer scrutiny due to the fact the fact that they are indeed a part of our world. So people are easily able to subconsciously seperate dragons and magic into a Fantasy group and clothes and armor into a realism group. I find that more realistic armor can be made that is still stylized but the majority of things I have seen are more just things made because they look good and that doesn't float everyone's boat. neither side of this argument is right or wrong it simply diverse opinions on what is acceptable to have characters wear.

 

Well thank you for attempting to answer the question, however... I just don't see that as applied by most people. Dragon's breathe fire, they have scaly claws, they are capable of savagely murdering someone without armor, hence the justification for armor. People may instinctively treat them separately, but they clearly affect each other all the time. The supposedly fantasy element is being conjured up to eventually affect realism, why can't the reverse happen? The whimsical nature of dragons and magic having the effect of making clothes magical and whimsical?

 

Again, it just feels an endless array of logical tricks that are conveniently created to justify this prudishness...

[Voragoras]

Care to answer the actual pertinent at the end there?

 

Also no offense but you talked about Fulvia as being "very politically active" Again a woman is relevant because is political? History defines women's relevance on it's terms, politics, war. Please point me to the textbook where people are going on and on about Maria Theresa's contribution to history by being nice and her sense of style? No, it was because she was a leader that she mattered.

 

Many women don't need your reckless assault on them under the guise of raising them to an 'equal' level. Many politicians are responsible for mass murder, where do you base your assumption that women's history needs to be defined by how violent and argumentative they are towards people? And why shouldn't this accommodate men also? While we're at it?

 

Plus what does that have to do with the topic? You guys are building this out into a whole bunch of areas that are only faintly relevant to the topic.

 

I mentioned Fulvia because that is one individual case of a specific woman being noted for her integral part in late Republican Roman politics. Fulvia wanted to be a woman of the political scene, and so she was, and it was widely accepted within Roman sources that she masterminded a great number of events in very important Roman men's lives.

 

And nobody goes on about Maria Theresa's sense of style because that's... completely irrelevant. Not even Maria Theresa cared about Maria Theresa's sense of style, because that's not what she focused on for or aimed for. You're the one being sexist by dismissing everything of Maria Theresa's worked for and achieved because, in your view, what she wore is more important than what she actually did.

 

And why are you saying "many women don't need [blah blah]" as if you're the voice for the entire female gender? I'm a woman, and you certainly aren't speaking for me. The majority of my friends are women, and you certainly aren't speaking for them.

[AresKeith]

I would love to see armor like this

 

[Seraphim24]

I mentioned Fulvia because that is one individual case of a specific woman being noted for her integral part in late Republican Roman politics. Fulvia wanted to be a woman of the political scene, and so she was, and it was widely accepted within Roman sources that she masterminded a great number of events in very important Roman men's lives.

 

And nobody goes on about Maria Theresa's sense of style because that's... completely irrelevant. Not even Mother Theresa cared about Mother Theresa's sense of style, because that's not what she focused on for or aimed for. You're the one being sexist by dismissing everything of Mother Theresa's worked for and achieved because, in your view, what she wore is more important than what she actually did.

 

And why are you saying "many women don't need [blah blah]" as if you're the voice for the entire female gender? I'm a woman, and you certainly aren't speaking for me. The majority of my friends are women, and you certainly aren't speaking for them.

 

Why don't you take your particular problems with my analogy to a PM or something, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

 

By the way I said "and men," because I see this as a problem that is widespread generally, it's not necessarily women's history but just the history of sexuality generally (by both men and women who favor it). You just said yourself that a "sense of style" is completely irrelevant, war and guns matters more than flirtation and romance, that's what I'm tracking onto, I don't care whether it happens to be a woman or a man that this is regarding, ultimately.

 

And besides, even if Maria Theresa was herself focused on being a leader, she was the only one that came to mind precisely because if they aren't focused on being a leader, they usually aren't covered in history. Probably because more people agree with you that such things are "irrelevant."

 

I'm amazed at how easily disrupted people can get when all I'm doing is twisting the notion that femininity is being emancipated by representation in politics and war and so on, by suggesting that maybe warlike females and males should be emancipated by representation in sexual spheres of style and fashion, or entertainment or whatever. In fact, maybe people need to stop emancipating people and just settle for trying to accurately reflect this "reality" that is so prized.

 

Back on that topic though, I've only seen one attempt to answer my question on the previous page which was the most interesting one to me, if someone else tries then I'll probably end up reading it.

[Voragoras]

Why don't you take your particular problems with my analogy to a PM or something, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

 

By the way I said "and men," because I see this as a problem that is widespread generally, it's not necessarily women's history but just the history of sexuality generally (by both men and women who favor it). You just said yourself that a "sense of style" is completely irrelevant, war and guns matters more than flirtation and romance, that's what I'm tracking onto, I don't care whether it happens to be a woman or a man that this is regarding, ultimately.

 

And besides, even if Maria Theresa was herself focused on being a leader, she was the only one that came to mind precisely because if they aren't focused on being a leader, they usually aren't covered in history. Probably because more people agree with you that such things are "irrelevant."

 

I'm amazed at how easily disrupted people can get when all I'm doing is twisting the notion that femininity is being emancipated by representation in politics and war and so on, by suggesting that maybe warlike females and males should be emancipated by representation in sexual spheres of style and fashion, or entertainment or whatever.

 

You can't just get away with throwing around the term "u sexist" at people then start spear-heading a very sexist point of view yourself, saying "oh well it doesn't even matter anyway why are you calling me out on it". You're misrepresenting an entire field of study here.

 

And yes, they are. Coco Chanel was a fashion icon renowned for being a fashion icon. Maria Theresa is a leader renowned for her brilliant politics because that's what defined her. Catherine the Great is famous for her numerous lovers and her capable statesmanship, presiding over a Golden Age in Russia's history. Sexuality and leadership aren't mutually exclusive features - many great commanders and royals have been known for eccentric love lives and private pursuits.

 

Flirtation and romance matter, but not on an individual level, and the fact that you can't seem to understand this very basic principle is shocking to me. When people refer to sexuality in social history, it's often on a general level, because ordinary people flirting and romancing is not anything worthy of note, because nearly everybody does it. They talk about the average peasant, or the average noble, unless some one person does something so substantially different that their exception has to be noted.

 

Anyway, you're right, this is off-topic, and this will be my final post on the matter. I honestly don't know why I'm still replying to you after you invoked Godwin's Law.

[Giant ambush beetle]

I don't. 

[AresKeith]

You know I almost never see people putting out DA outfits as examples of what they like to see, it seems to me a much easier way to resolve this situation is just say that perhaps a lot of DA styling, and a lot of provocative outfits just aren't attractive. People immediately suggest armored characters that are at least slightly cooler from a Japanese game or something.

 

It's akin to saying, yeah we want the hottest and coolest thing possible, I just don't think that's when a character isn't wearing much at all. Then there isn't an issue of realism or all this other pile of horse substance to deal with at all.

 

Why would we when it's already in the game? 

[Voragoras]

I would love to see armor like this
http://25.media.tumb...ty7tao1_500.jpg

I like this:

 

Surprising that she's a character in the Soul series, though.

[AresKeith]

I like this:

 

Surprising that she's a character in the Soul series, though.

 

The Soul series manages to make really decent armor every now and then

[Seraphim24]

You can't just get away with throwing around the term "u sexist" at people then start spear-heading a very sexist point of view yourself, saying "oh well it doesn't even matter anyway why are you calling me out on it". You're misrepresenting an entire field of study here.

 

And yes, they are. Coco Chanel was a fashion icon renowned for being a fashion icon. Maria Theresa is a leader renowned for her brilliant politics because that's what defined her. Catherine the Great is famous for her numerous lovers and her capable statesmanship, presiding over a Golden Age in Russia's history. Sexuality and leadership aren't mutually exclusive features - many great commanders and royals have been known for eccentric love lives and private pursuits.

 

Flirtation and romance matter, but not on an individual level, and the fact that you can't seem to understand this very basic principle is shocking to me. When people refer to sexuality in social history, it's often on a general level, because ordinary people flirting and romancing is not anything worthy of note, because nearly everybody does it. They talk about the average peasant, or the average noble, unless some one person does something so substantially different that their exception has to be noted.

 

Anyway, you're right, this is off-topic, and this will be my final post on the matter. I honestly don't know why I'm still replying to you after you invoked Godwin's Law.

 

It's ok, do you want to tackle the realism thing?