Someday? I would say that has been the standard in gaming from the beginning, arcades in the 90s didn't give a flying doughnut about realism, they were about pulp and flash and fun. I don't think D&D was any different, the covers of those player handbooks were pretty pulpy and great. Fortunately, these kinds of games still exist although they are pretty much all Japanese at this point, very few western games. The TR reboot was notable for Lara being relatively hot.
Then what's your problem? You've already got plenty of games you like. That's great. Let other people have the games they like, too, without pushing for all games to have your preferred aesthetic.
Also I can't make the character how I want because they are going to be using the same dry stuff everyone else has..so there isn't any middle ground to meet. There isn't a stylized Tharja type character in DA, it's all uniform uniforms. If there was one crazed witch and 8 dullards then there would be a chance of compromise.
Well, I think that there should be the ability to customise your PC's armour however you like it, ideally. I don't know how in-depth the armour customisation is going to be in Inquisition, but it certainly
could end up with a wide enough variety, and I believe that would be the best outcome for everyone.
I'm not talking about armor that's skimp ware or revealing, I'm talking feminine flair, softer colors, feminine cloth additions to add more feminine traits, hinting at more feminine design.
As for loosely inspired by real world history, I have a problem with how that's interpreted. In real world history armor was designed by and for men. All flair was designed with masculine intent. Thedus is not our world or history. Women can and are warriors just the same as men. Therefore I find following the real world flair concept horrible limited and completely ignores that Thedus is not our world and should not follow our male only flair designs.
It was designed with militaristic and warlike intent, which I would argue is not the same thing as masculine intent. I would also argue against soft colours and frilly things as being feminine. The definitions for both of those terms have changed around so much throughout history and throughout various civilisations that I frankly consider them nearly meaningless.
As for people saying anything against those crazy pauldrons and spikes, this, once again, is a I don't like it response people give when forced to concede a point, not a hostile campaign to have it removed or kept from the game or games.
Every time this topic has come up, on every forum I have been a part of, I have argued against those things as well. I consider them a somewhat less outright insulting form of ridiculous armour than that which leaves large vital areas bare, so I'll not argue against them quite as strongly, but I will very definitely argue against them.
Fairly consistently boring.
By the way your statement is tinged with sexism, because you know, it's not like feminine or frilly outfits are part of history or whatever. It's only war and conflict that defined history, not sex apparently. I'm willing to bet plenty of frilly outfits are "part of history."
Boring to you, not boring to the people making the statements. I find the aesthetic you seem to prefer very boring, personally, and really not at all appealing in any way.
It's not sexist to want realistic, reasonable armour for both male and female characters. It would be sexist to imply that things must be frilly and froofy and what in order for them to be suitable for female characters. Also, again, this is about armour, not clothing. Armour quite clearly relates directly to war and conflict. I've lost count of how many people have pointed out that they don't mind if clothing has those qualities, or is revealing, or if people aren't wearing any clothing whatsoever if the circumstances call for it.
And I don't think ribbons and bows to accent the armor, as well as some frilly additions to cloth covering for the armored skirt to make it more reminiscent of a dress all while still providing all it's required protection is stepping outside what should be acceptable.
No, that much is completely reasonable. There should be a variety of such adornments possible. In fact, ribbons, gold/silver design work and etching, and cloth of various kinds are already completely historically valid adornments to armour (albeit more often for ceremonial or parade armour*), so all you need is more variety -- for male or female characters -- there. If it's a question of male characters getting a plain suit of armour and female characters, with the same armour, getting frills -- that's a problem. Various embellishments being available to all is cool.
* Which was typically completely viable armour, just too expensive to risk in battle, so that isn't to imply that it wouldn't work for in-game armour (it would just probably be more rare, more expensive, and the sort of thing you'd be more likely to find on more highly enchanted/late game armour or as a customisation option).
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.
I prefer my fantasy settings to have a coherent and believable feel to them. The fantastical elements do not, themselves, always need an explanation (although I do like it if they have one), but they should fit in with a world that is internally plausible and consistent and reflects the differences that they cause. If people are going into battle, I expect that they are going to attempt to protect themselves adequately. If their armour designs are different than ours, I expect this to be because of their culture or because of the opponents they are facing -- likely a mix of the two. I would like the motivations of the characters to make sense, and to be plausible; it is not plausible to me that any warrior (or anyone else, for that matter) would place looking good over staying alive as a priority on the battlefield, and even less plausible that they'd survive more than at most one or two fights out of sheer luck.
Armour is no exception to the rule. It is part of the rule. I want everything to have a consistent, believable, coherent look and feel, to make sense within the context of the setting. Clothing is more of an exception, simply because people throughout history often have made all manner of clothing choices that don't really make sense, so that's not believable -- although if, for example, they are living in a harsh climate or expect to be doing a good deal of manual labour, I would expect their clothing choices to reflect that. If the character expects to be doing action rolls and diving across the room (rogues, for instance) I do expect that they'll want to wear something reasonably protective, because I know how frickin' painful that is if you do it repeatedly without adequate protection. Mages? If their magic gives out and they get hit they're pretty much sunk anyhow, so I really don't care what they choose to wear (though if I were them, I would certainly take into account how much time I was going to spend scrambling about mountains and such).
And why do I feel that way? For stuff like this very topic that we've been discussing, a clear hostility towards representations of sex or attractiveness, no different from any other gaming company. You somehow think other companies don't beat me over the head with realism? You somehow think Bungie or Blizzard is creating amazing outfits? Um, yeah right. You guys might not see that issue in a kind of sexist/repressive (male or female) light, but frankly that's how it appears to me.
If you want to celebrate the move of that meter from 1.0 to 2.5 be my guest, but pretending this is all perfect? I don't think so.
You said just earlier that what you prefer has been the standard of gaming since the beginning. Apparently, whenever other people also get what they want, you consider this to be the equivalent of beating you over the head with realism. Have you considered that perhaps other people don't like being, similarly, "beat over the head" with your chosen aesthetic?
I see no way in which it is sexist to provide equal armour for male and female characters. Whether it be equally realistic or equally skimpy does not matter to this. It's not sexist either way. It's when you get an unequal mix, which has been the case for much of computer gaming history, that it becomes sexist.
I don't think anybody is pretending that it's perfect. Everyone is quite free to prefer whatever they wish, and to be happy with whatever is closest to their idea of a good game.
That certainly appears to be the case. There have been some really quality posts about finding better ways of differentiating the genders without necessarily taking away the artistic approach to Dragon Age.
I truly feel that it is better to have all options open to both male and female characters to use as they see fit, rather than insisting that female characters
must be differentiated from male characters (as that is typically how the argument goes: if one isn't certain if an armoured figure is male, and it is, it is rarely complained about).
That said, a lot of interesting suggestions have indeed been lost and skipped over.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
