2576 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

Realistically speaking, I'll play my games and you'll play yours. However, I think it has been somewhat fascinating to use the weapons of sexual repression and under-representation paradoxically against Bioware. I'm not doing it for spite, I just actually think they apply here. Was D&D really so serious all the time? The Drow were almost always under-dressed if I'm not mistaken, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Ravenloft. Just look at Imoen in BG1, cleavage all over the place, because she's a saucy rogue, it's an adventure, it was the spirit of adventure, not realism. Superficial men and women find that much more appealing than the Cassandra diligent armored brigade. The few things that aren't afraid to channel themes of realism and sensuality receive places in the pantheon.

 

Oh please. Get over yourself. Those characters show off flesh purely to attract the teenage male audience. It's nothing to do with "spirit of adventure", it's nothing to do with "channelling sensuality". It's simple titilation, nothing more. As is the case with the vast majority of female characters in the "Japanese aesthetic" you glorify.

[GrinningRogue]

....welp, my mind just took a dive int the gutters

I think this is the whole point of such armor. To pull the thoughts in and keep it there.

[puppyofwar]

Oh please. Get over yourself. Those characters show off flesh purely to attract the teenage male audience. It's nothing to do with "spirit of adventure", it's nothing to do with "channelling sensuality". It's simple titilation, nothing more. As is the case with the vast majority of female characters in the "Japanese aesthetic" you glorify.

Hoo boy, don't even get me started on some people's warp ideas about "Japanese aesthetic", It's like saying American culture=Jersey Shore or the Kardashians.

[PhroXenGold]

Hoo boy, don't even get me started on some people's warp ideas about "Japanese aesthetic", It's like saying American culture=Jersey Shore or the Kardashians.

 

Of that's not American culture. America doesn't have culture

[puppyofwar]

Of that's not American culture. America doesn't have culture

I stand corrected than 

 

So, to keep on topic. Have a look of JAPANESE female armor....

This is from the festival parade/ reenactment of 巴御前(Tomoe Gozen), a great lady warrior from The Tale of the Heike

 

And this his from one of the stage production of her story

[Han Shot First]

A photograph from the 1800s:

 

[PhroXenGold]

I stand corrected than 

 

So, to keep on topic. Have a look of JAPANESE female armor....

This is from the festival parade/ reenactment of 巴御前(Tomoe Gozen), a great lady warrior from The Tale of the Heike

 

And this his from one of the stage production of her story

 

What's the difference between America and yoghurt?

Spoiler

Leave yoghurt for 200 years and it'll develop a culture

 

 

But yeah, those images look great. I will say though, when I used "Japanese aesthetic" earlier with reference to Kefka, I was more referring to the aesthetic prevalent in Japanese games, particularly RPGs, which often has little to do with actual Japanese culture and historical aesthetics and is, in the case of female outfits, little more than fanservice aimed at titliating male gamers. It's such a pity when there is so much great looking source material to work with as in those pictures that things end up the way they do.

[Kharn-ivor]

Oh please. Get over yourself. Those characters show off flesh purely to attract the teenage male audience. It's nothing to do with "spirit of adventure", it's nothing to do with "channelling sensuality". It's simple titilation, nothing more. As is the case with the vast majority of female characters in the "Japanese aesthetic" you glorify.

Yeah that should be obvious really, one need only look at Quiet from MGS for a good example. No doubt they'll make up some silly lore based excuse to justify it.

[Ieldra]

I've been wondering about how this thread got so big. I think some of the arguments miss the point, so here's what I think about it:

 

TL:DR:

This comes down to "realism" vs "artistic license". Neither is fundamentally better than the other, but the higher the amount of artistic license used, the higher the threshold of suspension of disbelief becomes, until we end up with a story that doesn't take itself seriously or is unintentionally funny trying to be taken seriously. Since "sexy" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms, necessitating an extreme amount of artistic license, "sexy armor" can singlehandedly make a serious story turn silly, and you can't expect developers to compromise the integrity of their setting for the sake of player choice.

 

Now for the details.

 

I. The viewpoint of in-world realism

 

(1) "Revealing" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms.

 

Why? Well, because the very point of armor is to have something between your skin and the enemy's weapon. Those who answer this with "Enchantment!" miss the point, because unless there isn't an intrinsic disadvantage in adding another layer of protection, and unless the protection offered by your enchantment is absolute, it is always desirable to add another layer of protection, and even a silk shirt offers significantly more protection than no silk shirt, at is can protect against side effects like flying gravel (or bone) and prevent some glancing hits from piercing your skin - which, as an aside, also serves well to protect your sex appeal if you have any. As a rule, scars are ugly.

 

This means that no sane person who expects a fight and has the time to prepare would ever go into a fight without having as much of their skins covered as they can practically get away with. If circumstances limit your armor, the very least you will still do is cover the torso completely, since you *really* don't want to get wounded there. 

 

Meanwhile on the side of sex appeal, this usually works by revealing exactly those parts of your body you would want to protect most in a fight. This is no accident, since one of the messages inextricably bound up with sex appeal is a measure of vulnerability and trust, exactly what you don't want, or have, in a fight. The other possible message is supreme confidence, which is why deities and superpowered mages can get away with revealing armor in an otherwise serious story while others usually can't.

 

(2) So what about these JRPGs? Are they all silly?

 

I have no idea, since I don't know many. But take a hypothetical situation that I'm sure has occurred somewhere in the genre more than once: a young girl is snagged away from a party by some supernatural horror and ends up fighting for her life with newly-revealed awesome psi abilities. In such a situation, a revealing outfit is perfectly plausible. The point, however, is that it's not armor and it's not supposed to be. She isn't wearing "sexy enchanted armor", she is situationally unarmored, and most undesirably so, at least from her own point of view. If, later in the story, she ends up seeking out those supernatural horrors to fight them, and still wears the same outfit, then things have become problematic.

 

(3) The pitfalls of adornments

 

Everyone wants to look good, right? Even while fighting? Well, as a rule, yes of course. The problem is that most forms of adornment have significant side effects in a battle situation, and since your armor is made to protect the most valuable thing you have - your life - it's usually seen as being not worth it. Bright colors attract an enemy's attention, embossments, spikes etc.. can snag a weapon, making sure that blows that would've otherwise have glanced off transfer their complete kinetic energy to your body. And so on. That's why most armor has flat or rounded surfaces with no embossments. Camouflage isn't that much of an issue if you already have metal armor, so paint jobs might be accepable in low-tech settings, but they will have the problem that they're damaged in the fighting. So, most ways of enhancing the appearance of your armor are impractical for fighting. I've heard that many female soldiers in modern armies take special care to appear feminine (which does not equal revealing btw) when they can, but they do that in their free time, and they do it exactly because they can't while on active duty.

 

(4) Fantasy and in-world realism

 

I can already see the reply: "We have magic, how realistic is that?" Realism is measured by the rules of the fictional universe. It's in-world realism I'm speaking of. Magic is a premise of some fictional worlds, thus its existence is by definition realistic. That's why this story is fantasy. But as much as the presence of magic turns a story into fantasy, the presence of revealing armor turns the story into a non-serious one.

 

 

II. The Artistic license viewpoint

 

All that's good and well, but in fantastic stories we want to look good, because, well what's the point of being in a fantastic world without some acceptable breaks from reality, right? Artistic license is always used in stories, and often we don't even realize how much, leading to things like "reality is unrealistic". There is, by its very nature, no objective way to judge how much a particular instance of artistic license affects the mood of a setting, but there's one rule: the more artistic license is used, and the more "in your face" it is, the less convincing and serious the setting will appear, and the more unrealistic a particular instance is, the bigger the effect it will have.

 

That's why "sexy armor" on your characters in an otherwise serious story *is* bad design as a rule. It flies in the face of realism much more drastically than, say, embossments, bright colors and the fact that we never have muddy boots, and it is, by its nature, drastically "in your face". Both effects combine so that the amount of rationalization and ultra-tech/magic  you have to invest to make it plausible is so ridiculously high that it's immediately recognized as contrived. Revealing armor yells "don't take me seriously" about as loudly as it's possible to yell for a visual element of a story.

 

So, yeah, I do want artistic license. i don't want to have muddy boots, I don't want wounds to leave disfiguring scars, I don't want to scrub the gore off my armor before I go to rest in a camp, and i don't want to mend my clothing after a fight or repair the damaged griffon embossment on my armor. The thing, however, is this: fighting in these games already uses up a great deal of artistic license to be enjoyable in a game at all, rather than showing us how ugly, bloody, dirty and altogether unpleasant it really should be. Most of these things don't affect the serious tone of the story much because they make the unpleasant less conspicuous, rather than adding something extremely conspicuous to the setting. The absence of muddy boots isn't "in your face" while Varric's backflips very much are. I don't know about others, but I find DAI's combat animations very problematic in this regard. Nobody believes that Varric could really move in such a way, or that mages would flourish their staffs in the way they're shown, just as nobody believes that anyone actually would go into a fight in sexy armor, even if were somewhat feasible to do so. 

 

III. The ruling principle should be "dress for the occasion"

 

So, here's what I want: I want my Inquisitor to wear a frilly dress to the Orlesian ball. It can be as revealing as I can get away with while still staying stylistically in Thedas. If the game lets me cause a scandal with it, great. While going out to hunt demons, however, I want something practical and protective. And since in a visual medium, function is brought across to the player by appearance, it should look the part.

 

Edit:

About the above images: these look great, but should count as "dress uniform". Dress uniforms have been invented exactly because "combat outfit" and "representation" are somewhat mutually exclusive. Personally, I would accept them in a story because - see above - we all want to look good and are prepared to sacrifice *some* realism for it. Also note how they all cover the torso completely.

[puppyofwar]

I've been wondering about how this thread got so big. I think some of the arguments miss the point, so here's what I think about it:

 

TL:DR:

This comes down to "realism" vs "artistic license". Neither is fundamentally better than the other, but the higher the amount of artistic license used, the higher the threshold of suspension of disbelief becomes, until we end up with a story that doesn't take itself seriously or is unintentionally funny trying to be taken seriously. Since "sexy" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms, necessitating an extreme amount of artistic license, "sexy armor" can singlehandedly make a serious story turn silly, and you can't expect developers to compromise the integrity of their setting for the sake of player choice.

 

Now for the details.

 

I. The viewpoint of in-world realism

 

(1) "Revealing" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms.

 

(4) Fantasy and in-world realism

 

I can already see the reply: "We have magic, how realistic is that?" Realism is measured by the rules of the fictional universe. It's in-world realism I'm speaking of. Magic is a premise of some fictional worlds, thus its existence is by definition realistic. That's why this story is fantasy. But as much as the presence of magic turns a story into fantasy, the presence of sexy armor turns the story into a non-serious one.

 

 

II. The Artistic license viewpoint

 

 

III. The ruling principle should be "dress for the occasion"

 

 

I wish I can like this twice. I agree with just about every thing you said here.

 

Just to add a bit about JRPGs, the armor-kinis are NOT an universal trait. Take the Final Fantasy series, the flag ship of JRPGs for example, their female characters often have sexy armor or outfit , but not gratuitous SEXUALIZED  ones. example:

 

 

In the end, as long as it fits the principle and atmosphere of the setting, I'm all for awesome, sexy, artistically creative armor. Just not the gratuitous sexualized ones.

 

....though I do have to say, Square-Enix people have an unhealthy obsession of belts and buckles 

[PhroXenGold]

FF tends to vary quite a bit. While there is some that falls into the revealing but not gratuitously over sexualised category, there is also a fair bit that does drift into outright fanservice (*cough* Fran *cough*), as well as others which could be acceptable purely from design but the way it's used, particularly in things like promo shots and in-game cutscenes and so forth, make it clear that the primary purpose is titilation (the worst for this was probably Lulu - OK, maybe she just likes wearing a low cut dress...except for the fact that pretty much whenever the camera focused on her it was in exactly the right position to give a perfect view of her cleavage...).

 

 

Oh, and I'll just add this to clarify my position on such things: I have no problem with fanservice. I can and do enjoy it, provided it doesn't feel completely out of place (hell, I'm a big fan of shows like IS and Sekirei). I just find people trying to claim that fanservice is something more, that it is "sexually liberating" or other such bollocks to be comically self deluding and it pisses me off when people try to shoehorn fanservice into everything under such auspices.

[The Elder King]

Kefka, if I can ask, what is that you don't like about Josephine? It's the fact that unlike Cullen and Leliana she can't fight?
Also, advisors will have a multi-region (well, it was confirmed for Cullen, but I don't think Leliana Or Josephine won't have them) arc in the game, so They won't stay in Skyhold forever.

[Razyx]

Yes, and...? I know what they look like. I'm not sure what your point here is. In those scenarios, this is the sort of thing one should be seeing.


Revealing specifically with the intention of being "sexy", and revealing as opposed to being protective or realistic. No, of course I don't think that every warrior should be wearing the same thing. All I ask is that it is a logical choice for what they are doing. Armour that is supposed to be armour but doesn't protect key areas is not logical.


I'd agree, although I'd say the balance should go fairly heavily towards realism. That's just a matter of preference, though.

 

My point is that too much realism would be a boredom.

 

Dunno why you should not try to mix something aesthetically appealing (not sex-y) with protective, etc, you know, a fantasy world...

 

and as you have pointed out in the last paragraph; this is "a matter of preference", tastes,...indeed.

[Razyx]

+ 300 DEFENSE!!!

 

 

I think this is totally practical. Look she has ....greaves.

 

Probably a -300 to the attacking side, for drooling in close combat hehe 

[Ieldra]

@puppyofwar:

These armors look quite acceptable to me. I wouldn't be able to tell how "awesome" they are since I dislike the anime style in general, but they're clearly made to fulfil their function convincingly within the conventions of the genre.

[Puppy Love]

 Bright colors attract an enemy's attention.

People tend to do a lot to make out the middle ages being a lot more drab then it actually was.  Is as silly as all the movies which have the great pyramid in it looking the way it does today when it used to have an entire outer casing.  Yes too much adornment was bad, but one thing they clearly did not shy away from in the middle ages was color.  Heraldry was everywhere, especially on the battlefield, they even had people carry large over-sized banners into the field saying (This is who we are and who we represent, we're going to kill you.)  Another reason for doing such is to distinguish one side from the other.  Is like shirts verses skins.  This is not like modern warfare with guns, people are fighting in close proximity to each other in melee, ornamentation and color is often the difference between survival and your own ally killing you.

 

This usually took the form of tabards, which often flared out with the armored skirt adding a cloth like look to it, some were longer then others, ect.  This was not just for parades either.  Tabards and other cloth like additions were used because if cloth rips and tears it is easier, cheaper to fix or replace. 

 

We're not talking guerrilla warriors here sneaking through the brush, once you've entered into the melee being colorful is not going to matter that much except for distinguishing friend from foe, which is an important thing for both sides.  Medieval times was not drab with muted colors, they were very big on being colorful, often to the point we'd find it down right gaudy.  They were very proud of their heraldry, and were not sneaking up to their enemies gates, they were perfectly happy and willing to announce, we're coming to kill you, and this is who we are, check out our team colors and banners. 

 

Sorry just felt the muted color thing needed to be corrected.  The only peoples that would have muted colors were the peasantry and warriors of low and no status.  If you could afford plate, or were given plate or the like, you can bet your ass you were probably also important enough to be wearing heraldry.

 

Heraldry came in bright reds, greens, blues, yellows...  heck almost any color under the sun and the point of it was to NOT blend into the background.

[Puppy Love]

Computer keeps double posting on me, my apologies.

[Razyx]

I've been wondering about how this thread got so big. I think some of the arguments miss the point, so here's what I think about it:

 

TL:DR:

This comes down to "realism" vs "artistic license". Neither is fundamentally better than the other, but the higher the amount of artistic license used, the higher the threshold of suspension of disbelief becomes, until we end up with a story that doesn't take itself seriously or is unintentionally funny trying to be taken seriously. Since "sexy" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms, necessitating an extreme amount of artistic license, "sexy armor" can singlehandedly make a serious story turn silly, and you can't expect developers to compromise the integrity of their setting for the sake of player choice.

[...]

 

 

Sorry Ieldra but your starting point is not right at all;  'Since "sexy" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms'...
What is sexy to you?, and to me?, and the guy/gal that posted before?.

 

I guess you know that along the ages the armors have evolved "revealing" less and less flesh to the enemy but with a cost; agility, speed, resistance, money... but something that have not changed would be when we talk about a little military unit that needs good maneuverability (e.g. raiders.., or the warden, champion, inquisitor...).
It will never going to be equipped with something extremely heavy or something that would not be versatile because that will add the aforementioned penalties in an important way.

So we would have that from a realistically point of view the equipment would be determined from the fighting scenario.

As an example I'll mention a common tactic in the spanish tercios, las encamisadas or camisade, where some men in shirts, swords and daggers attack their enemies at night ..., or the viking raids with their chainmails/furs, etc, etc... so with archers, rogues and mages..., how cannot be possible to see """sexy"""  and "armor" together in a fantasy world?!?!.

[Ieldra]

@Razyx:

Your premise is flawed: covering your torso completely sacrifices nothing in agility and speed, as long as it supple and light enough - and as I said, even normal clothing would be significantly more desirable than nothing. So yes, circumstances make different kinds of protection more and less feasible, but that goes down to "unarmored but normal clothing". Nobody would ever go with nothing at all covering parts of their torso. Exposed lower legs and forearms are realistic in some settings. Exposed shoulders might be in special circumstances. Exposed waists or vitals, never. Those areas are just too important and/or vulnerable to leave uncovered.  

 

@Puppy Love:

I do know. I was talking in a general sense. Once you enter open field combat, bright colors aren't necessarily a disadvantage. In the situations we find ourselves in DAI, however, it's much likely we'd want to remain unseen for as long as possible.

[Puppy Love]

@Puppy Love:

I do know. I was talking in a general sense. Once you enter open field combat, bright colors aren't necessarily a disadvantage. In the situations we find ourselves in DAI, however, it's much likely we'd want to remain unseen for as long as possible.

Yeah, but I'm saying the game is taking much of it's inspiration from medieval soldiers.  Though doing what the inquisitor is doing, we shouldn't be wearing full plate either.  We're walking long distances over rough terrain in all sorts of weather, you do not do that in full plate.   So either way for what we are doing, it's not proper attire, so I think if we're running around the countryside in fullplate we might as well go the whole way with where it comes from.

[Ieldra]

Yeah, but I'm saying the game is taking much of it's inspiration from medieval soldiers.  Though doing what the inquisitor is doing, we shouldn't be wearing full plate either.  We're walking long distances over rough terrain in all sorts of weather, you do not do that in full plate.   So either way for what we are doing, it's not proper attire, so I think if we're running around the countryside in fullplate we might as well go the whole way with where it comes from.

I'm seeing much more late Renaissance stuff than medieval. Also, taking Inspiration doesn't mean copying, and most importantly, that you take one element from a historic period has no bearing on the desirability of taking another one. "Fantasy is medieval" is a false meme that has already stifled so much creativity that I get seriously annoyed when confronted with it. Ideally, a fantasy world should have its own unique style, and I think DAI doesn't do too badly in that regard (I have the artbook and can attest to this).  

 

That we unrealistically run around in plate armor has no bearing on whether we should be able to run around unrealistically in bright colors, and vice versa. I don't mind either, but they are separate, and as I said, adding more artistic license is always problematic.

[Puppy Love]

Still double posting.... wth

[Puppy Love]

I'm seeing much more late Renaissance stuff than medieval. Also, taking Inspiration doesn't mean copying, and most importantly, that you take one element from a historic period has no bearing on the desirability of taking another one. "Fantasy is medieval" is a false meme that has already stifled so much creativity that I get seriously annoyed when confronted with it. Ideally, a fantasy world should have its own unique style, and I think DAI doesn't do too badly in that regard (I have the artbook and can attest to this).  

 

That we unrealistically run around in plate armor has no bearing on whether we should be able to run around unrealistically in bright colors, and vice versa. I don't mind either, but they are separate, and as I said, adding more artistic license is always problematic.

Sure but I also like to point out that most of dragon age's armor has been Fereldan inspired in Origins, and Kirkwall had a bit different art then Fereldan, now we're putting Orlais into the mix.  I fear that a lot of people are attached to Fereldan armor styles and expecting the rest of the setting to follow suit, with some insisting on it.  In setting Fereldan is often made fun of for it's muted colors and blandness.  This insinuates that the rest of the world is not quite so drab, muted and boring as Fereldan, and thus Fereldan inspired armors.  So let's not restrict ourselves based on mostly Fereldan inspired armors and outfits.

 

A reason why it's relevant is that you're arbitrary choosing to comment on the realism of color while simultaneously arbitrarily ignoring the non realism of using full plate as adventuring armor for the exact same reasons.  Meaning wrong place and time.  Yes they are separate, but both are equal in their lack of realism, and both are subtle things to the overall theme of this that ignoring one while targeting the other seems silly.  Stick to the real issues like skimpy armor that doesn't protect, not minor flairs and colors used to add variety and style, and has plenty of real life examples.

 

The main issue with armor is that it looks good in setting, fits the setting, and gives the impression of doing it's job.  Beyond that, let's let the developers draw their inspiration from whatever culture they like and not force weird arbitrary restrictions on them unless we're willing to not be hypocrites while doing so.  Arguing everyone's armor should have the muted color palette of Fereldan is as silly as arguing no one should wear full plate.

 

Ultimate point is, people keep saying Dragon Age has an art style in it's armor already, when it also has multiple cultures, some we've barely seen, and references to the examples we've seen not being shared by the rest of Thedus, and specifically the muted colors of Fereldan has been mentioned as a part of that difference, several times, to the point of practically being a running gag.

[Ieldra]

@Puppy Love:

I've been using the bright colors as example in my list of things that can be unrealistic in combat outfits. The context was by no means intended to be a complete list, which means than your counterpoint, while true, is irrelevant. Also, this was done to illustrate the "realism" side of the debate, in no way did I imply that I find the armors we've seen in DAI videos too bright and colorful (In fact, I have a bigger problem with the brightly colored environment). From a pure realism viewpoint, they may be, but perhaps you didn't notice that I did not argue in favor of that viewpoint. My whole point was about the *limit* of artistic license if the story wants to be taken seriously, not the fact that it's present at all. And illustrative of that limit is exactly that bright colors on combat outfits, while still falling under artistic license in most situations we find ourselves in, are acceptable while revealing armors are not.

[Puppy Love]

@Puppy Love:

I've been using the bright colors as example in my list of things that can be unrealistic in combat outfits. The context was by no means intended to be a complete list, which means than your counterpoint, while true, is irrelevant. Also, this was done to illustrate the "realism" side of the debate, in no way did I imply that I find the armors we've seen in DAI videos too bright and colorful (In fact, I have a bigger problem with the brightly colored environment). From a pure realism viewpoint, they may be, but perhaps you didn't notice that I did not argue in favor of that viewpoint. My whole point was about the *limit* of artistic license if the story wants to be taken seriously, not the fact that it's present at all. And illustrative of that limit is exactly that bright colors on combat outfits, while still falling under artistic license in most situations we find ourselves in, are acceptable while revealing armors are not.

That I can agree with.  As for the brightly colored environment, not sure what you mean.