2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

This. "Sexualised" women in games are primarily designed by men for men, with the aim of titilating them. Nothing more.

 

I've raised this point several times yet strangely it keeps getting ignored...

 

This is silly to me. Ok, so most games with sexualized women have been designed by men for men. So does that automatically mean every game that has sexualized women is designed by men for men? No, it doesn't.

 

Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation. You say this like it is such a bad thing, but I'm quite sure there are many men and women dying to titillate at the opposing gender (well or same gender, both genders.... whatever). You can make a game where women (well and men) are free to 'be what they want' as you have been saying, and that should also mean they should be free to become as sexually empowered and attractive as they want to be, otherwise you are just trading one kind of repression for another.

 

Gamersgate is the most insanely bad thing in the universe, and many of the games those people play also are terrible, but lets not make sex and sexuality the enemy here. Sex, sexuality, attractive outfits are all awesome things that need great attention and interest, it's sexism and gender-discrepancy issues that need to go.

 

Treating an interest in every display of cleavage or whatever as inherently bound up in a pile of misbegotten male entitlement and sexism is no less discriminatory than that misbegotten male entitlement and sexism. Sexual and carnal desire is just that, it exists in a massive number of people for all kinds of good and positive reasons, displaying it or bringing it up shouldn't automatically trigger the taint of power struggles, lest I start prying into your own personal sexual histories to discern what has caused this association.

 

Perhaps that's because most people wouldn't see what you desire as an improvement. If I want "revealing" - and I'm not saying I don't ever want it - I pass the armor stand by because "revealing" and "armor" is a contradiction in terms. BTW, do you have an answer to that statement? I have yet to see anyone successfully countering it over the years.

 

Yes I already had stated as the person below said that it simply doesn't bother me in a fantasy video game where fantasy has just as much claim to reality. It's just like the armor in Kingdoms of Amalur, so what? I don't register it as mattering because there are already elves, and dragons, and explosions. A lot of this started out when I thought it was odd that people focused on the thing that also happened to be sexual as unrealistic, when almost an infinite number of things are unrealistic already. The fact that people don't argue over explosions or super-human violent capabilities seems to indicate that their audience cares more about liberating violence than sex.

 

Every other attempt to justify just looked even more convoluted than the last attempt, so I just gave up, we're never really going to see eye to eye on that. When people started saying it's that the DA world must be internally consistent and armor matters in that world I said while why couldn't the DA world simply be made for armor not to really matter? It just kept going in circles so I'm not bothering anymore.

 

As to what games to play, well if you are like Remmirath and hurl at the thought of playing those games with that kind of style at all it's not going to work. It's more if you want to play games that reflect a sense of reality and the greater universe while also being very silly and enjoyable. I think Star Ocean 4 is a decent recent example, you even have things like playing matchmaker with characters and potentially seeing their relationships, much like a DA game.

 

I agree the gameplay is often very screwy, however some are better than others. I know one person that can only play the likes of Mirror's Edge or FPS with super-silky gameplay such that I know I can't get him to play any JRPGs for the most part. If for some crazy reason you haven't played Suikoden 2 that's a pretty solid one to try out... really old but probably somewhat cheap as a consequence. It's based on some kind of ancient Chinese mythology or something, it's as spectacular a blend of realism and fluff as there is anywhere. I hesitate to mention it because of the explosion of opinions on it but FF7 really is also something fun in this respect.

[AzureAardvark]

also women don't have to go toe to toe with the weight of armor just to prove they can be equal. there could be different designs with different materials more focus on speed as a fighting style etc....

 

The same job is the same job; the equipment will be similar.

 

Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

Unless you're talking fantasy tropes; I enjoy 'light and fast is equal to heavy', but the reality is the 'light and fast' also has to be 'significantly more skilled' as well, all other things being equal.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation. You say this like it is such a bad thing, but I'm quite sure there are many men and women dying to titillate at the opposing gender (well or same gender, both genders.... whatever). You can make a game where women (well and men) are free to 'be what they want' as you have been saying, and that should also mean they should be free to become as sexually empowered and attractive as they want to be, otherwise you are just trading one kind of repression for another.

This is legit. Sexual equality does not mean asexuality for all.

[tmp7704]

(..) The prospect of acting in the 85 pound (38.5 kilogram) suit for five months was a little too much for The Devil Wears Prada star and when Cruise asked her how she felt, she broke down. (..)
 
This is what sometimes happens when real women have to wear a real heavy armour.

With the caveat that the "real heavy armour", i.e. actual medieval period plate as opposed to Hollywood sci-fi make-believe... weighted around half of what the actress was made to wear for the movie (15-25 kg) As such this story tells very little about what happens when real women have to wear a real heavy armour.

Also worth noting Emily Blunt allegedly weights 52 kgs. That means she had to carry around 3/4th of her own weight. For Tom Cruise to match that, his "armour" would need to weight 50 kgs or so. Which i doubt it did, given these two are of the same height so the volumes involved aren't that different.

[AresKeith]

This rogue armor looks awesome

 

[eyezonlyii]

This is silly to me. Ok, so most games with sexualized women have been designed by men for men. So does that automatically mean every game that has sexualized women is designed by men for men? No, it doesn't.

 

Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation. You say this like it is such a bad thing, but I'm quite sure there are many men and women dying to titillate at the opposing gender (well or same gender, both genders.... whatever). You can make a game where women (well and men) are free to 'be what they want' as you have been saying, and that should also mean they should be free to become as sexually empowered and attractive as they want to be, otherwise you are just trading one kind of repression for another.

 

Treating an interest in every display of cleavage or whatever as inherently bound up in a pile of misbegotten male entitlement and sexism is no less discriminatory than that misbegotten male entitlement and sexism. Sexual and carnal desire is just that, it exists in a massive number of people for all kinds of good and positive reasons, displaying it or bringing it up shouldn't automatically trigger the taint of power struggles, lest I start prying into your own personal sexual histories to discern what has caused this association.

The problem though is that for the most part and until relatively recently, the vast majority of women in a game were only there for the titillation of the straight male audience, without the equivalent numbers of titillating characters for the straight female audience. And while titillation in and of itself is not a bad thing, most characters portrayed as such don't have the agency you yourself have said you look for in a female character to count as a character. Their sole purpose in games was to be an object (hence "objectification") for the male protagonist and antagonist to conquer/corrupt/capture/rescue. They themselves offer no avenue into the story.

 

And that is the problem. I see it as akin to the issue of minority characters in games: Sure they're there, but there's only ever one type, e.g., the big black "thug" dude, the Asian waif (male or female),  or the "mystical" [indigenous person]. These are contrasted by the fact that a white male protagonist (and antagonist) can be and are depicted in multiple ways with varying nuances. 

 

And the justifications for the armor are only convoluted to you because the more we discuss them, the less you listen. Every point gets somehow twisted into an attack on you, or the art style you like or even sexuality in general and it is beyond aggravating, especially because you have multiple women in the thread telling you the same things, you have people who admit to liking sexy things in other parts of their lives, and yet because we don't want sexy armor in this game, we're puritanical tyrants who should all join the Chantry. 

[Heimdall]

This is silly to me. Ok, so most games with sexualized women have been designed by men for men. So does that automatically mean every game that has sexualized women is designed by men for men? No, it doesn't.
 
Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation. You say this like it is such a bad thing, but I'm quite sure there are many men and women dying to titillate at the opposing gender (well or same gender, both genders.... whatever). You can make a game where women (well and men) are free to 'be what they want' as you have been saying, and that should also mean they should be free to become as sexually empowered and attractive as they want to be, otherwise you are just trading one kind of repression for another.
 
Gamersgate is the most insanely bad thing in the universe, and many of the games those people play also are terrible, but lets not make sex and sexuality the enemy here. Sex, sexuality, attractive outfits are all awesome things that need great attention and interest, it's sexism and gender-discrepancy issues that need to go.
 
Treating an interest in every display of cleavage or whatever as inherently bound up in a pile of misbegotten male entitlement and sexism is no less discriminatory than that misbegotten male entitlement and sexism.

I've not seen anyone here say sexuality is an undesirable quality in female/male characters. Provided it fits the character and the setting, provocative outfits are fine. Don't pretend however that the oversexualization of female characters hasn't been a problem. It isn't that sex is bad, the issue is usually whether a character exists to be titillation or the character happens to be titillating.
 

Yes I already had stated as the person below said that it simply doesn't bother me in a fantasy video game where fantasy has just as much claim to reality. It's just like the armor in Kingdoms of Amalur, so what? I don't register it as mattering because there are already elves, and dragons, and explosions. A lot of this started out when I thought it was odd that people focused on the thing that also happened to be sexual as unrealistic, when almost an infinite number of things are unrealistic already. The fact that people don't argue over explosions or super-human violent capabilities seems to indicate that their audience cares more about liberating violence than sex.

They focus on things like the supersexual armor, not because they hate sexuality, but because its impractical for anyone dealing with all those elves, dragons, and explosions to be fighting half naked. They accept those fantastical elements as additions to a world not entirely unlike our own, but they expect those living in it to interact with those fantastical elements in a way that makes sense to them rather than a way that comes off as a blatant attempt to titillate the audience and little else.

 

Put another way, people saying its "unrealistic" mean "No rational person would go into battle wearing that, it makes no sense"  It's one thing to accept that there are creatures and magic in a world, another to accept that a bikini will protect someone from a broadsword.

I play some JRPGs, I find their fondness for flashy costuming endearing actually but its a different taste.  Not superior, just different.  I prefer some settings to be more grounded in practical reality.

[Heimdall]

And that is the problem. I see it as akin to the issue of minority characters in games: Sure they're there, but there's only ever one type, e.g., the big black "thug" dude, the Asian waif (male or female),  or the "mystical" [indigenous person]. These are contrasted by the fact that a white male protagonist (and antagonist) can be and are depicted in multiple ways with varying nuances. 

I just wanted to say that those white male protagonists don't actually vary that much.  About 90% of them fall into the same muscled "dudebro" category, with the occasional dash of intelligence and almost all of them with a troubled past.

[GrinningRogue]

Kefka, imagine the sexiest man you can, half naked, and use briefs instead of boxers. Imagine what ever cloth (or armor) he has is altered to accentuate his chiseled muscles: abs, chest, arm, thighs and maybe ass. Any additional covering will serve the same purpose, to accentuate how sexy his body is, not to protect him.

 

Now, imagine a fantasy world where the men are all like that and the women dress like Hilde from Soul Calibur (reality aside, cos hey, this is fantasy). For added amusement, imagine the men walk in a very sexy way that make girls swoon and the women walk like pedestrians on the streets. Add that the men are completely clean (no mud, Spartacus is dirty) and completely handsome.

 

Now imagine most games are like that. If people don't start complaining how ridiculous it is, I think the world is broken.

 

I'd have no complaints if the 2 genders both wear ridiculously revealing armor: men dress spartacus/300 style, women dress JRPG style.

[SNascimento]

With the caveat that the "real heavy armour", i.e. actual medieval period plate as opposed to Hollywood sci-fi make-believe... weighted around half of what the actress was made to wear for the movie (15-25 kg) As such this story tells very little about what happens when real women have to wear a real heavy armour.

Also worth noting Emily Blunt allegedly weights 52 kgs. That means she had to carry around 3/4th of her own weight. For Tom Cruise to match that, his "armour" would need to weight 50 kgs or so. Which i doubt it did, given these two are of the same height so the volumes involved aren't that different.

Again, I think the first post about Emily Blunt and Edge of Tomorrow's armor is really misguiding people. She thought it was heavy, that's it. And then she followed to do 5 months of filming constantly wearing the 40kg suit. Running and jumping in sand. She did all the stunts that were required of her and it's all there in the film for anybody to see.
 

As I said, Emily Blunt only shows how women can wear heavy armor, especially medieval/ancient armors that were lighter than what she had to wear and do all the crazy things she did.

Btw, Tom Cruise's armors weighted 56kg. Part of Blunt's was digital in the beach scenes, so it was lighter. In other it was heavier, I think something between 45~50kg. 

[eyezonlyii]

I just wanted to say that those white male protagonists don't actually vary that much.  About 90% of them fall into the same muscled "dudebro" category, with the occasional dash of intelligence and almost all of them with a troubled past.

True. But at least there is variance in the brodudetic spectrum

[Star fury]

 

also women don't have to go toe to toe with the weight of armor just to prove they can be equal. there could be different designs with different materials more focus on speed as a fighting style etc....

Such as? Do armies provide different kevlar vests and different assault rifles(lighter?) for women? No, it's a standard equipment, unisex if you like.

 

 

With the caveat that the "real heavy armour", i.e. actual medieval period plate as opposed to Hollywood sci-fi make-believe... weighted around half of what the actress was made to wear for the movie (15-25 kg) As such this story tells very little about what happens when real women have to wear a real heavy armour.

Also worth noting Emily Blunt allegedly weights 52 kgs. That means she had to carry around 3/4th of her own weight. For Tom Cruise to match that, his "armour" would need to weight 50 kgs or so. Which i doubt it did, given these two are of the same height so the volumes involved aren't that different.

Yeah, modern soldiers carry even heavier load now.

 

According to a Naval Research Advisory Committee report, the average Marine carries 97 to 135 pounds(44 - 61 kilograms) in combat loads — far above the recommended weight of 50 pounds. The bulk of the weight carried is protective equipment.

 

http://www.marinecor...t-load-examined

[Heimdall]

True. But at least there is variance in the brodudetic spectrum

Can't deny that

[Eledran]

For me the most important thing is suspension of disbelief. I'm not some medieval warfare freak who will nitpick about any curves on plate armor, but I do want my hefty big tanky girl to be dressed in armor that at least looks like it can protect her.

 

For mages and rogues armors can go a bit crazier. But I'm generally not a fan of revealing armor for female characters. Not just because it can look ridiculous, but also because it usually looks like extremely lazy design (just a few strings of fabric or shoulderpads and the rest naked is just no-go for me).

 

The same goes for male characters really.

[Harshfacts]

Such as? Do armies provide different kevlar vests and different assault rifles(lighter?) for women? No, it's a standard equipment, unisex if you like.

 

 

 

besides skipping half the post that's not very on point i'm talking about a DA settings where your character doesn't necessary need to be bound by a strict regulation and you have a ton of customization and choices originating from different narrative background and personalities which in terms will reflect different clothes and suiting allowing you to wear different armours and robes providing you with extra agility, dexterity etc...  of course in modern day the majority of the equipment will be be the same and i don't think the entirety of the female gender will go "nope! Emily Blunt had problems wearing a heavy armor for shooting a movie and tom cruise didn't so there is clearly no way we are up for this job or will be able to wear or use any of the material that heavy! let's all leave it for men! they were clearly genetically designed for this job "

 

i do not support war or warfare though so idealistically I'll be happier if both genders don't even have to exercise or to face danger in any capacity but of course both genders can and it's ridiculous to imply that because the armour is heavy then just leave it for big brooding men to do the job 

[AzureAardvark]

She thought it was heavy

 

Because it was.

 

Five months of filming in that? For what, 8 to 12 hours a day (not that she was in the suit 24/7, but there are a *lot* of scenes in the suit)?

 

She must have come out of filming cut like nobodies business. o.O

 

I always assumed the handstand scene was cgi, but ... 

[PhroXenGold]

This is silly to me. Ok, so most games with sexualized women have been designed by men for men. So does that automatically mean every game that has sexualized women is designed by men for men? No, it doesn't.

 

Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation. You say this like it is such a bad thing, but I'm quite sure there are many men and women dying to titillate at the opposing gender (well or same gender, both genders.... whatever). You can make a game where women (well and men) are free to 'be what they want' as you have been saying, and that should also mean they should be free to become as sexually empowered and attractive as they want to be, otherwise you are just trading one kind of repression for another.

 

Gamersgate is the most insanely bad thing in the universe, and many of the games those people play also are terrible, but lets not make sex and sexuality the enemy here. Sex, sexuality, attractive outfits are all awesome things that need great attention and interest, it's sexism and gender-discrepancy issues that need to go.

 

Treating an interest in every display of cleavage or whatever as inherently bound up in a pile of misbegotten male entitlement and sexism is no less discriminatory than that misbegotten male entitlement and sexism. Sexual and carnal desire is just that, it exists in a massive number of people for all kinds of good and positive reasons, displaying it or bringing it up shouldn't automatically trigger the taint of power struggles, lest I start prying into your own personal sexual histories to discern what has caused this association.

 

As I've said before, I have no problem with titillation. If you want to look at scantily clad women, go for it. Hell, I like to, when it's appropriate (i.e. not in the middle of battle in a setting where the mechanics of fighting and armour are roughly the same as our own world...). My problem is when people try to present obvious fanservice as something more. When men - and it is almost inevitably men - claim that characters designed for titillation are "empowered" or "liberating". It's a pathetic attempt to justify the fact that you get turned on by them. If you're so proud of sexuality, just have the freakin' honesty to admit the truth - you want to look at scantily clad women in games because you get a boner from them. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly natural thing to do. Why are you hiding it behind a steaming pile of BS about empowerment?

 

And, because someone will inevitably jump on it, no, not every case of a woman being dressed in a skimpy outfit automatically exists for the pleasure of men. But in media such as video games (as well as things like comics and more typically male oriented films and TV shows), the vast majority are. That KoA screenshot you were so proud of a dozen or so pages back is such an obvious example. That outfit exists for no purpose other than to titillate male gamers. And it works. Hell, i find it attractive. Utterly inappropriate for anyone going into combat, but I'd love to see women wearing that kind of thing when going about their everyday lives. But they won't wear it. Because that outfit is clearly designed by a man who likes to look at scantily clad women.

 

Should women who wear revealing outfits be discriminated against? Hell no, they should be able to wear what they want. But the vast majority of women don't want to wear outfits like that, because the sole purpose of such an outfit is to objectify them and provide pleasure for men looking at it.

[Muspade]

Besides, I'd like to defend the honor of titillation.

Spoiler

[RevilFox]

This rogue armor looks awesome

 

I just want to point out how good this looks. I'm very happy with the rogue armor in this game if this is the style of it.

[AresKeith]

Spoiler

 

Final mark of being a troll?

[Kharn-ivor]

Mauls and axes (particularly the one handed sort) are criminally underutilized in movies anyway.

 

I will say it looked vaguely more like she was using that sword like a maul to me personally.

 

No as bad as Polearms and spears, swords where mostly side arms for most of human history people have gone to war with something sharp on a long stick ^^

 

 

It still depends on what you're fighting, the best example would be a golem, where the speed you're applying is concentrated into a smaller area, which would do less damage to the stone or metal, than, say a maul, where it could cause it to fracture.

I would have to disagree, chisels come to mind ^^

 

 

 

 

[eyezonlyii]

This rogue armor looks awesome

 

I just want to say that those are in no way daggers. I mean, they're about as long as the swords the warriors use.

[Voragoras]

Such as? Do armies provide different kevlar vests and different assault rifles(lighter?) for women? No, it's a standard equipment, unisex if you like.

 

Armour in the ancient days was either unfitting for everybody or custom built, and everybody who wore it was (most likely) trained to do so. There would be no problems unique to women when it comes to wearing armour.

[SNascimento]

Because it was.

 

Five months of filming in that? For what, 8 to 12 hours a day (not that she was in the suit 24/7, but there are a *lot* of scenes in the suit)?

 

She must have come out of filming cut like nobodies business. o.O

 

I always assumed the handstand scene was cgi, but ... 

Oh why, of course it was! People here are saying it was almost twice as heavy as some medieval armors. My point is that she managed to work with it.
 
I'm not sure how long she stayed in the suit, but Tom Cruise and her talked about how they tried to stay a lot of time in them so they get used to it. After a time it becomes much more berable. Not differently from what happens with real armors.

I don't understand your third sentence, sorry.

And what handstand scene? The ones in the training room? No, that was her. In longer takes they used wires to help her though. 

[AzureAardvark]

I don't understand your third sentence, sorry.

And what handstand scene? The ones in the training room? No, that was her. In longer takes they used wires to help her though. 

 

I meant, 'extremely buff and defined upon the completion of filming'.  And yeah, that scene.  Lotta strength right there, if she even did it for a brief period.