2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

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.

And I already pointed out that in-world realism means plausible according to the fictional world's rules. Magic and dragons are by definition plausible because they're part of the premise of the world, thus we don't complain about them unless they violate the world's own lore. Skimpy armor, however, is as stupid on Thedas as it would be on present-day Earth.

[Heimdall]

When did I say I dismissed them? I'm for hot, so I dismiss women who don't strut around in highly sexualized outfit. So many guilt trips and false implciations. It's truly pathetic to watch at this point.

You have repeatedly and summarily described women that prefer non-sexualized attire as prudes, as if that is the only explanation for wanting to wear practical outfits and not prioritizing sex. You really don't see how narrow minded that is?

[xkg]

Hello everyone. I see the circus started early today.

 

I just hope this thread won't get jailed very soon with

 

"And we're done here. Too political"

 

Mind that, all of you, when fighing Kefka.

 

Anyway, carry on.

[Seraphim24]

You don't see how insane it is to care about whether the armor works against a freaking flying magic dragon that breathes fire in a game designed to entertain? Or you don't care how insane it is to create a world with a bunch of premises that aren't actually very fun or interesting, which one do you guys want to stick with exactly? I'm sticking with short material for realism arguments.

 

I mean really, a golden opportunity to create the world to be truly anything, and we're sticking with this and that.

 

You have repeatedly and summarily described women that prefer non-sexualized attire as prudes, as if that is the only explanation for wanting to wear practical outfits and not prioritizing sex. You really don't see how narrow minded that is?

 

I think I just find it extremely odd that a person's fantasy would not involve sex or a cute outfit, what exactly are they fantasizing about?

 

I'm not surprised when a girl is wearing a lot of clothes for winter in reality, I am very surprised when a girl, in her spare time, and given the opportunity to create and do everything, decides to then also have everything be like reality again. That seems odd. I don't mean she should pine over some bland Hollywood man or whatever, but the complete absence of sexual interest is just that, odd.

 

It's like no ones going to judge you for being inconsistent there, it's just a video game. Maybe the problem is just creating an inspiring sexually attractive man, who is keen on superficial aspects but can also fight and be complicated or whatever. Heck if I know.

[GrinningRogue]

^ Does that mean he's always been like this?

 

(whoops, posted to late, up arrow misfires)

[grumpymooselion]

True realism and practicality come from the realizaton that people are varied, non-constants with differing views and actions. How we keep our bodies, what we wear, the armor we create, if any, these things have gone through countless forms over the thousands of years of recorded Human civilization, in each time period there is no one thing we do, as each culture, sub-culture, religion, spirituality, lackthereof and more all weghed in.

 

This continues today. Body types, hair styles, clothing types, even the gear we wear to war has no constant. One countries military wear is all the best, while a rag tag group of rebels elsewhere wears whatever they happen to have. In clothing some people are practical, while others are impractical. Some dress themselves in ornate things, while others go more plain. Some are very conservative, while others go very skimpy. Some love to go over the top, while others like things more typical or average. Some like bright colors, others dark colors and so on and so forth until the end of time, every extreme I didn't point out . . . and then join all those extremes with the fact that there are countless things in between all of them. All at once. All existing at once.

 

Variety is the spice of life. The things that I do not like still belong, regardless of whether I like them, don't like them, or any thoughts I have on them. All things belong, because all things are - we're Human. We don't have a history of everyone agreeing, or everyone doing or wearing one thing, nor even fighting in just one way in a given time frame. Right alongside World War 1 there was a person who existed elsewhere, in the same exact timeframe running around and hunting with handmade tolls and wear not but a loincloth. It's easy to forget, living in a modern society, like the U.S., or other first world countries, that all manner of technology levels still exist around this sad little world. People that wore no underwear, left their thights bare, but protected their feet, shins, torso and head, while wielding melee weaponry, shields and javelins existed at the same time as a people that ran into battle completely nude.

 

All manner of ideas of modesty, or lack thereof, and things in between, exist right now, and in the past. Not just from culture to culture, but within as well.

 

Variety. That's realism. Understanding that other people don't always do what is practical, is a practical thing to grasp. The word variety is important. It suggests not one thing, but many things, all the things, because otherwise people think you're supporting one side, another or any other, when you're giving a moderate viewpoint that suggests all the people arguing an extreme exist at once, as well as the people that don't argue at all, and don't fall to extremes.

 

All the things can exist at once, because all the things do exist at once, and they always have. They always will.

[Almostfaceman]

You don't see how insane it is to care about whether the armor works against a freaking flying magic dragon that breathes fire in a game designed to entertain? Or you don't care how insane it is to create a world with a bunch of premises that aren't actually very fun or interesting. I'm sticking with short material for realism arguments.

 

I think it's a little insane that folks with a different opinion than yours have to be classified by you as insane. 

[Seraphim24]

There are a bazillion other very pressing matters in the world, and so I find becoming this nerded out by the content of a video game somewhat surprising. 

 

You know, differences will always pull out prejudices and requirements. Perhaps most of the history of the eastern civilizations was filled with women who wanted to escape the role of devoted wife etc, but really as far as I can tell most of the history of western civilization is the opposite.

 

Which brings me back to the other point, it's fine that women don't to be that way, or whatever, but why is there always this whiplash against the people who do want to be that way. Great, Cassandra can dress extremely conservative and be a soldier and so on. But hey, you know some girls or whatever still want to be the hot mage in the back that easily gets distracted by sex or something, just like "women always did" or whatever according to you.

 

Variety. That's realism. Understanding that other people don't always do what is practical, is a practical thing to grasp. The word variety is important. It suggests not one thing, but many things, all the things, because otherwise people think you're supporting one side, another or any other, when you're giving a moderate viewpoint that suggests all the people arguing an extreme exist at once, as well as the people that don't argue at all, and don't fall to extremes.

 

All the things can exist at once, because all the things do exist at once, and they always have. They always will.

 

Wow, your so right, and that's exactly why I have a problem with DA:I and many of the fans here, because as far as I can tell, they uniformly desire prudishness and conservative outfits. Wow, my point exactly. Holy god.

[Heimdall]

You don't see how insane it is to care about whether the armor works against a freaking flying magic dragon that breathes fire in a game designed to entertain? Or you don't care how insane it is to create a world with a bunch of premises that aren't actually very fun or interesting, which one do you guys want to stick with exactly? I'm sticking with short material for realism arguments.
 
I mean really, a golden opportunity to create the world to be truly anything, and we're sticking with this and that.

So wanting a fantasy world grounded in practical concerns is tantamount to insanity? Or is it insane because it doesn't jive with what you find "fun or interesting"? Because we find it both fun and interesting.
 

 

I think I just find it extremely odd that a person's fantasy would not involve sex or a cute outfit, what exactly are they fantasizing about?
 
I'm not surprised when a girl is wearing a lot of clothes for winter in reality, I am very surprised when a girl, in her spare time, and given the opportunity to create and do everything, decides to then also have everything be like reality again. That seems odd. I don't mean she should pine over some bland Hollywood man or whatever, but the complete absence of sexual interest is just that, odd.
 
It's like no ones going to judge you for being inconsistent there, it's just a video game. Maybe the problem is just creating an inspiring sexually attractive man, who is keen on superficial aspects but can also fight and be complicated or whatever. Heck if I know.

Maybe some people just have interests that don't revolve around sex? You know, maybe? I started playing RPGs as a break from mundane day to day life, go on fantastic journeys and explore interesting worlds. The focus of that interest has never been on sex. That doesn't mean I'm a eunuch, I just have other priorities.

[Seraphim24]

So wanting a fantasy world grounded in practical concerns is tantamount to insanity? Or is it insane because it doesn't jive with what you find "fun or interesting"? Because we find it both fun and interesting.

 

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

[Ieldra]

Wow, your so right, and that's exactly why I have a problem with DA:I and many of the fans here, because as far as I can tell, they uniformly desire prudishness and conservative outfits. Wow, my point exactly. Holy god.

You trolling again? Because people have repeatedly said they aren't against sexy outfits in principle, but in situations where it would be outright stupid to wear something revealing if there are alternatives that actually protect.

As for people not always being practical, well yes, in reality, for extremes like wearing something skimpy into battle you'd get the Darwin Award. Games could simulate this by a nonstandard game-over.

[Ieldra]

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

In combat? Yes. Most emphatically yes. There is no more practical attitude than giving priority to protecting your life.

I repeat: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMBAT OUTFITS!!!!!!!!!!

[Seraphim24]

I'm probably going to disappear for awhile so I'll just say this.

 

I don't like the notion of people not getting to play what they want, I don't like the idea that people who don't care about clothes or sex or believe hardily in the value of realism shouldn't be able to have that, fundamentally.

 

However, I despise the notion that actively caring or being interested in those kinds of things is bad in any way, or just plain titillation, or some other hodpodge of things. Or frankly, just lesser in any way. Whether it's good or bad is going to depend on the context and a whole host of other things that are not inherently based on sex appeal generally.

 

If you guys just want to back away and play the subjective card over and over or the realism card over and over I've stated how I feel countless times, and that will never really resolve it seems. However, that also means never ever having a basis to criticize the people that do like games that emphasize more of that kind of thing for that reason though, ever. Because hey we're all different, I seriously doubt most people would follow through with that though.

 

 

In combat? Yes. Most emphatically yes. There is no more practical attitude than giving priority to protecting your life.

I repeat: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMBAT OUTFITS!!!!!!!!!!

 

But like why are these fantasies so freaking combat heavy all the time? I seriously can remember being like 10 or 11, thinking about an awesome video game. They're fighting yeah, but they also look good. They weren't actually necessarily revealing/skin showing, but I remember a knight type character who wasn't really wearing armor. That's my fantasy, because yeah it's fun.

[The Elder King]

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

Some people freak out over what to wear.

[Heimdall]

And it doesn't mean you don't have other priorities? That's all this is, not so complicated. Maybe I like fantastic journeys with interesting worlds, that don't really seem to focus on sex, but then also suddenly focus on sex?

I don't care what you like, Kefka. I care that in the past few pages alone you've managed to equate other people's desires with insanity for demanding a degree of practical believability, described strong female characters as repressessed and prudish for wearing actual armor, excused objectification, and then try to make yourself out as a champion of "women's liberty" even as you lash out and call everyone else puritans for disagreeing with you.

Honestly the most dangerous thing I've seen for "women's liberty" in this thread is you.

[xkg]

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

 
Not all of them, probably. I know I don't. I always wear what i find comfortable.
 
i.e. Shoes. Adidas ? Nike ? nah, Im wearing Shaolin shoes all the times (not in winter ofc) Because i find them light and very comfortable. Much more than all those overpriced brand shoes.
 

Spoiler

 
But I am not going to instruct other people about that, everyone can wear whatever they want.

[PhroXenGold]

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

 

It depends entirely on the situation as to how important sex appeal is. If you going to a bar with the intention of picking up a <person of whichever sex you desire> yes, sex appeal is a major factor. If you're going to a job interview (for something other than "stripper"), then it's not - looking smart and professional is far more important. If you turn up to an interview to become an accountant dressed in a glorified bikini, you ain't getting the job, not matter how sexy you are. If you're going on a trek to the North Pole, sex appeal is irrelevant as to your outfit, what matters is keeping you warm and being comfortable to wear when walking for long periods of time in an adverse environment. Try wearing sexy clothes and you'll end up dead of hypothermia. Likewise, when going into battle, sex appeal is a long long way down the list of what's important. Protection, ease of mobility and comfort are what matters. Not flashing as much flesh as possible

[grumpymooselion]

Maybe some people just have interests that don't revolve around sex? You know, maybe? I started playing RPGs as a break from mundane day to day life, go on fantastic journeys and explore interesting worlds. The focus of that interest has never been on sex. That doesn't mean I'm a eunuch, I just have other priorities.

One might note that some people just have interest that don't revolve around sex, that some people do, that some people are indifferent to either side, and that various people find levels of interest between the two. These things exist in a real world grounded in real, practical concerns - more improtantly, these things all exist at once, along with countless other things.
 
When creating a real and practical world, even a fantasy world, one might ask, "What should be there?" And the answer isn't so simple as, "only this or that" because there is not only this or that in an actual real and practical world, because the world is full of impractical things, and escapes from its realism.

This isn't to take a side, it's to point out that all the sides exists, as well as the moderates, the in betweens and the indifferent in a reality. That person that's impractical exists right alongside the one that is very practical. The silly alongside the straight faced. The deadpan alongside the laughing loon. The ornate and decorative alongside the plain and simple. The skimpy alongside the covered and conservative. The rebel alongside the person that abides by the letter of the law.

No one thing should be all there is in a work trying for realism, because there is no one thing that's all there is in reality. These variations and contrasts - our differences - exist whether we think they should, or not, whether they're practical, or not, amd whether we like them, or not. More importantly, the extreme of an arguement too often list a side or two, as seen above, and forget all the things in between, the moderate and indifferent. The person that mostly covers, but shows just a little, alongside the one that covers all, the one that covers barely a thing at all, the one in old dirty rags, the one that didn't even think about what they put on and the one in pretty typical clothes of their culture and era . . . all of them exist, and may even exist within something as small as a single neighborhood.

We're salt, spice, we lend variety because we are varied. At war or at play, we cannot agree, throughout history, and from place to place, we're different in all we say, do, wear and think. Even in the same time, but in different places, we can arm ourselves very differently, and we don't even have magic and enchantment to mix up what is, or is not, practical for us.

[Seraphim24]

I don't care what you like, Kefka. I care that in the past few pages alone you've managed to equate other people's desires with insanity for demanding a degree of practical believability, described strong female characters as repressessed and prudish for wearing actual armor, excused objectification, and then try to make yourself out as a champion of "women's liberty" even as you lash out and call everyone else puritans for disagreeing with you.

Honestly the most dangerous thing I've seen for "women's liberty" in this thread is you.

 

If you don't care what I like you wouldn't bring "women's liberty" (which may necessarily affect in some ways the things I do like) into this at all.

 

But you did, so you lied.

 

I already said, I do like (well hopefully) Bayonetta 2, but there's just some random "liberator" who goes ew Bayonetta is too sexualized and blah blah blah blah. So I find not discussing these kinds of issues to not simply be us going our own way.

[Heimdall]

Is there a more practical concern than sex appeal? I mean really, this is not a practical concern for people? Do people not freak out over what to wear and all that all the time?

When going into a life-threatening battle? Yes.

I never freak about about what I wear. I aim for comfort.

[Seraphim24]

Hey maybe plain looking clothes are attractive, there's actually considerable latitude for that kind of discussion but no one seems interested in having it for the most part.

[The Elder King]

I'm probably going to disappear for awhile so I'll just say this.
 
I don't like the notion of people not getting to play what they want, I don't like the idea that people who don't care about clothes or sex or believe hardily in the value of realism shouldn't be able to have that, fundamentally.
 
However, I despise the notion that actively caring or being interested in those kinds of things is bad in any way, or just plain titillation, or some other hodpodge of things. Or frankly, just lesser in any way. Whether it's good or bad is going to depend on the context and a whole host of other things that are not inherently based on sex appeal generally.
 
If you guys just want to back away and play the subjective card over and over or the realism card over and over I've stated how I feel countless times, and that will never really resolve it seems. However, that also means never ever having a basis to criticize the people that do like games that emphasize more of that kind of thing for that reason though, ever. Because hey we're all different, I seriously doubt most people would follow through with that though.
 
 

 
But like why are these fantasies so freaking combat heavy all the time? I seriously can remember being like 10 or 11, thinking about an awesome video game. They're fighting yeah, but they also look good. They weren't actually necessarily revealing/skin showing, but I remember a knight type character who wasn't really wearing armor. That's my fantasy, because yeah it's fun.

'Playing the subjective card' isn't backing away. People like different foods, different drinks. They like some sports, some animals (or no sport or animals). They have different standards on what They find attractive (Some people prefer amuscolar man or a curvier woman, or the opposite). People have different standards and tastes, on outfits as well.
Of course, you can criticize them, or debate about their tastes. Not by saying that they're objectively wrong though. The opposite is True as well, They can't say you're objectively wrong.

[Heimdall]

If you don't care what I like you wouldn't bring "women's liberty" (which may necessarily affect in some ways the things I do like) into this at all.
 
But you did, so you lied.
 
I already said, I do like (well hopefully) Bayonetta 2, but there's just some random liberator who goes ew Bayonetta is too sexualized and blah blah blah blah. So I find not discussing these kinds of issues to not simply be us going our own way.

You brought that up, not I. I enjoyed Bayonetta, but that's a consciously absurd setting. You on the other hand seem to have trouble accepting the idea of fantasies that don't prominently feature sex appeal.

[Seraphim24]

Oh come on you just said I was the biggest threat to women's liberty, that implies you think what I think is bad for some other inherently global cause/situation. In our discussion I may have started the idea, but in this thread it was present long before then.

 

My innocent desire for a cute outfit is a threat to women's liberty? How crazy is that?

 

'Playing the subjective card' isn't backing away. People like different foods, different drinks. They like some sports, some animals (or no sport or animals). They have different standards on what They find attractive (Some people prefer amuscolar man or a curvier woman, or the opposite). People have different standards and tastes, on outfits as well.
Of course, you can criticize them, or debate about their tastes. Not by saying that they're objectively wrong though. The opposite is True as well, They can't say you're objectively wrong.

 

Some people have uniform standards and tastes. Some people as a "subjective" expression of their personality prefer to lump everything together into objective tastes and interests. What do you think of that?

 

An insistence on subjectivity and openness is a bias just like any other, ultimately.

 

However I'm tired and I'd rather just get the impression people aren't going to bother my games or ideas so much if people just really want to create their world and have it their way.

 

That venom still bleeds from (most, not all) every other page and sentence though.

[PhroXenGold]

Oh come on you just said I was the biggest threat to women's liberty, that implies you think what I think is bad for some other inherently global cause/situation. In our discussion I may have started the idea, but in this thread it was present long before then.

 

My innocent desire for a cute outfit is a threat to women's liberty? How crazy is that?

 

To be fair, he said that of the people in this thread you were the greatest threat to womens liberty. And I can understand that. You have been actively promoting the objectification of women as sex objects and criticising any depiction of women as anything else. From what you've posted you're opinion comes across along the lines of: "Hot woman in bikini? WOOHOO!! Woman with the intelligence to wear armour into battle? STOP OPPRESSING MY FREEDOM TO LOOK AT BREASTS"