2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Kharn-ivor]

 

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.

Well you're just going to have to accept that it seems like the majority don't like what you like, that some of us prefer characters to be smart enough to think " mhh maybe armor would be good now". Also I don't want my knight to look sexy, I want him to look menacing.

But that first question is much more interesting, games do have a problem with the only world interaction being :kill

[grumpymooselion]

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.

That said, sex appeal has played into some elements of both DA:O and DA2, alongside all the other things, including combat armor, suggesting that the setting does have absurd elements, even if the entirety is not wholly absurd. Whether some consider this flaw, or perk, is up to the individual as far as I'm concerned. Noting that the absurdity exists, however, even without side, is all too easily taken as a side in and of itself. I'd rather not take one beyond noting that the absurd, and not absurd, have long been able to go hand in hand - while adding that, still, the good or bad of it is a perceptive issue, often based on the surrounding context.

[Seraphim24]

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"

 

See what I mean? This person clearly has no interest in simply saying subjective is subjective, I like this, you like that. It's people like you I have no respect for ultimately, which isn't necessarily some of the others here who have consistently just said they want a DA world for a DA game.

 

Funny how I mentioned venom and you posted the very next post.

 

You know, and I really do believe the rest of you people when you say you think DA would be ruined by these things, I do think you believe that. I believe you guys have thought about it and all that, I think it's a natural progression in terms of making a DA game to think about these kinds of things. I'm sure the DA developers thought long and hard about it.

 

I just think it's an irritating artificial barrier, and I don't think it's the correct path, ultimately. I think the reason it's so awkward to think about it is because you guys made it that way in the first place. Everyone is going oh well it has to realistic right? Everyone has to be fit and that is logic and so on and so on, but it seems remarkably little investment was made simply into what people instinctually want. Consequently, you end up with something everyone "agrees" on being good, because it makes "sense," but isn't necessarily what they "want."

 

What is it then that people are trying to protect? I'm not really sure, if I had to guess it would be that medievil centric focused games and settings are heavily focused on themes of political or martial power. I have no doubt that depriving people of this thematically would be highly irritating, but that's not inconsistent with including more sexual or fantastical themes in ways that break more entrenched senses of reality (combat skirt, whatever)

 

Why can't a political leader one day be a big fan of plush toys and wear a crazy colorful bow in her hair? See what I mean, we've been taught to treat these things as so vigorously separate I feel like inherent humanity is being diminished. Power is not separate from sex appeal and frilly issues or the other way around.

 

I wouldn't want a casual unmitigated eye candy game to substitute for themes of power and resonance. My avatar if you haven't noticed is from Zelda, which is a game that also focused on themes of power and stability and kingdoms, but it doesn't do so at the absolute sacrifice of pleasure or romance. There are some pretty crazily dressed people in Zelda games (such as the fairy), and Zelda isn't ready for combat at all times, but I don't find that distorts the overall message and meaning in the games. In fact, I think it enhances it by reflecting the dual interests in most people's lives.

 

People will still disagree with that I'm sure but hopefully that makes more sense.

[Ieldra]

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.

If you want your roleplaying games to be less combat-heavy, I'm all there with you. I actually despise this American attitude where it's acceptable to show someone being beheaded but gods help us if there's a nipple showing. That's unhealthy and, yes, puritan.

 

Also, light protection is perfectly ok. Metal armor is heavy after all. From my point of view, if you can rationalize an outfit as being at least practical enough in the situation, it's ok. Also, not wearing armor at all is sometimes a part of your culture, or maybe there are technology limitations. All that's perfectly ok.

 

The only point I and others have repeatedly been making is that outfits whose purpose is to protect can't also be revealing without appearing utterly nonsensical, and that reasonably rational people will as a rule wear something protective into combat if they have time to prepare and practical protection is available.

[PhroXenGold]

See what I mean? This person clearly has no interest in simply saying subjective is subjective, I like this, you like that. It's people like you I have no respect for ultimately, which isn't necessarily some of the others here who have consistently just said they want a DA world for a DA game.

 

Funny how I mentioned venom and you posted the very next post.

 

What?  No really, what? Of course things are subjective. I was pointing out how your posts appear to the rest of us. If that wasn't an accurate summation of your beliefs than you have completely failed to communicate those beliefs. From the posts in this thread, you appear to consider women in games as nothing more than sex objects, there to satisfy your desire for titillation and attack anyone who treats them differently, while at the same time claiming that you are "liberating sexuality".

[Seraphim24]

If you want your roleplaying games to be less combat-heavy, I'm all there with you. I actually despise this American attitude where it's acceptable to show someone being beheaded but gods help us if there's a nipple showing. That's unhealthy and, yes, puritan.

 

Also, light protection is perfectly ok. Metal armor is heavy after all. From my point of view, if you can rationalize an outfit as being at least practical enough in the situation, it's ok. Also, not wearing armor at all is sometimes a part of your culture, or maybe there are technology limitations. All that's perfectly ok.

 

The only point I and others have repeatedly been making is that outfits whose purpose is to protect can't also be revealing without appearing utterly nonsensical, and that reasonably rational people will as a rule wear something protective into combat if they have time to prepare and practical protection is available.

 

I would just refer to the above post which maybe wasn't up in time. Is Link diminished by the fact that he's wearing cloth against people wielding swords? These liberties are so commonplace.

 

But also I'm getting hungry so... yeah... not much else to say here.

[Ieldra]

I would just refer to the above post which maybe wasn't up in time. Is Link diminished by the fact that he's wearing cloth against people wielding swords? These liberties are so commonplace.

There is a difference between cloth vs. armor and cloth vs. exposed skin. Being lightly clothed can be an advantage in comparison with being armored, that's why not all cultures and all times made heavy use of armor. Exposing your skin, however, has no advantage compared to being covered, while adding significantly to the danger. Which means you can rationalize going into a swordfight unarmored much easier than going in with exposed skin.

[grumpymooselion]

There is a difference between cloth vs. armor and cloth vs. exposed skin. Being lightly clothed can be an advantage in comparison with being armored, that's why not all cultures and all times made heavy use of armor. Exposing your skin, however, has no advantage compared to being covered, while adding significantly to the danger. Which means you can rationalize going into a swordfight unarmored much easier than going in with exposed skin.

Armor is subjective. Armor that only protected the chest, head, forearms and shins that had bare feet, bare legs, a bare neck and otherwise. In a time where this armor was made, at the same time existed people that never wore clothing at all, hunting and fighting and living naked. At that same point, another that wore loinclothes, men and women, and little else but mud on skin and in hair. All of the noted things existed at the same time. Much later, even when armor existed that was fully covering, not everyone wore it within that same place, and places beyond had all manner of practical and impractical twists on armor. Along those did still exist cultures with lesser armor and no armor at all.

The cultures, their clashes, who won and lost are not worth debate here, it's the note that they existed at once, had varying levels of success and failure each, none without, and the particulars only get in the way of the point - impractility and practicality exist hand in hand, they ever have.

To put it in terms of a Fantasy Universe, an oft thought down to earth one, low fantasy as some might refer to it, the Dothraki in Game of Thrones exist alongside armored knights. There are advantages to both, and both are still a danger to one another depending on circumstance and tactics. This is a fantasy, however, and not reality, so the actual points may not match up with the fantastic, but points still worth noting in terms of the fantastic.

[Ieldra]

Armor is subjective. Armor that only protected the chest, head, forearms and shins that had bare feet, bare legs, a bare neck and otherwise. In a time where this armor was made, at the same time existed people that never wore clothing at all, hunting and fighting and living naked. At that same point, another that wore loinclothes, men and women, and little else but mud on skin and in hair. All of the noted things existed at the same time. Much later, even when armor existed that was fully covering, not everyone wore it within that same place, and places beyond had all manner of practical and impractical twists on armor. Along those did still exist cultures with lesser armor and no armor at all.

The cultures, their clashes, who won and lost are not worth debate here, it's the note that they existed at once, had varying levels of success and failure each, none without, and the particulars only get in the way of the point - impractility and practicality exist hand in hand, they ever have.

To put it in terms of a Fantasy Universe, an oft thought down to earth one, low fantasy as some might refer to it, the Dothraki in Game of Thrones exist alongside armored knights. There are advantages to both, and both are still a danger to one another depending on circumstance and tactics. This is a fantasy, however, and not reality, so the actual points may not match up with the fantastic, but points still worth noting in terms of the fantastic.

Yet again, there is a difference between going unarmored - be it because of culture, circumstances or technology - and wearing an outfit into combat that deliberately exposes your most vulnerable parts if that isn't part of some cultural practice showing how perfectly unconcerned you are about the possibility of death.

 

I challenge anyone to make a culture that features the kind of skimpy armors Kefka appears to like and which is not wide open to the accusation of sexism.

 

Edit

And actually, armor is NOT subjective. Your culture may eshew it or not as a rule, but if your culture features armor at all, then practical concerns rule which parts of your body will most likely get priority. Covering your torso but not your limbs is plausible, covering nothing at all or everything can also be plausible depending on circumstances. Covering the limbs but not the torso, however, immediately defeats the purpose. 

[Heimdall]

You know, and I really do believe the rest of you people when you say you think DA would be ruined by these things, I do think you believe that. I believe you guys have thought about it and all that, I think it's a natural progression in terms of making a DA game to think about these kinds of things. I'm sure the DA developers thought long and hard about it.
 
I just think it's an irritating artificial barrier, and I don't think it's the correct path, ultimately. I think the reason it's so awkward to think about it is because you guys made it that way in the first place. Everyone is going oh well it has to realistic right? Everyone has to be fit and that is logic and so on and so on, but it seems remarkably little investment was made simply into what people instinctually want. Consequently, you end up with something everyone "agrees" on being good, because it makes "sense," but isn't necessarily what they "want."

And you know what everyone wants better than they do, Hmm? People WANT a logically consistent world. People WANT female characters valued for more than sex appeal. People WANT a well told story in thematically serious world. That's why DA is popular, not because everyone secretly wants chainmail bikinis and giant bows their hair.
 

What is it then that people are trying to protect? I'm not really sure, if I had to guess it would be that medievil centric focused games and settings are heavily focused on themes of political or martial power. I have no doubt that depriving people of this thematically would be highly irritating, but that's not inconsistent with including more sexual or fantastical themes in ways that break more entrenched senses of reality (combat skirt, whatever)
 
Why can't a political leader one day be a big fan of plush toys and wear a crazy colorful bow in her hair? See what I mean, we've been taught to treat these things as so vigorously separate I feel like inherent humanity is being diminished. Power is not separate from sex appeal and frilly issues or the other way around.

They're trying to protect a setting built around characters that are interesting and do not require superficial sex appeal to be so, we don't want DA to regress into a teenage boy's fantasy land.

There's nothing stopping a character like that from existing in DA, so long as her exccenticities were sufficiently noted and commented upon. Nobody here would have a problem with it as long as she didn't run into battle wearing a bikini.
 

I wouldn't want a casual unmitigated eye candy game to substitute for themes of power and resonance. My avatar if you haven't noticed is from Zelda, which is a game that also focused on themes of power and stability and kingdoms, but it doesn't do so at the absolute sacrifice of pleasure or romance. There are some pretty crazily dressed people in Zelda games (such as the fairy), and Zelda isn't ready for combat at all times, but I don't find that distorts the overall message and meaning in the games. In fact, I think it enhances it by reflecting the dual interests in most people's lives.
 
People will still disagree with that I'm sure but hopefully that makes more sense.

I don't have a problem with Zelda's style, I have a problem with your idea that this style is "better". It's certainly different, but that's all.

[Heimdall]

In all fairness Kefka, if someone created a game with JRPG style aesthetics and character designs with the character customization and Roleplaying potention of a WRPG, I'd be thrilled. And I'd be fine with that because the setting would be built around that expectation from the beginning, not a sense of, ostensibly, practical realism like DA.

[Wulfram]

Yet again, there is a difference between going unarmored - be it because of culture, circumstances or technology - and wearing an outfit into combat that deliberately exposes your most vulnerable parts if that isn't part of some cultural practice showing how perfectly unconcerned you are about the possibility of death.

 

I challenge anyone to make a culture that features the kind of skimpy armors Kefka appears to like and which is not wide open to the accusation of sexism.

 

Edit

And actually, armor is NOT subjective. Your culture may eshew it or not as a rule, but if your culture features armor at all, then practical concerns rule which parts of your body will most likely get priority. Covering your torso but not your limbs is plausible, covering nothing at all or everything can also be plausible depending on circumstances. Covering the limbs but not the torso, however, immediately defeats the purpose. 

 

 

It doesn't seem to have been uncommon for gladiators to have sword-arm and leg protection while leaving the body unprotected aside from a shield.  Though that may have been for the sake of the show, I guess

[Heimdall]

 
It doesn't seem to have been uncommon for gladiators to have sword-arm and leg protection while leaving the body unprotected aside from a shield.  Though that may have been for the sake of the show, I guess

I'd say that was the case. Gladiator actually were suppose to look good as they fought. Rome certainly didn't equip its armies like that.

[Rykoth]

Comparing Zelda and DA is... well. Lame.

 

How about compare DA with the Witcher. Two somewhat realistic settings. Geralt doesn't wear plate. He wears leather. Want to know something else? Geralt can't take the same kind of hits that say, a heavy-armored warrior can take in DA. Why? Because he's wearing leather. They are both RPGs and both try for semi-realistic.

 

Zelda is about as realistic as a Saturday Morning Cartoon.

 

Zelda doesn't aim for realism. It's a kid's game. DA is not a kid's game.

[SNascimento]

Zelda is not a kid's game. It's a game for people who appreciate good games.

[PhroXenGold]

Comparing Zelda and DA is... well. Lame.

 

How about compare DA with the Witcher. Two somewhat realistic settings. Geralt doesn't wear plate. He wears leather. Want to know something else? Geralt can't take the same kind of hits that say, a heavy-armored warrior can take in DA. Why? Because he's wearing leather. They are both RPGs and both try for semi-realistic.

 

Zelda is about as realistic as a Saturday Morning Cartoon.

 

Zelda doesn't aim for realism. It's a kid's game. DA is not a kid's game.

 

"Unrealistic" and "adult" are not mutually exclusive. Not every mature game has to be grimdark, nor is every "unrealistic" game childish. Nor even does the fact that a game is appropriate for children make it a kids game (and vice-versa). Now, sure, i'm not a huge fan of Zelda, as I find the gameplay of those I've played rather boring, but accusing it of being childish is stupid.

 

Hell, there are some pathetically immature elements to The Witcher - particularly it's attitude to sex, which seems like it was written by a horny 12 year old ("Geralt is the ultimate stud and every woman in the world wants to have sex with him!! And here, have some gratuitous pictures of nude women" That is in no way shape or form a mature or adult approach to sex, it's a childish fantasy.)

[Muspade]

"Unrealistic" and "adult" are not mutually exclusive. Not every mature game has to be grimdark, nor is every "unrealistic" game childish. Nor even does the fact that a game is appropriate for children make it a kids game (and vice-versa). Now, sure, i'm not a huge fan of Zelda, as I find the gameplay of those I've played rather boring, but accusing it of being childish is stupid.

 

Hell, there are some pathetically immature elements to The Witcher - particularly it's attitude to sex, which seems like it was written by a horny 12 year old ("Geralt is the ultimate stud and every woman in the world wants to have sex with him!! And here, have some gratuitous pictures of nude women" That is in no way shape or form a mature or adult approach to sex, it's a childish fantasy.)

That's just the way Geralt rolls, man. Don't hate. Embrace.

Spoiler

[Voragoras]

You're just pulling another strawman out of your hat, Kefka. Of course women sometimes want to look hot for men. The thing is: in combat situations they most certainly won't want that!

 

This is all so much not about puritanism, liberation or such things. It's about the integrity of fantastic worlds and the importance of dressing for the occasion if it can mean the difference between life and death.

 

Speaking as a woman, I can confirm that my entire purpose and ambition in life is to look as sexually pleasing for males as possible. Whether it's raining, hailing, or gusting outside, rest assured that my breasts are fully on show at all times.

 

Women's liberation has never been so progressive.

[PhroXenGold]

That's just the way Geralt rolls, man. Don't hate. Embrace.

Spoiler

 

Well, getting down to only half is a clear sign he's trying to be a better man...

[Spectre Impersonator]

"STOP OPPRESSING MY FREEDOM TO LOOK AT BREASTS"

*tips hat* A fellow committed advocate for a woman's right to breastfeed publicly, I see.

[Voragoras]

I love this thread with all my heart. At this point it looks like were gonna make 100 pages, and that, well thats pretty cool. 

 

Yeah! GIRL POWER! 

I hope so. I need something to prevent me from becoming a productive student.

 

LIBERATION! EQUALITY! NO MORE OPPRESSION FOR OOPSTATE MORMON PEOPLE!

[SardaukarElite]

I hope so. I need something to prevent me from becoming a productive student.

 

An education won't liberate you though, you need to focus more on being attractive to men.

[Voragoras]

Your like, my hero. 

 

As long as it's a scantily clad hero, I'm okay with this.

 

 

An education won't liberate you though, you need to focus more on being attractive to men.

 

What if I attend classes in my underwear?