2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Nattfare]

Blast it! Decided to was the bikini first to make it more shiny to make it more sexy... but now it has rusted and I can't use it. It is ruined...

 

This was my chance to strike a blow against the prudes and their sexual oppression of everything sexy and I blew it. 

 

I've just let you all down. I'm so, so sorry.

[Serendipity]

Blast it! Decided to was the bikini first to make it more shiny to make it more sexy... but now it has rusted and I can't use it. It is ruined...

 

This was my chance to strike a blow against the prudes and their sexual oppression of everything sexy and I blew it. 

 

I've just let you all down. I'm so, so sorry.

[Hadeedak]

I'm really curious about the robe full of kittens there.

 

Like, I think it may be a gold medal for least practical armor. Or most. Who's going to hit anyone covered in kittens? But how do you fight when your body is surrounded by kittens, presumably doing kitten things like biting random things and running around really fast for no reason?

[Seraphim24]

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.

 

Just a friendly reminder whenever that pops up you (or whoever else) is automatically barred from any subjectivity arguments as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like you were just making a joke though for the most part though so whatever.

 

 

I’m a lurker, and I made a forum account just to address this, so I guess that indicates at least some of my chagrin. Especially with you, Kefka.

So here I go: 

 

If I wish for my character to be regarded in a certain manner, it seems only logical that she dress for the part. The Inquisitor is a public figure that is responsible for leading what is to become a dominant, powerful organisation within the world of Thedas, a setting that has never before been infected with over sexualised armours for women, or for men. 

 

The world of Thedas is a fantasy land, it's not reality, if you insist upon having your fantasy land being sex free it's fine I just find it odd because for the most part, politics and other areas of the world are already as sex free as can be. If you want public figures and responsibility and so on, you don't really have to play a video game for that, you can find it by walking outside. It's also not mutually inconsistent to have a public figure for leading what is to become a dominant, powerful, organization within the world of Thedas to be a hot character with amazing style. I don't believe in this division.

 

Thedas, has a certain flavour, possessing a highly motivating storyline, I believe that it is a world that is founded in intriguing and fascinating lore. Within the context of the world, some things are possible, while others do not make sense.

 

Sex is fascinating to me, just like some aspects of the World of Thedas or possibly the history of the Tevinter Imperium (well not really but whatever). Within the context of the world, which is fantastical, what makes sense doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense makes sense? Make sense? Irrational explosions of sexuality or feeling in a video game context, which ignore the rules of relations and limitations of physical realities feel considerably more sensible to me given the context.

 

It's illogical to me to make a fantasy that caters to reality, that doesn't make sense. It makes as much sense as me dressing up as a dragon slayer and wandering down the nearest street and claiming I'm on a quest to slay the Elder One, does that make sense for reality? No. Does dressing up half naked and attempting to use a walking stick to fire fireballs at colossal squids over the arctic ocean make sense for my job as a researcher? No.Just like trying to make a person's fantasy world one where rules and restrictions apply to everything, where you would actually need to wait a real life day to travel from one end to the other within the video game, all the while you are the Chosen one who uses his magic green fire spell to destroy tears in dimensional fabric. It consistently makes no sense, so we might as well go all the way on that one.

 

The existence of magic and dragons does not give a leeway to other aspects that are blatant offences to the established world, such as the (in my most humble opinion of course) abhorrent, albeit (and with great sarcasm) cute ‘outfits’ (they reveal more than they cover up) that you attempt to persuade us to enjoy or at least endorse with your superfluous, fraudulent, and poorly concocted cries for the liberation of female sexuality.

 

This also applies to this point, because then it seems arbitrary what you consider blatant offenses to the established world. It's precisely that outfits and sexuality is victimized when all the other equally offensive ideas are not torn down that makes no sense.

 

 

Lets focus on what has painted my view of the matter;

I’m a woman. When I work, I don’t wear my underwear, I like to think I dress well, and respectably. 

There is a time and place for everything. Clothing encouraging sex is accepted in situations that call for it, such as when wooing a loved one and opening a bottle of wine to settle in for the night. 

Dresses embellished with garish jewels do not belong on the field of battle, perhaps one should keep such resplendent baubles and frocks to Orlesian balls or while meandering around a city, when one is not at risk from being shot, stabbed, slashed, crushed, set on fire, frozen , garrotted, etc. 

As others have stated, your argument seems backwards and pandering far less to women, but to men who enjoy looking at a certain type of women. 

 

Yeah, there is a time and place for everything. When people are done with dealing with the tasks that require them to not be sexual or interesting in cute outfits, they come to a video game, where the skys the limit as far as I'm concerned.

 

Maybe the field of battle doesn't belong in a video game? There is a Christmas tree full of assumptions here and I'm picking at the base of the tree whereas you guys keep harping on the leaves at the very end.

 

DA reflects an idea about a like a French societal view of entertainment or something, but that's not inherently a video game concept. Those notions are completely boundless, and I've been saying, in many ways superior, for a video game. If I want an actual leader, maybe the French have a role there, but that's not what we're discussing here.

 

Furthermore;

It is a ridiculous and insulting notion that women choosing to wear protective armour in battle, are prudish as you have stated with Cassandra. Armour is made to protect (as has been stated Ad nauseam. Yes, this is relevant in Thedas, no, magic and dragons do not mean that suddenly everyone’s skin is made of diamond.) 

In this game, the PC is the Inquisitor. He or she is therefore placed in a position of leadership. When, at least I give commands, when I am to be taken in a serious manner, I will dress the part. This probably means that I will not display my ‘assets’ in order to entice others, to feel ‘liberated’ in my ’sexuality’ and in the ‘freedom’ that a vulgar and provocative display of my breasts and ass offers to others that may ‘enjoy the view'. If I want to be taken seriously, as a military commander and religious icon, I will avoid looking like a hyper-sexualised bimbo. Furthermore, it is not the goal of many women to ‘escape’ reality by being beautiful, believe it or not, many of us have a bit more depth than that. We don’t play games to feel sexy, we play them to enjoy stabbing darkspawn and experiencing an intricate, detailed storyline filled with philosophical nuances and interacting with compelling characters. 

No offense but when you started going "I am to be taken in a serious manner, I will dress the part. I will not display my 'assets' in order to entice others. I will avoid looking as a hypersexualized bimbo."

 

It honestly just reminded me of Titanic, you know, Leo and Kate. I just picture her saying all those things and then slapping him in the face with a white glove and going "my word!" It smacks of ethics from another era (in this case early 20th century) That's kind of all I'm getting at. I have nothing against serious people or who feel they are being highly pressured by a world to be attractive or something. It's interesting to look at the source of that impulse though? Why does this have to be about sex? I'm not dismissing your feelings but I'm seriously questioning that the reason for all that when everything you mentioned is pretty common for sexual relations. If it's commonplace and normal it shouldn't be offensive, which means it has to be context-specific, not inherent.

 

Most people I know who are turned off by hyper-sexualized costumes or people or whatever is because they can be crazy insensitive. That has nothing to do with sexuality or outfits though. I can be a big fan of cute outfits, a big fan of the wide world of Thedas, and be completely turned off by some over the top sexy outfit/character in a different context (50 cent the game or something).

 

 

Moreover; I find it quite shocking that you would ever propose or suggest that women who do not strut around like strippers (because let us be honest, the majority of images that you posted to this forum bring only those kinds of individuals to mind) are prudish and unattractive. Dressing conservatively does not make one ashamed, afraid nor ‘un-feminine’. The idea is absurd, I am no less a woman for refusing to reveal my side-boob to strangers. I simply seem to value many other things above how beautiful someone is, their skills, personality, wit, wisdom and loyalty all come into play far more than their appearance. This is what makes a game fun for me, and I also believe, from what I have seen on the forums, many other people feel the same. My dislike for you increased greatly when you stated that the lack of ‘attractive’ women was ruining the game, just as much as your unfounded criticism of Josephine made me grind my teeth in frustration. She is not an active combatant, this does not make her any less useful, any less intelligent, powerful or influential within the game's universe. She is obviously intelligent and a skilled diplomat, and like it or not, at least the game has enough depth to put weight upon more than just how sexy someone is, and how well they can swing that sword. Not everyone makes their marks upon the world through blood-shed, some utilise clever politics and intrigue. Josephine seems to be one of those.

 

I was kind of liking you but the first sentence just struck again. Go play Star Ocean 4, seriously, go do it if you ever want me to respect your opinion again. I'm sick of these brazen unfounded insults. You go on to cite a litany of things like skills, personality, wit, loyalty, and yet despite having an over the top outfit, Myuria is all of those things, and above all, a playable character. She is a part of every single fight, which is exactly what I want in my video games. Josephine is a freaking sideshow for people who want their women as docile little toys. I already said I don't care how amazingly potent her story is, it's a fact that they created the distinction between 'companions' and 'advisors.' Companions, are the ones you actually use in the video game, I automatically associate that with a more important distinction, and the specific limitation on Josephine as a sign of de-emphasizing women's roles. That distinction is never eroding, no matter how much I might want it to disappear.

 

Also I never said that the lack of attractive women was ruining the game, if anything appeared that way it was unintended. I said the lack of female characters was hurting the game, never said a word about attractiveness. I also specifically pointed out plenty of fashion-less women who are very interesting people, so, yeah.

 

Also I'd like to re-iterate at this point I don't think DA could do a halfway decent job of this if they tried, it's just outside their core competency. I'm sure whatever they created would end up like the chaos other people have been posting.

[Voragoras]

Just a friendly reminder whenever that pops up you (or whoever else) is automatically barred from any subjectivity arguments as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like you were just making a joke though for the most part though so whatever.

 

I'm glad women have someone like you around, to liberate them by telling them them we're not allowed to have arguments. Keep up the good work! I'm feeling freer by the second.

[Seraphim24]

I'm glad women have someone like you around, to liberate them by telling them them we're not allowed to have arguments. Keep up the good work! I'm feeling freer by the second.

 

It follows logically, if subjectivity is the reason for our differences than sexualized outfits can't be tied to any greater cause, by definition it's just subjective preference.

 

Consequently, there is no reason you should be able to argue that kind of thing is subjective while also condemning it as some sort of greater societal failing. (which would cause it become tied to every expression, not just in DA)

 

I didn't even specifically limit that to women, that was everyone... pretty sure I originally applied that limitation to a man trying to do the same thing. Keep up the lack of reading comprehension though.

[umadcommander]

not having 10 armors with several dozen re-skins of each would be nice, i got tired of seeing the same shoulder guards on all the party warriors and the rogues all dressed in the exact same outfit

[Nattfare]

Spoiler

[grumpymooselion]

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.

Culture is one aspect, along with personal, societal, religious and more. These exist within and within particular environments, such as sub-cultures or offshoots, and more. The individual can be impractical in a sea of impracticality. All things are possible, because all things have been possible - regardless of sense, or lack thereof.

 

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.

I must admit to being confused. Sexism is irrelevant, all the armor noted, all the forms spoken, was worn by men. This is an odd disucssion because it focuses so much on the female, yet, from the moderate standpoint noted, I spoke of clothing and armor as clothing and armor - not bringing in gender. Gender is pointless to the discussion. Covered, uncovered, practical, impractical, ornate, reserved and countless other such manners of clothing or armoring exist, and have existed, in so many countless forms regardless of gender that it's not worth noting. Regardless of gender, all things have existed for both, and so all things should.

The words spoekn were of male armor, yet, the moderate tone was heavily repeated, meant to point out the neutral stance, the inclusion all all gender, and beyond possibilities, because, quite simply, the practical existing alongside something sexy is not about women, unless one believes there are no men out there that might wish to look sexy. Should one complain that Sidney exposed much flesh in Vagrant Story, and wore armor mostly on his arms, but not on his torso? Should this be sexist or a power fantasy? Should it be banished and men only allowed to be fully covered in hard plates of armor? The answers to this are the same as to a woman in the same role. This is one thing, regardless of gender, and one thing exists amongst many, because the many things are variety - and variety is good.

Sidney can exist alongside a fully armored soldier, is the answer, because the fantasy allows it, and the DAO, and DA2 fantasy allows for the absurd, or sexy, as one might call it, as they already have, right alongside the more practical. Both things, as well as countless other things - many things as a result: "variety" the good thing.
 

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.

And yet it is subjective. This includes older cultures that do not protect the torso, but protect the loins and feet, especially the feet. Some of the earliest forms of protectiona gainst physical harm on record are for the feet, long before torso armor, as early body covering were let clothing or armor and more wraps and cloaks for dealing with weather conditions rather than battle. But protections for the hands and feet? Protection for the head? Torso armor, clothing, these were developments.

Armor is relative though, armor suggests battle, whereas the noted foot protection had far more to do with terrain than battle, even when fighting, hunting and other concerns existed. This also is beyond the realistic and practical as to the setting and fantastical, or not, nature of it - as with the game of thrones example and others throughout countless fantasy works written by men or women, and sometimes both.

There is no one thing. There should be no one thing. We are many things. Practicality exists alongside its opposite whether it wishes to or not, amongst the sea of things beyond the practical and impractical, as well as all those that lie in between.

[N7 Shadow 90]

I wonder why this is even in question. Bikini/'Sexy'/Revealing armour would make a lot of women feel de-humanised, and would work against what Bioware and other game developers are working towards in a lot of ways - more inclusive, less sexist games.

[Seraphim24]

You don't become more inclusive by getting rid of sexuality entirely. Attractive outfits are an essential part of that, that's exclusive behavior under the guise of inclusivity.

 

If you want to get rid of hate filled gamers that spew venom whenever they don't have characters exactly the way they want them, or simple card games that don't really have any complexity beyond a nice picture, or include the possibility of playing a pretty frigid character, then by all means. Lets just say as a person (and I believe this applies to females and males of a particular personality), who is genuinely and honestly interested in these things feels excluded from both. Why can't I have a nice and hot card game like character/outfit design in a complex role playing game? I must have a complex role playing game that has exclusionary behavior that I find bad, or a simple game that appears not to extend the idea of an attractive outfit beyond that simple level. Why? A thousand times I ask this question and I never get a satisfying response.

 

It's a world where you simply choose how to be offended, neither side is really deeply inclusive.

 

Just don't drag this innocent desire for fun things into all that, and don't pretend anyone has a monopoly on sexism.

[AresKeith]

^lol

[umadcommander]

i should have read through before posting in here, this thread has clearly passed the point where it has become worthless a long time ago, its not really about armor anymore is it? how silly

[Serendipity]

Just a friendly reminder whenever that pops up you (or whoever else) is automatically barred from any subjectivity arguments as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like you were just making a joke though for the most part though so whatever.

 

 

The world of Thedas is a fantasy land, it's not reality, if you insist upon having your fantasy land being sex free it's fine I just find it odd because for the most part, politics and other areas of the world are already as sex free as can be. If you want public figures and responsibility and so on, you don't really have to play a video game for that, you can find it by walking outside. It's also not mutually inconsistent to have a public figure for leading what is to become a dominant, powerful, organization within the world of Thedas to be a hot character with amazing style. I don't believe in this division.

 

No. It is not reality, however as people have stated so many times, an amount that is by the way becoming absurd, there are laws within the world that should be reflected in game. I honestly don’t even know how to attempt to explain this to you, it is bordering on becoming hilarious that someone can be so entirely dim-witted as not to understand this very simple concept. 

 

Let us simply bring it down to this, you find females more interesting and attractive when they wear these ‘fashionable’, ‘cute outfits’- let us not even get into what I believe is fashionable in comparison to you, because a battle pantyhose/corset mix is not one of those things. Others find women attractive due to other things that I have already mentioned earlier, sexualising them, because that is what you are doing, is (to me at least) detrimental to how seriously one can take them given the setting. 

 

'Public figures and responsibility’ is not a choice in Dragon Age, it isn’t in many games. You have to be the inquisitor, you have to have responsibility. This form of obligation is certainly not reflected in reality for me, I have never led armies, I have never swung a real sword, I never participated in a council of war. I need to play a game to get this. I certainly wouldn’t spit on the opportunity though by turning up to a political meeting with a rainbow bow in my hair, and nothing on save a few touches of subtle fabric here and there, because those things don’t fit the situation. 

 

I think the main issue is that you go to games for far different things than I, and many others. I like gaming because it offers me a sense of adventure, not because I can get attracted to other characters, and certainly not to gawk at their ‘style’, because frankly I believe that anything sufficiently colourful and revealing would appeal to you. I on the other hand enjoy things that accentuate something other than sexuality, and I certainly do not believe that battle, pain and death should be associated with carnal desires, it seems rather morbid actually, that someone should look like a poorly paid stripper while decapitating enemy soldiers. 

 

Sex is fascinating to me, just like some aspects of the World of Thedas or possibly the history of the Tevinter Imperium (well not really but whatever). Within the context of the world, which is fantastical, what makes sense doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense makes sense? Make sense? Irrational explosions of sexuality or feeling in a video game context, which ignore the rules of relations and limitations of physical realities feel considerably more sensible to me given the context.

 

It's illogical to me to make a fantasy that caters to reality, that doesn't make sense. It makes as much sense as me dressing up as a dragon slayer and wandering down the nearest street and claiming I'm on a quest to slay the Elder One, does that make sense for reality? No. Does dressing up half naked and attempting to use a walking stick to fire fireballs at colossal squids over the arctic ocean make sense for my job as a researcher? No.Just like trying to make a person's fantasy world one where rules and restrictions apply to everything, where you would actually need to wait a real life day to travel from one end to the other within the video game, all the while you are the Chosen one who uses his magic green fire spell to destroy tears in dimensional fabric. It consistently makes no sense, so we might as well go all the way on that one.

 

I think there actually IS an issue of sexism here, because men wearing such attire would be regarded as a joke, and no one ever would take the game seriously, it would become a parody- a poor one at that, however women dressing in such a manner is fine. 

 

Alright, here we go again. 

Thedas is a world. 

Our world has set rules. 

Thedas has set rules. It is not our world. 

Our world has lions. 

Thedas has dragons. 

Our world has guns. 

Thedas has crossbows, longbows, etc. 

Our world has bullet proof vests. 

Thedas has armour. 

 

These rules do not permit scantily clad people wearing bowties in battle. It has never been seen before. 

 

I do not endorse full reality, I enjoy a flair of fantasy, it would appear however, that my preferences in style differ greatly to your own. I do not believe that being clad in little more than a bra is a style. I do not believe that battle panties should be permitted on the battlefield. 

 

Fast travel exists for game mechanics, skimpy armour would not improve this. 

 

 

Okay so here is yet another biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference between you and I. When I play dragon age, I don’t want the sky to be the limit. I don’t want to see Cassandra greeting me wearing a metal bra just as I don’t want to find out that a Nug is the maker, as both would encourage equal disbelief. 

 

See, when you say something like, ‘pressured into being attractive’- I read that as ‘pressured into being sexualised.’ You know why? The ‘cute outfits' you like seems to resemble lingerie more than it does actual armour. That’s fine, as long as it is off the battlefield. I think it is attractive to dress well and be smart, not to be scantily clad.

 

I think my issue here is your incessant need to reduce interesting, battle-prone characters to being slutty supermodels. Josephine is a DIPLOMAT. She has not been trained in combat! This does not mean that she has been sidelined, she is not playable as such because she can’t FIGHT. I highly doubt that she is a docile toy, and I find it to be pretty insulting that you would insinuate that a woman in a fantasy setting, pursuing something other than military conquest is at once someone’s ‘toy’, especially since we still know very little about her. Josephine, Cullen and Leliana are advisors, I don’t think this makes them ‘worse’ than companions, I think this makes them different, in fact, their position in the Inquisition is probably of more consequence, they are powerful and are given positions of command. 

[Seraphim24]

I think my issue here is your incessant need to reduce interesting, battle-prone characters to being slutty supermodels. Josephine is a DIPLOMAT. She has not been trained in combat! This does not mean that she has been sidelined, she is not playable as such because she can’t FIGHT. I highly doubt that she is a docile toy, and I find it to be pretty insulting that you would insinuate that a woman in a fantasy setting, pursuing something other than military conquest is at once someone’s ‘toy’, especially since we still know very little about her. Josephine, Cullen and Leliana are advisors, I don’t think this makes them ‘worse’ than companions, I think this makes them different, in fact, their position in the Inquisition is probably of more consequence, they are powerful and are given positions of command. 

 

 

On the contrary, that's precisely what I accused of Josephine of potentially being, given the information and the fact that she is delineated as a non-combatant. It's precisely the fact that she isn't actively pursuing military conquest with the rest of the gang which suggested to me she was created because they wanted a more docile female figure in the Inquisition.

 

I can have immense respect for the laws and limitations, as well as the skilled and talented people that uphold those laws and limitations in reality, while also wondering why those very same people dream such limited dreams.

 

 

No. It is not reality, however as people have stated so many times, an amount that is by the way becoming absurd, there are laws within the world that should be reflected in game. I honestly don’t even know how to attempt to explain this to you, it is bordering on becoming hilarious that someone can be so entirely dim-witted as not to understand this very simple concept.

 

It seems to the me the other way around. I don't understand how anyone can be so excessively puritanical as to set rules and limitations on their own personal fantasies.

 

Why do fantasies exist if not to be limitless?

 

'Public figures and responsibility’ is not a choice in Dragon Age, it isn’t in many games. You have to be the inquisitor, you have to have responsibility. This form of obligation is certainly not reflected in reality for me, I have never led armies, I have never swung a real sword, I never participated in a council of war. I need to play a game to get this. I certainly wouldn’t spit on the opportunity though by turning up to a political meeting with a rainbow bow in my hair, and nothing on save a few touches of subtle fabric here and there, because those things don’t fit the situation. 

 

Something tells me you might as well though, as far as reality goes, maybe you would be good at it? I certainly wouldn't want to stop you from doing so because you didn't wear revealing underpants. That seems insane. Well, I mean I wouldn't stop you period, er, whatever, I think you know what I mean.

 

..

 

It's funny though I was kind of disappointed no one took my idea about plush toys in high political office seriously. Why are our leaders invariably required to be so chaste and sexless? Is this really better for us all? 2000 years of criticism against Christianity but it doesn't appear to have changed the rules and norms at all.

 

I wouldn't mind voting for a female leader who has a rainbow bow in her hair as well as a few touches of subtle fabric, provided she has equal command of the relevant politics. Maybe I'd be more likely to vote for her, even.

[grumpymooselion]

I wonder why this is even in question. Bikini/'Sexy'/Revealing armour would make a lot of women feel de-humanised, and would work against what Bioware and other game developers are working towards in a lot of ways - more inclusive, less sexist games.

I wonder, do women that like such things, and men that like such things, feel de-Humanized when they wear the things they like? Is a Man or Woman that wishes to wear more revealing things dehumaized? Or they not Human in the first place? This is dangerous territory, because it runs the risk of suggesting that people that think other than you are not Human at all, which is a very silly concept.

Revealing armor on men or women is not sexist, and it doesn't prevent inclusion anymore than the exact opposite of revealing armor prevents inclusion. Inclusion and diversity are the result of many things, variety, not the inclusion of the things you like paired with the exclusion of things you don't.
 

I guess that I'd mostly just have an issue when taking commands from someone that looks like this:


or




seriously just as much as I'd have an issue with my leader deciding to turn up to battle like this:

 

Call me crazy, but Sydney never seemed to lack presence due to his more revealing outfit. One of the things I always liked about the character is that he could be a lean, more effeminate male and even impractical in his attire, yet still influence. Of course, it wasn't about his attire. The protagonist and female lead in the game weren't especially well armoed either, with Ashley, the male Protagonist, wearing a thin skin tight shirt held onto his shoulders by little strings.

Regardless of the influence Sydney commanded, the people he commanded obeyed, one might suggest, "It's because it's a fantasy" but that is a bit of the point is it not? And not a Fantasy that Dragon Age is exempt from as we have examples of absurd and impractical clothing and armor in DAO and DA2, right alongside the very practical ones.

 

This goes far beyond Sydney, DAO or DA2, as you'll find no lack of fantasy with the male in light, revealing or no armor at all, while still in combat. A loincloth and nothing else? It's a fairly common occurence in fantasy, many male characters have worn nothing but a loincloth, and sometimes not even that. Male characters are not all fully armored and covered. Some are, some aren't, and these things come in all manner of extreme, beyond and in between. This variety is a good thing.

 

Still . . .

 

 

I come back to Sydney. There's nothing wrong with a fully armored male, just as there isn't anything wrong with a lightly armored or impractically armored male, and I've never thought any different of females be they in practical and heavy, medium or light or impractical clothing or armor. All things, and more, are welcome in my fantasy. The extreme sides are just that, and many things exist beyond and between each extreme. All have potential place in my fantasy, not to dehumanize or exclude, but because I walk down the street and see countless types of person, with all manner of taste in style. We are not the same, we are different in countless ways, and I love and celebrate this fact.

 

I often see this, "What if we made men just as sexy and impractical in a game" argument, but you really don't understand, being able to play a truly beautiful man, an effeminate one, or a lightly dressed/armored/revealing one is a rarity in western games. I wouldn't look at this as a negative anymore than if they were female options, as long as they were options for both genders and one thing amongst the many, many - many - options besides. Variety. One thing I could never do when I was young was make a male character more like me, so having less typically masculine options of customization and clothing? It points out the problem with the argument.

 

The problem with this, "What if we dressed male characters like this" point is that it's not a negative. It's never been a negative. I'd be happy to have it as yet another option for male characters just as much as I'd love to see all manner of options for female characters. More for everyone, more variety and options.

 

Diversity and inclusion aren't about one side, they're about all sides, and more, so much more than any one person's extreme or moderate viewpoint can encompass - and it's all worthwhile, in some form, in some place, for some reason or another.

[Voragoras]

It follows logically, if subjectivity is the reason for our differences than sexualized outfits can't be tied to any greater cause, by definition it's just subjective preference.

 

Consequently, there is no reason you should be able to argue that kind of thing is subjective while also condemning it as some sort of greater societal failing. (which would cause it become tied to every expression, not just in DA)

 

I didn't even specifically limit that to women, that was everyone... pretty sure I originally applied that limitation to a man trying to do the same thing. Keep up the lack of reading comprehension though.

 

1) We weren't the ones doing that - you're the one bringing up sexism all the time when it isn't needed.

2) Subjective preference is different from creative intent. You can dis/like an outfit or not, but if the designer of the character wearing it intended for them to be a sex object purely because of their gender, that's sexism.

3) I was making a joke at your expense.

[Remmirath]

Just when I thought the thread had finally gone into its long slumber, it seems to have emerged again...

So, once again: I and many others want practical armour in battle, and I've lost track of the number of times people have said that. Not only that, we don't mind if there are customisation options for less practical armour, so long as the majority of the NPCs in the world are wearing reasonable armour -- because although it is possible there are one or two people out there who would go into battle ill-protected because looking 'hot' is more important to them than staying alive, that is definitely not going to be most people. You have every right to make that character choice for your character, and more power to you. It's when you start saying that it should be the default choice that people get annoyed about it.

I don't have a problem with people expressing their sexuality. I don't have a problem with people expressing that they like frilly things. I don't have a problem with people liking sex or liking frilly things. I have a problem with people dressing in ways that would be blatantly foolish in combat.

Once again, this topic is about armour. I expect that most people's opinions on what armour should be like do not necessarily reflect their opinions on anything else, clothing included.
 

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 assure you, I find it equally odd that people would spend a good deal of their time (indeed, any of it) fantasizing about sex or clothing, but I'm willing to accept that people do.

As for what else is there, which I have the feeling I've pointed out at least once before here, literally anything other than sex or 'cute outfits'. That's a lot of things. With regards to roleplaying games specifically, here's a few: what it would be like to be in this world, exploring the world, saving the world, ridding the world of darkspawn (or insert other menace here), rising above an unfortunate background to become something in the world, being a great warrior/mage/rogue/other class, and I could continue, but that should be enough for now.
 

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.

People generally don't like being told that they should be a certain way, and you are very much coming off that way. It may or may not be intentional.

You're acting as though it hasn't been the case that nearly every single person in this thread has stated that they don't mind if there are armour customisation options for skimpier armour or frillier armour or whatever it is you're driving at (you seem to use 'cute' and 'sexy' interchangably, when other people aren't, which becomes somewhat confusing). You're the only person who seems to be saying that all women should be one way.
 

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?

Many. I'd say that staying alive is really the most practical concern one could have. Not being injured is a more practical concern. Being comfortable is a more practical concern. The only scenario I can think of where sex appeal is practical is if one is specifically going somewhere in order to have sex (which seems odd to me, but maybe it's something people do). Otherwise? No. It may be something somebody's interested in, but it's not practical.

I suppose some people are thinking a lot about what to wear, but speaking for myself, I just grab some comfortable and serviceable clothing and call it good. I'm under the impression that's also what a lot of other people do.
 

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

Gladiators, I'm afraid, are no more valid a marker of what soldiers wear to war than are modern pro wrestlers. It very definitely was for the sake of the show. Roman soldiers wore armour, on their torsos as well as some greaves.
 

The world of Thedas is a fantasy land, it's not reality, if you insist upon having your fantasy land being sex free it's fine I just find it odd because for the most part, politics and other areas of the world are already as sex free as can be. If you want public figures and responsibility and so on, you don't really have to play a video game for that, you can find it by walking outside. It's also not mutually inconsistent to have a public figure for leading what is to become a dominant, powerful, organization within the world of Thedas to be a hot character with amazing style. I don't believe in this division.

It isn't sex free. You've already got numerous romances with sex scenes, brothels, and a decent smattering of sexual humour. Clearly, that isn't enough for you, but it does prove that the world isn't devoid of sex or anything like that.

It is blatantly obvious that you don't actually think that being able to determine the style of your own character is enough, else you presumably would've just agreed when everybody said that they are all for customisation but think that most people should have practical armour.

You're the only one making the division.

 

Just like trying to make a person's fantasy world one where rules and restrictions apply to everything, where you would actually need to wait a real life day to travel from one end to the other within the video game, all the while you are the Chosen one who uses his magic green fire spell to destroy tears in dimensional fabric. It consistently makes no sense, so we might as well go all the way on that one.

You also might as well not, and at least for me, all of those unrealistic elements you mentioned will be made much more interesting by being juxtaposed against a basically believable setting. I find fantastic realism much more interesting than fantasy with no grounding in reality.

[Seraphim24]

I come back to Sydney. There's nothing wrong with a fully armored male, just as there isn't anything wrong with a lightly armored or impractically armored male, and I've never thought any different of females be they in practical and heavy, medium or light or impractical clothing or armor. All things, and more, are welcome in my fantasy. The extreme sides are just that, and many things exist beyond and between each extreme. All have potential place in my fantasy, not to dehumanize or exclude, but because I walk down the street and see countless types of person, with all manner of taste in style. We are not the same, we are different in countless ways, and I love and celebrate this fact.

 

Wow perfect example, Vagrant Story is one of those games I've come back to many times. at least two women in that game were pretty good also, Merlose and the blonde one.

 

 

 

Rosencrantz was kinda stupid though IMO.

[SNascimento]

"Gladiators, I'm afraid, are no more valid a marker of what soldiers wear to war than are modern pro wrestlers. It very definitely was for the sake of the show. Roman soldiers wore armour, on their torsos as well as some greaves."

[Remmirath]

On the contrary, that's precisely what I accused of Josephine of potentially being, given the information and the fact that she is delineated as a non-combatant. It's precisely the fact that she isn't actively pursuing military conquest with the rest of the gang which suggested to me she was created because they wanted a more docile female figure in the Inquisition.

So it has never occurred to you that it might be the opposite from what you're implying, and that rather than deciding "let's make this woman a non-combatant" they instead thought "let's make this powerful diplomat a woman"? Not everyone has to be able to fight to be useful or even powerful, and not being able to fight doesn't automatically make one docile.
 

It's funny though I was kind of disappointed no one took my idea about plush toys in high political office seriously. Why are our leaders invariably required to be so chaste and sexless? Is this really better for us all? 2000 years of criticism against Christianity but it doesn't appear to have changed the rules and norms at all.
 
I wouldn't mind voting for a female leader who has a rainbow bow in her hair as well as a few touches of subtle fabric, provided she has equal command of the relevant politics.

I was going to address that, in fact, but it was far enough back in the thread that I hadn't. I would have no problem with a leader who is fond of plush toys and rainbow bows, be they male or female. I wouldn't be too thrilled about them taking their plush toy on the battlefield, and I'd certainly hope they were at least going to restrict their rainbow-bow-usage to tying their armour on.

That is, however -- at least in my eyes -- entirely separate from whether or not they are wearing practical armour. I also don't care if any given leader is chaste or not, or how much sex they have, so long as they can do their job. In the context of battle, however, wearing something sexually appealing instead of protective on the battlefield is not doing their job. It's going to get them killed.
 

Revealing armor on men or women is not sexist, and it doesn't prevent inclusion anymore than the exact opposite of revealing armor prevents inclusion. Inclusion and diversity are the result of many things, variety, not the inclusion of the things you like paired with the exclusion of things you don't.

It's only sexist if only women or only men are wearing it, especially if all women or all men are wearing it but none of the other. It isn't inherently so, no. I do find it rather off-putting if the only suits of armour available in a game are skimpy, or indeed if the armour looks dramatically different on male and female characters. If there are a few suits of armour that are less practical but appear so on either male or female characters, I'm much less bothered (unless those happen to be the best suits of armour in the game, which I find to strain credulity quite a bit, and is then also annoying from a gameplay standpoint if I want good armour for my character).

I appreciate variety, and I would like to see variety, but not when it goes directly against believability, which wearing almost nothing (when you are in a place, culture, and so forth where you can get armour) into battle does.
 

I often see this, "What if we made men just as sexy and impractical in a game" argument, but you really don't understand, being able to play a truly beautiful man, an effeminate one, or a lightly dressed/armored/revealing one is a rarity in western games. I wouldn't look at this as a negative anymore than if they were female options, as long as they were options for both genders and one thing amongst the many, many - many - options besides. Variety. One thing I could never do when I was young was make a male character more like me, so having less typically masculine options of customization and clothing? It points out the problem with the argument.

I do understand that it's a problem that one often can't play a more beautiful or less muscled male character. I know at least one person who's always quite disappointed when that can't be done, and it's just as much of a problem as my not being able to play a less beautiful or more well muscled female character. Certainly in terms of character customisation I am all for more choices.

So, I agree there. There should be choices for both male and female characters, equal and similar of not the same choices. I believe this extends to armour as well as to everything else. Given that there is armour customisation in the game, I'm entirely fine with there being all sorts of crazy options -- I just don't think they should be the default options, because I'd rather the defaults fit more into the world. I wouldn't mind seeing an isolated character or two in more odd or impractical armour, so long as it clearly fit with their personality, either. I just don't like the idea that half the armour people in the game would be wearing would skimpy or otherwise impractical.

[RevilFox]

You don't become more inclusive by getting rid of sexuality entirely. Attractive outfits are an essential part of that, that's exclusive behavior under the guise of inclusivity.

 

If you want to get rid of hate filled gamers that spew venom whenever they don't have characters exactly the way they want them, or simple card games that don't really have any complexity beyond a nice picture, or include the possibility of playing a pretty frigid character, then by all means. Lets just say as a person (and I believe this applies to females and males of a particular personality), who is genuinely and honestly interested in these things feels excluded from both. Why can't I have a nice and hot card game like character/outfit design in a complex role playing game? I must have a complex role playing game that has exclusionary behavior that I find bad, or a simple game that appears not to extend the idea of an attractive outfit beyond that simple level. Why? A thousand times I ask this question and I never get a satisfying response.

 

It's a world where you simply choose how to be offended, neither side is really deeply inclusive.

 

Just don't drag this innocent desire for fun things into all that, and don't pretend anyone has a monopoly on sexism.

 

Since you're bringing up the larger issue of women in games, again, I feel the need to point out, again, that the issue with women in video games has never been that they are sometimes sexulized. It's that they were ALWAYS sexualized. You can have a character like Isabella in a game so long as you have a character like Aveline, and neither is portrayed as out of place or strange. 

[AlanC9]

You don't become more inclusive by getting rid of sexuality entirely. Attractive outfits are an essential part of that, that's exclusive behavior under the guise of inclusivity.
.

I'm a little late here, but was anybody actually advocating that? Or are you saying that skimpy, non-protective armor is necessary because otherwise we won't have attractive outfits available?

[Seraphim24]

 believe this extends to armour as well as to everything else. Given that there is armour customisation in the game, I'm entirely fine with there being all sorts of crazy options -- I just don't think they should be the default options, because I'd rather the defaults fit more into the world. I wouldn't mind seeing an isolated character or two in more odd or impractical armour, so long as it clearly fit with their personality, either. I just don't like the idea that half the armour people in the game would be wearing would skimpy or otherwise impractical.

 

Wait a second, I was kind of over going back and forth again, but it looks like you said you might be ok with this kind of thing in a DA setting. That seems different from it having no role in DA at all.

 

I'm a little late here, but was anybody actually advocating that? Or are you saying that skimpy, non-protective armor is necessary because otherwise we won't have attractive outfits available?

 

This incessant skimpy, non-protective armor  obsession you people have is the exclusivity. Your insistence upon those rules is what's exclusive. You build in the assumption about reality, which is the inherently sexist and repressive thing, then you come wandering out like nothing's going on and go "oh, we are just following things to make it all realistic."

 

You go oh but how could you possibly disagree with such a strong and solid rule? Riiiiight.

 

I'd rather just get to the discussion about why people hate pretty things so much then continually deal with these hurdles beforehand.

 

Video games never made any freaking sense. They are increasingly unfun in direct proportion to the amount of sense people continually desire to inject into them.

 

I seriously just play like PS2 era games these days.

[The Elder King]

Well, at least here in Italy the leader Thing isn't necessarily true, since the person who was the prime minister (and he's still an important political leader) for years is rather famous for Not being chaste .