2576 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm happy as long as I have choices.

 

I'm never a fan of telling other people that what they want in a video game isn't okay because you, yourself don't want it.

[N7 Shadow 90]

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 believe that people should wear whatever they like. In media, I think this is different, as it can very possibly give off the impression that womens' bodies are being used to sell a game. And can give off the impression that a female character/female characters are simply there for straight men to look at.

 

I apologise that my post runs that risk, and I agree that that is a very silly concept.

[Serendipity]

I agree with everything 

 

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.
 

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.
 

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 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.

I may love you to some extent, you word things far better than I. I can't find a single point that I disagree with, especially when it comes to commenting upon how well someone is capable of doing their job. I too am fine with the leader pursuing whatever sexual interests they have as long as it is not reflected in battle. The battlefield is not the place to look good (though I personally believe that overly revealing attire that is not for the bedroom is poor taste), it is the place to be practical. Blood, gore and loss should not used as a stage for 'cute' or 'sexy'.  

 

 

You deserve a fluffy moth. 

[Seraphim24]

This isn't possible but if there was at least one character, lets just say a female mage (or whatever, a male mage, I don't care) instead of Blackwall (who seriously no one cares about), that's all into the dark arts and is half-dragon half-elf or something, dresses pretty hot and not remotely like the chaste-O-magnet Vivienne.

 

You know, long flowing silver hair or somethin, like to blow things up with meteor spells or whatever. I don't know, just something not boring, easy way to start solving the problem. 

 

It would require all the additional characterization and stuff though which again I really haven't seen outside of Baldur's Gate, possibly because I was just imagining the characterization myself.

[grumpymooselion]

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).

Hence the moderate tone, variety is not variety if it's only available to some. Though I certainly agree a set of armor is a set of armor regardless of who wears it, and that the variety is in one set of armor being different from another, and another and the other, not in one set of armor mysteriously changing shape based on the wearer (unless that's the point of the armor, which could be an interesting concept to explore - but that is, again, one set).

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.

Variety is believability. In the now, in the past - one thing has never been the rule, and armor from one time and place, just as clothing, can, and will, be anywhere from minorly to vastly different. Protection, ideas of it, advancement of it are not simply different based on timeframe, but on place even within the same - not forgetting prior notes of the fantastic in a fantastic world, and what that means - as per game of thrones where the Dothraki can be very different in terms of combat wear than a fully armored Knight, yet both are still a threat to one another based on skill, circumstance and many other factors.
 

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.

No doubt, choice is a facest of variety by my measure. When more than one thing exists, choice is what allows the other things than what you might already have accessible.

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.

Varied choices, already noted, but I'd mention 'interesting' choices and forms of variety as well. The expected and practical, even the impractical, are all well of fine, even expected given we have Fantasy games that do all of these, and more, but the unexpected, the unique - the out of left field that we didn't even know we wanted, these are things of note as well.

[goishen]

 

 

 

You just had to show a picture of a guy with his junk hanging out, didn't ya?

 

j/k

[grumpymooselion]

I believe that people should wear whatever they like. In media, I think this is different, as it can very possibly give off the impression that womens' bodies are being used to sell a game. And can give off the impression that a female character/female characters are simply there for straight men to look at.
 
I apologise that my post runs that risk, and I agree that that is a very silly concept.

Perhaps a matter of presentation. An advertisement can still advertise a game without using a character of any gender in lesser clothing to draw one in, even if such things exist, alongside many others. Hence presentation, and the matter of choice. Human error versus Human thought and consideration. It's up to a person to advertise responsibly, and not exploitatively, even if the elements that are exploitable exist.

One of my favorite anime, Wandering Son, based on a lovely manga, has quite readily exploitable subject matter, easily turned into rampant fan service that could draw people in - yet it doesn't do it. It handles its subject, even the exploitable aspects, with a maturity and sense that make it work. Variety is . . . a good thing, choice is a lovely thing, but our choices still have to be responsible - not through a lack of them, but through proper handling, a considerate mind's good work. I'll always ask for variety and choice, regardless of for whom these things are for, but I do not suggest the exploitation of such things.

[Serendipity]

Also, I don't think that characters having a non-combat role are being sidelined. They are different, not worse. Josephine is most likely intelligent and politically savvy, with higher education and experience in establishing trade. This skill set is very different to Sera's, however no less useful nor worthy of praise, and is of just as much use to the Inquisition. 

[Serendipity]

Also, mr. grumpymooselion,  I noticed that you have a Lovecraft quote in your signature, he's one of my favourite authors! Sorry, completely off topic, just excited to see appreciation where it is due. 

[Shadow Fox]

How has Kefka112 not been banned yet?

[Serendipity]

Also, just addressing something that Kefka said, a half-elf would look entirely like a human, so you may as well just be human unless the half-elf aspect is more to do with character development and less with aesthetic, though I think that (judging by the tone of your post) you care far more about the latter.

 

I like Blackwall. I don't want him to be replaced with a silver-haired half-dragon half-elf that dresses pretty hot.

[Rykoth]

Cliff Notes of this Thread:

 

- Kefka is a sexist who thinks he's a feminist by supporting sexualized and objectifying armors

- Most people are telling him he's wrong, and he discounts the opinion of women

- Some people are okay with skimpy as long as its an option

- This thread is going on way too long and Kefka won't stop arguing his horribly flawed point

 

How much longer will it keep up? Time only tells.

[Seraphim24]

Yeah I'm just a super sexist annoyed person that I can't have a super bimbo girl waiting on me left and right, I can't stand anyone else's opinion and never try to find common ground, and everything I do is horribly flawed because it doesn't measure up to my regular PoS game that has nothing of value in it whatsoever except pure titillation. I also discount the opinion of women. You got me. 

[Remmirath]

Edit: Hadn't seen the last post yet when I posted this, so in response to that -- yes, I expect it has gone on too long, and it's entirely clear that nobody is really going to budge on their stance and that any useful means of communicating different preferences and clarifying opinions has probably already occured.

I will say that the above is the strangest definition of sexism I've ever heard, and wonder whether it is intended to be applied equally with regards to men -- for surely if women not wearing revealing clothing were sexist, then men not doing the same also would be. Yet, the complaint always seems to be that women are wearing practical armour, not that men are. I'll just leave it at my complete disagreement with that, then, and that my belief is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and what makes the most sense for whatever situation they're in.

Nobody (except perhaps Kefka?) was asking for complete agreement, or even necessarily agreement at all. "I sort of get where you're coming from" is probably the most that either side could expect in this debate.

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 okay with it as an option for people when customising their armour, yes, and I've never said otherwise. I've been quite consistent on that for the entire duration of this topic. I'm not okay with it being everywhere. There's a rather distinct difference there.

If it does actually fit a character's personality, I'm also fine with them wearing different and even impractical armour. That's certainly not to say I want to see it everywhere, but since my main problem with it is that it doesn't make sense, of course I don't mind if it actually does make sense for a particular character. I'd expect that it wouldn't be protecting them as well as a full suit of armour would, but if they're making that in-character choice to exchange protection for attraction, fine.

I don't think it does have a role in the Dragon Age setting, per say, but that doesn't exclude specific people from going against that. An isolated case is very different from most of the guards you see wearing it. If there are one hundred suits of armour in the game, I'm fine with a few of them not being practical, so long as there's a reason for it (as in, you aren't just wandering along and come across a band of scantily clad bandits for no apparent reason). If you can come up with an interesting backstory for the armour, I'm okay with just about any crazy thing popping up once or maybe twice -- but it has sounded like you're not arguing for one or two suits of armour in unusual circumstances, or for customisation options, but rather for that to be the default state of armour in the game. That I disagree strongly with.
 

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."

Reality is not inherently repressive and certainly not inherently sexist, and neither is wearing practical armour. How are we the ones who are obsessed with skimpy and non-protective armour, when you're the one who's been arguing for it for dozens of pages?

If you haven't actually been arguing for that, but instead for clothing and not armour, then stop using oufits, clothing, and armour interchangeably.
 

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

I don't hate pretty things. I'm not very fond of them, in general, but I don't hate them. Most people find beauty in something or another; I likely find it in entirely different places than you do, but I don't hate it. Skimpy armour doesn't seem at all pretty to me, and I put it in an entirely different category from 'pretty things'. Fully functional armour covered in golden scrollwork and with flower rondels might constitute being pretty, and I wouldn't mind that; it's still valid armour, and it's a reasonable way to express oneself if one so chooses.

You would find it odd and out of place if somebody wore a full suit of armour to a bar or a party where everyone else is wearing almost nothing, yes? The other way around is even more out of place, since there is no chance of being killed in the bar due to wearing armour. Going swimming wearing full plate might work for that, I suppose; it's really not a good idea at all, and likely to not end well.
 

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.

For you. That's unfortunate, but there are still a lot of games out there that don't make much sense and aren't much grounded in reality, so I'm sure you still have at least a decent amount of other choices.
 

This isn't possible but if there was at least one character, lets just say a female mage (or whatever, a male mage, I don't care) instead of Blackwall (who seriously no one cares about), that's all into the dark arts and is half-dragon half-elf or something, dresses pretty hot and not remotely like the chaste-O-magnet Vivienne.

You know, long flowing silver hair or somethin, like to blow things up with meteor spells or whatever. I don't know, just something not boring, easy way to start solving the problem.

It would require all the additional characterization and stuff though which again I really haven't seen outside of Baldur's Gate, possibly because I was just imagining the characterization myself.

There's no evidence whatsoever that half-dragons are remotely possible in Dragon Age, but if they are, I wouldn't mind that part. If dressing 'pretty hot' is part of this person's personality, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although hopefully that's not all of their personality or indeed the main focus of it, because that would be rather dull (to me, at least). I might or might not like the character (frankly, Blackwall sounds more interesting to me so far), but I wouldn't mind having them in the game in some sense. Perhaps you should wait until you actually know what the characters are going to be like in the game before you judge them as boring, however.

I don't see how it would require more characterisation, though. It would be different.

Honestly, I've never had much interest in playing with the NPCs in Baldur's Gate since one can create one's whole party, so I can't say much about their characterisation. I expect that, at least to some extent, you were imagining it, because many of them didn't have particularly much dialog. DA:O was actually the first game where I could stand more than a handful of the NPC companions, and begrudged less not being able to make the entire party to begin with.
 

Hence the moderate tone, variety is not variety if it's only available to some. Though I certainly agree a set of armor is a set of armor regardless of who wears it, and that the variety is in one set of armor being different from another, and another and the other, not in one set of armor mysteriously changing shape based on the wearer (unless that's the point of the armor, which could be an interesting concept to explore - but that is, again, one set).

In that case, it would be available to all PCs, but I see your point at least in the abstract. In regards to clothing, and indeed almost everything other than armour, I would agree -- even just one or two sets of armour that are in the game, and have relevant drawbacks, I wouldn't mind being less protective (I would mind if they afforded the same armour bonus as other sets; that doen't make sense). I do think that wanting to wear something that affords very little protection into battle would be by far a minority opinion, but again, I wouldn't mind seeing a character who it made sense for wearing it. If there was such a character that it made sense for, I then wouldn't mind if you could take their armour, one way or another. Since it is very unlikely that someone would want to trade in a greater chance of keeping alive for looking 'hot', I would not expect this to be very many, if any, characters. I wouldn't've minded if Isabela wore revealing leather armour, for instance -- it would've suited her character. I did somewhat mind her wearing what she did wear, due to how impractical it is for what she did, but I can tolerate it better with that character than I could if Aveline had worn something equally impractical.
 

Variety is believability. In the now, in the past - one thing has never been the rule, and armor from one time and place, just as clothing, can, and will, be anywhere from minorly to vastly different. Protection, ideas of it, advancement of it are not simply different based on timeframe, but on place even within the same - not forgetting prior notes of the fantastic in a fantastic world, and what that means - as per game of thrones where the Dothraki can be very different in terms of combat wear than a fully armored Knight, yet both are still a threat to one another based on skill, circumstance and many other factors.

Clothing, certainly. Armour... well, there have been cultures who -- for whatever reason, be it heat, lack of resources, et cetera -- haven't worn much if any armour. If there is such a culture where it makes sense in Dragon Age, I'm fine with them not wearing much armour, equally between men and women. However, once people actually do start wearing armour, they cover up their vital areas first. That includes the chest and the abdomen, which are the areas most commonly left exposed by 'sexy' armour. Even in ancient Egypt, a very hot climate, soldiers often wore a band across the torso (generally the first area people protect), and the Pharoahs sometimes wore more complete armour. It's very rare that if somebody has the means to protect themselves more fully going into battle, they don't.
 

Varied choices, already noted, but I'd mention 'interesting' choices and forms of variety as well. The expected and practical, even the impractical, are all well of fine, even expected given we have Fantasy games that do all of these, and more, but the unexpected, the unique - the out of left field that we didn't even know we wanted, these are things of note as well.

Interesting choices are rather subjective, but yes, I agree that there should be a variety of choices, especially with regards to armour customisation.

I'm fine with finding a wacky suit of armour every now and again. Perhaps some mad mage left a particularly odd suit hidden away in a cave or whatnot. That's cool. What I've been arguing for is that the norm, the basic suits of armour, and indeed most if not all of the best suits of armour, are practical and the sort of thing the average warrior would be wearing on the battlefield.
 

Also, mr. grumpymooselion, I noticed that you have a Lovecraft quote in your signature, he's one of my favourite authors! Sorry, completely off topic, just excited to see appreciation where it is due.

Agreed! (And your avatar, if I'm not mistaken, is a drawing of Morwen -- if that's implying a fondness of The Silmarillion, equal appreciation to that.)

[Seraphim24]

I'm okay with it as an option for people when customising their armour, yes, and I've never said otherwise. I've been quite consistent on that for the entire duration of this topic. I'm not okay with it being everywhere. There's a rather distinct difference there.

If it does actually fit a character's personality, I'm also fine with them wearing different and even impractical armour. That's certainly not to say I want to see it everywhere, but since my main problem with it is that it doesn't make sense, of course I don't mind if it actually does make sense for a particular character. I'd expect that it wouldn't be protecting them as well as a full suit of armour would, but if they're making that in-character choice to exchange protection for attraction, fine.

I don't think it does have a role in the Dragon Age setting, per say, but that doesn't exclude specific people from going against that. An isolated case is very different from most of the guards you see wearing it. If there are one hundred suits of armour in the game, I'm fine with a few of them not being practical, so long as there's a reason for it (as in, you aren't just wandering along and come across a band of scantily clad bandits for no apparent reason). If you can come up with an interesting backstory for the armour, I'm okay with just about any crazy thing popping up once or maybe twice -- but it has sounded like you're not arguing for one or two suits of armour in unusual circumstances, or for customisation options, but rather for that to be the default state of armour in the game. That I disagree strongly with.

 

Well I'm pretty sure that's the most liberal opinion I've seen, at least, which suggests you aren't nearly as intimidated by sexuality as the rest of the children here who I'm not entirely sure have ever seen live breasts (or male chest.. er whatever) before. At least your tone suggests that much which is why I'd probably take realism more seriously. That whole it doesn't make sense for the universe does make sense for the character seems kind of timey wimey but whatever.

 

Unfortunately even that basically doesn't exist, at least in this game.

 

Also your probably partially right about Baldur's Gate. It was refreshing perhaps to have such a pure game which allowed me to get away from all the excess moralizing and create my own kinds of characters that could be the way that I wanted, so it was easier to pretend Bioware was more liberal than they actually were there I suppose.

 

Overall though I think they had a better approach back then, characters were just crazy D&D stereotypical stuff, provocative evil drow cleric, evil mage, over the top goody good Ranger.

 

I feel like I'd care less if this decline wasn't accompanied by the believe that they were somehow doing a better job at this kind of thing. If anything they've been doing worse, whatever success they've had is just relative to the bottomless pit that is western gaming.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Hence the moderate tone, variety is not variety if it's only available to some. Though I certainly agree a set of armor is a set of armor regardless of who wears it, and that the variety is in one set of armor being different from another, and another and the other, not in one set of armor mysteriously changing shape based on the wearer (unless that's the point of the armor, which could be an interesting concept to explore - but that is, again, one set).



Variety is believability. In the now, in the past - one thing has never been the rule, and armor from one time and place, just as clothing, can, and will, be anywhere from minorly to vastly different. Protection, ideas of it, advancement of it are not simply different based on timeframe, but on place even within the same - not forgetting prior notes of the fantastic in a fantastic world, and what that means - as per game of thrones where the Dothraki can be very different in terms of combat wear than a fully armored Knight, yet both are still a threat to one another based on skill, circumstance and many other factors.
 

No doubt, choice is a facest of variety by my measure. When more than one thing exists, choice is what allows the other things than what you might already have accessible.


Varied choices, already noted, but I'd mention 'interesting' choices and forms of variety as well. The expected and practical, even the impractical, are all well of fine, even expected given we have Fantasy games that do all of these, and more, but the unexpected, the unique - the out of left field that we didn't even know we wanted, these are things of note as well.

 

OK I'm coming back, if only because someone presents arguments that are much more valid than Kefka's insanities, which are now coupled with ad hominems for extra fun.

 

Variety is good, but it's not the be-all and end-all. Whatever reality dictates, within a work of fiction it's very common for the creator(s) to want a cohesive look, to some degree anyway. Comic books often have everyone be extremely muscled regardless of their occupation, or games like Gears of War. In LOTR each race has its own particular ''style'', in both books and films. In Star Wars, Jedi wear robes, evil Jedi wear dark robes, smugglers wear cowboy outfits, and soldiers wear plastic. Warhammer 40K has spikes, giant shoulders, or spikes on giant shoulders for almost everyone. So on and so forth. A coherent visual design is definitely a vital part of some franchises or works; who would imagine Sin City in color, Pokemon with gritty monsters, or Sherlock Holmes in anything else than his legendary outfit?

 

For Inquisition (and hell, historically for Dragon Age as a whole), it seems obvious to me Bioware has gone for a relatively cohesive view; people dress fully, warriors in metal armor, rogues in leather or vests of some sorts, mages in robes or longcoats, and civilians in various cloth attires depending on their gender/occupation/nationality/etc. This is by no means a hard rule, but it's definitely a prevalent aestethic. You have exceptions, like the Qunari wearing less than other warriors in the series, but it's a consistent feature of their people. It never comes across to me as gratuitous fanservice. And you can slap a heavy armor on both Sten and Iron Bull if you so desire.

 

Another thing to consider is that variety costs money. Bioware already has 8 humanoid models to animate, and make sure all armor in the game meshes with them, that's a lot of work. Add to that every follower's armor changes based on custom designs, and their modelers definitely had to work overtime. If you start adding detailed body customisation on top of that, it must quickly become silly. Only some MMOs allow that, and not the maority. And MMOs are 1) notoriously expensive 2) are always packed with clipping issues of various flavor 3) pretty much never have a cohesive design from what I've gathered and 4) don't have to animate detailed cutscenes for dozens, if not hundreds of characters with 8 different bodies. Well, SWTOR did, and it cost them so much they are barely starting to recoup the costs.

 

I mean, of course in theory more variety is good, especially in a RPG. But in practice it's not as simple as just willing variety in the game. Often developpers want a cohesive look, and they are always constrained by ressources. And it seems obvious to me Bioware doesn't want platekinis in their game or people going into battle almost naked unless they're walking brick walls.

[Spectre Impersonator]

As long as the pictures of scantily clad cosplayers continue being shared, I support this thread.

[In Exile]

I will say that the above is the strangest definition of sexism I've ever heard, and wonder whether it is intended to be applied equally with regards to men -- for surely if women not wearing revealing clothing were sexist, then men not doing the same also would be. Yet, the complaint always seems to be that women are wearing practical armour, not that men are. I'll just leave it at my complete disagreement with that, then, and that my belief is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and what makes the most sense for whatever situation they're in.

 

I haven't really read this thread, so keep in mind my comments are all in the abstract, but at least as the theory goes, sexism is not just about differential treatment between genders but about the context of historical disadvantage in which it occurs. So on that basis, the same circumstance can be sexist when applied to women but not men.

[Seraphim24]

Edit: Hadn't seen the last post yet when I posted this, so in response to that -- yes, I expect it has gone on too long, and it's entirely clear that nobody is really going to budge on their stance and that any useful means of communicating different preferences and clarifying opinions has probably already occured.

I will say that the above is the strangest definition of sexism I've ever heard, and wonder whether it is intended to be applied equally with regards to men -- for surely if women not wearing revealing clothing were sexist, then men not doing the same also would be. Yet, the complaint always seems to be that women are wearing practical armour, not that men are. I'll just leave it at my complete disagreement with that, then, and that my belief is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and what makes the most sense for whatever situation they're in.

Nobody (except perhaps Kefka?) was asking for complete agreement, or even necessarily agreement at all. "I sort of get where you're coming from" is probably the most that either side could expect in this debate.

 

I don't fully understand what you are saying here, honestly.

[Serendipity]

 
Agreed! (And your avatar, if I'm not mistaken, is a drawing of Morwen -- if that's implying a fondness of The Silmarillion, equal appreciation to that.)

 

It is! I really enjoy her character, despite the fact that she does not take an active role in combat, I appreciate her for her stoic and strong nature. *glared pointedly at Kefka* 

 

Also, I am not 'intimidated' by sexuality. I just- honestly, I'm convinced that you are just a troll at this point, because I can't comprehend anyone being quite as conceited and dunderheaded as you. We are saying that sexuality is good- in the right setting. 

 

Battle is not the right setting. 

I'm not even convinced a city would be the right setting. 

The bedroom, would be the right setting. 

 

Perhaps I'm more strict upon this than some, but the images that you post really, really look like lingerie. 

[slimgrin]

 

Cliff Notes of this Thread:

 

- Kefka is a sexist who thinks he's a feminist by supporting sexualized and objectifying armors

- Most people are telling him he's wrong, and he discounts the opinion of women

- Some people are okay with skimpy as long as its an option

- This thread is going on way too long and Kefka won't stop arguing his horribly flawed point

 

How much longer will it keep up? Time only tells.

 

[Hadeedak]

Sure it exists in this game.

 

We have Iron Bull, bless his wierd pants and harness obsession.

 

And you know what? It's kind of silly, but I don't mind, because he's a qunari and qunari seem to hate shirts, as a rule.

[AlanC9]

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."
.

Reality is inherently sexist and repressive?

[Seraphim24]

You build in the assumption that realism is necessary (or even dominant) element in a video game.

[Remmirath]

Well I'm pretty sure that's the most liberal opinion I've seen, at least, which suggests you aren't nearly as intimidated by sexuality as the rest of the children here who I'm not entirely sure have ever seen live breasts (or male chest.. er whatever) before. At least your tone suggests that much which is why I'd probably take realism more seriously. That whole it doesn't make sense for the universe does make sense for the character seems kind of timey wimey but whatever.

I'm not at all intimidated by sexuality, and I doubt anybody else is here, either. I don't understand it, but that hardly means that I must fear it. There are many other things that I don't understand and don't fear, after all. I'm not interested in it, scenes (in films, books, or games) involving it typically bore me, but I recognise that it is important for a great many people, and so I don't mind that those tend to find their way into most forms of entertainment. I can always skip over them or get a drink or something, after all. I do mind if people complain about their lack of presence in the few works that they're not present in, though, because I don't believe that they must be everywhere, and I think it's nice that they're not.

It makes perfect sense to me. People can go against what makes logical sense for the setting they are in, because some individuals have vastly different opinions, some even that completely defy logic (such as wearing skimpy armour into battle would). Believable, practical armour is something that makes sense both in the real world and within the Dragon Age setting, as evidenced by armour in Dragon Age having an armour value and by having also mechanics for armour penetration, so it stands to reason that the great majority of people will wear protective armour. If there's somebody who, in character, really doesn't see an edge up in living as being more important than attracting attention -- okay, then. All I ask is that it obviously be a facet of that person's character, and not their entire character.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that people were arguing otherwise, though. I think most people were fairly clear that they just want the great majority of the armour choices to be reasonable and protective, and to have it taken into account with regards to the protective value of the armour if there are less protective pieces of armour available.
 

Also your probably partially right about Baldur's Gate. It was refreshing perhaps to have such a pure game which allowed me to get away from all the excess moralizing and create my own kinds of characters that could be the way that I wanted, so it was easier to pretend Bioware was more liberal than they actually were there I suppose.
 
Overall though I think they had a better approach back then, characters were just crazy D&D stereotypical stuff, provocative evil drow cleric, evil mage, over the top goody good Ranger.

I agree that they in some ways had a better approach then, but not for the reasons you state (well, not with regards to NPCs; it was certainly easier to roleplay your PC(s) than it has been in their last few games). There are many things about Baldur's Gate that I prefer to more recent games, but the exact specifics of the companion NPCs was not one of them. The fact that I was able to avoid the companion NPCs by creating my own party, however, was.
 

I feel like I'd care less if this decline wasn't accompanied by the believe that they were somehow doing a better job at this kind of thing. If anything they've been doing worse, whatever success they've had is just relative to the bottomless pit that is western gaming.

They've had at least a passable variety of female characters from the beginning, so I'd say they're doing about the same as they always have. It's unfortunate that it remains significantly better than average. How many people have actually been saying that they've been doing better with regards to female characters in recent times, though? I think most people would say that they've been keeping fairly consistent on that score.
 

I haven't really read this thread, so keep in mind my comments are all in the abstract, but at least as the theory goes, sexism is not just about differential treatment between genders but about the context of historical disadvantage in which it occurs. So on that basis, the same circumstance can be sexist when applied to women but not men.

True, but if anything, history would be more on the side of saying that female characters wearing practical armour and fighting in games is liberating, not the other way around. That's what I find so bizarre. I may not've made that point well, however.
 

I don't fully understand what you are saying here, honestly.

It was poorly phrased, I admit.

I'm saying that, from what you have said, it sounds as though you believe that female characters wearing practical armour is sexist or repressive, but not that male characters doing the same is. That doesn't make sense to me. If one is repressive, the other also should be.

Also, see above. There has been a fairly long history of people valuing female characters (and women in general) primarily for their attractiveness, but that same has not been true of male characters (and men). Therefore, within that context, I fail to see how continuing to value them for that is liberating, whereas valuing them when they are fighting and wearing practical armour would be. Valuing both men and women based on their personalities and what they can contribute in general is to be preferred.
 

It is! I really enjoy her character, despite the fact that she does not take an active role in combat, I appreciate her for her stoic and strong nature. *glared pointedly at Kefka*

I've always appreciated that about her as well. She's an interesting character.
 

Perhaps I'm more strict upon this than some, but the images that you post really, really look like lingerie.

Indeed they do.

Given that this may be more obvious in my mind than it is to people reading what I've written, I should probably take the time to note that when I say I don't mind if a character or two has less practical armour (and I very much do not mind that only if it is explicitly in character for them), I'm not talking about armour that far out of practical so as not to even count as armour, and I'm talking primarily about leather or lighter/combined armours. I don't mind one or two things like Skyrim's Orcish armour on female characters or (if it was leather and not mostly-plate) that image posted of the Witcher character (Saskia, I think, if I recall correctly? I've not played that game), again, so long as if they're lootable they will appear the same on a male character. The lingerie looking ones, no, I don't want to see those anywhere near a combat. Character preference doesn't even excuse that level of absurdity. I would consider such options on more or less the same level as the Jester's Chain or the Studded Leather of Thorns in Baldur's Gate II -- a somewhat off-beat option that most characters likely wouldn't choose.

Iron Bull... well, I don't know about his character yet, so I can't say. It might be in character. It'll be annoying if it's not. However, since we can put different armour on the NPCs again, it won't bother me as much as it would've in DA II.