This seems a bit exaggerated. With the exception of Bull, who's perpetually topless, everyone is covered up by heavy robes and armor all of the time, unless you engage in a romance to the point of getting a sex scene. I guess there's Dorian's bare left arm.
I wonder where this forum would be if we got a male equivalent of Isabela.
Spoiler
You did get a male equivalent of Isabela
You want to bang his personality, gotcha. Might be slightly disappointing though!
(sorry, could not resist)
But we're really heading into the chicken-and-egg territory here. If anything we seem to be differentiating between 'optical sexiness' and 'personality-wise sexiness' now, which is fair enough! But they're definitely not mutually exclusive, so as to say that if an otherwise unattractive person gets 'sexualised' in the optical sense, it's bad. It's simply chance giving different characters different measures of luck in different characteristics.
Otherwise, if I was to agree with many posters on here that consider Cassandra very sexy looks-wise, then I would almost have to yell 'sexualisation', because I consider the rest of her (personality etc.) very unattractive too. Doesn't seem very logical to me, or at least I'm not quite getting the merit of this distinction between 'outward sexiness = sexualisation' vs. 'inward sexiness = non-sexualisation'. *confused*
No no no, it's his eyes...eye... flashlight... 
But seriously, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here... What I mean when I say 'subjective perception of someone's sexiness' is not necessarily referring to their personality. It can very well be their body, just that that body does not have prominently displayed sexual characteristics. I doubt Legion's designer at any point thought 'man, I'm designing one sexy bod...', still, I find that form sexy/sexually attractive.
A less 'alien' example - I just got into Borderlands, and Handsome Jack shows no skin, has a
I think the distinction is that "sexy" is entirely subjective whereas sexualised leaves less room for debate. There is sometimes an overlap, and sometimes there isn't. There usually is to an extent because sexualisation of a character generally enhances what people tend to find attractive in that gender (I say generally because I'm well aware this isn't the case for everyone.) For women it 's breasts, hips, seductive movements etc. For men it's the chest, arms, shoulders being wider than hips, signifiers of strength and stability.
I find Cassandra extremely sexy, but I think everyone agrees that she is decidedly not sexualised. It's a silly argument to say "I don't find find Iron Bull sexy, therefore he isn't sexualised" because only you can decide if you find him sexy, but being sexualised doesn't depend on how attractive you find someone. I don't find Pamela Anderson or Miley Cyrus attractive in the least, but I doubt anyone would say they haven't ramped the sex factor up to 11.
I think the distinction is that "sexy" is entirely subjective whereas sexualised leaves less room for debate. There is sometimes an overlap, and sometimes there isn't. There usually is to an extent because sexualisation of a character generally enhances what people tend to find attractive in that gender (I say generally because I'm well aware this isn't the case for everyone.) For women it 's breasts, hips, seductive movements etc. For men it's the chest, arms, shoulders being wider than hips, signifiers of strength and stability.
I find Cassandra extremely sexy, but I think everyone agrees that she is decidedly not sexualised. It's a silly argument to say "I don't find find Iron Bull sexy, therefore he isn't sexualised" because only you can decide if you find him sexy, but being sexualised doesn't depend on how attractive you find someone. I don't find Pamela Anderson or Miley Cyrus attractive in the least, but I doubt anyone would say they haven't ramped the sex factor up to 11.
Yep, agreed, that's what I've been saying.
The Iron Bull is a somewhat controversial case on the forum because of the entire 'naked muscled chest as sexualization' vs. 'naked muscled chest as strength and power', but those have been discussed before already. Cassandra is a much clearer example.
I don't find Pamela Anderson or Miley Cyrus attractive in the least, but I doubt anyone would say they haven't ramped the sex factor up to 11.
Yep, agreed, that's what I've been saying.
The Iron Bull is a somewhat controversial case on the forum because of the entire 'naked muscled chest as sexualization' vs. 'naked muscled chest as strength and power', but those have been discussed before already. Cassandra is a much clearer example.
As I said though, those aren't mutually exclusive. Strength and power just happen to be some of the things that people tend to find attractive in men. It's likely a bit of both, but IB is most definitely sexualised. Arguably more so than anyone else in the game.
Yeah. But 'sexualisation' is generally made out to be a bad thing in this thread, isn't it?
So what's bad about, say, P.A. or M.C. making the best of what nature gifted them with?
If it's bad, do we have to say something like: 'If you are very sexy, you have to wear a potato sack so as not to invite accusations of self-sexualisation', 'If you are soso sexy, you are allowed to wear make-up' and 'If you are not sexy at all, you are not allowed to do anything to conceal the bads and emphasise the goods because beauty is simply not part of your resume'?
Because the latest typification of NPC sexualisation definitely made the last statement in the list above.
I think the 'bad' aspect is what's dependent on presentation, since like I said before, npc's are not people making decisions for themselves, hence context and intent become important.
As I said though, those aren't mutually exclusive. Strength and power just happen to be some of the things that people tend to find attractive in men. It's likely a bit of both, but IB is most definitely sexualised. Arguably more so than anyone else in the game.
Eh, agree to disagree, I just don't see it in him any more than I see it in Kratos. But maybe I just haven't been interacting with him enough.
Yeah. But 'sexualisation' is generally made out to be a bad thing in this thread, isn't it?
So what's bad about, say, P.A. or M.C. making the best of what nature gifted them with?
If it's bad, do we have to say something like: 'If you are very sexy, you have to wear a potato sack so as not to invite accusations of self-sexualisation', 'If you are soso sexy, you are allowed to wear make-up' and 'If you are not sexy at all, you are not allowed to do anything to conceal the bads and emphasise the goods because beauty is simply not part of your resume'?
Because the latest typification of NPC sexualisation definitely made the last statement in the list above.
Yes, it is.
Nothing, i'm all for people doing what makes them happy, so long as it doesn't restrict what others do to make themselves happy (within reason, i'm by no means advocating murder or paedophilia or anything of that nature.)
And that leads me to what I always find troubling in these kinds of debates, censorship. I think people have every right to complain about things they dislike in games, especially when it has been historically as lopsided as it's been in videogames. I find it to be a problem when people go from "I don't like this" to "I don't like this, so it needs to be purged from videogames!" because that's when you start dictating what other people are allowed to enjoy. Much like that poster who wanted the staff and sword patched out of the game because s/he was personally offended.
But let's, for example, take BloodRayne (the game, the movie was a typical Boll catastrophe). I could see why people would call her 'sexualised'; she has all the optical attributes required to be called such (unnaturally large breasts, skin-tight clothing that, while revealing, leaves all the important parts covered, yet leaves little to the imagination), but at the same time I cannot remember any time in the game that she was presented as a trophy or anything but a dangerous and beautiful heroine. In fact, every male NPC in the game that tried to 'objectify' her ended up dead. So is this 'good' sexualisation or 'bad'?
Personally speaking, I don't mind that kind of character at all because the character is very clearly made to be inherently sexual, being built around the femme fatale cliche from what I can tell from that wallpaper. They very clearly didn't just take a female character, slapped some cleavage on her, and called it a day. They knew the kind of character they wanted to make and crafted her appearance around that.
Now, there may be a debate about whether there are too many sexual female characters in video games, regardless of whether that sexuality is inherent to the character or needlessly imposed on them. The argument here tends to revolve around an abundance of sexual female characters reinforcing negative stereotypes and bottlenecking women into a cliche. Personally, I think great strides are being made in the industry to move away from this and that much of the problem can be mitigated if we just removed the senselessly sexualized ones, but it's something worth considering. Of course, a far less emphasized subject is the negative stereotyping and bottlenecking of men into violent, emotionless brutes due to the abundance of those types of male characters. But here again, I do think the industry is making great strides in having more diverse representations.
I find it to be a problem when people go from "I don't like this" to "I don't like this, so it needs to be purged from videogames!" because that's when you start dictating what other people are allowed to enjoy. Much like that poster who wanted the staff and sword patched out of the game because s/he was personally offended.
Eh, that's a really fine line to draw and is more of a distinction in degree rather than in kind. "I don't like this" pretty easily becomes "I would like this gone" which easily becomes "this should be gone." Fans will always want their product to conform to their desires, whether that be less sex, more hair, or no naked ladies on staves. It's more on the artist to not cave to external demands if it jeopardizes the art than it is on the patrons to not make demands of the artist.
IMHO:
I don't mind if the rogues and mages run around half naked, but I want my warriors in armor.
And yes, I put Iron Bull in proper armor as soon as I find some he can wear, and we ditch that silly harness.
I guess we are getting stuck on words now ^^
Sexualization in sense I'm speaking here is mostly negative and it's sexualization of something that doesn't need to be sexualized and isn't already made to be sexy in way someone wants to change her/him to be (it can be still sexy depending on personal attraction). Giving Cassandra bikini armor would sexualize her in way that is negative, it would go against her as character (I think she would feel humiliated instead of feeling strong and sexy in that taking accord her personality) and would break art-style of Dragon Age as well. I think this is the kind of sexualisation that I'm speaking at least ^^
When I think sexualization as something positive, to me it's designing sexy characters who are in top of their attractiviness like Isabela, Zevran or Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Still not going ridiculously sexy unless that's whole point of the art of the game or someone other media (and hopefully implied to both genders) in terms of making her outfit still reasonable and not looking like fetish-wear
I hope I'm making some kind of sense here on my view
I hope all the women in the next game have enormous dongs, just to tick you off even further.
I guess we are getting stuck on words now ^^
Sexualization in sense I'm speaking here is mostly negative and it's sexualization of something that doesn't need to be sexualized and isn't already made to be sexy in way someone wants to change her/him to be (it can be still sexy depending on personal attraction). Giving Cassandra bikini armor would sexualize her in way that is negative, it would go against her as character (I think she would feel humiliated instead of feeling strong and sexy in that taking accord her personality) and would break art-style of Dragon Age as well. I think this is the kind of sexualisation that I'm speaking at least ^^
When I think sexualization as something positive, to me it's designing sexy characters who are in top of their attractiviness like Isabela, Zevran or Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Still not going ridiculously sexy unless that's whole point of the art of the game or someone other media (and hopefully implied to both genders) in terms of making her outfit still reasonable and not looking like fetish-wear
I hope I'm making some kind of sense here on my view
You're making sense about what you want to say, but the content of what you want to say and do say is muddy at best.
Your point is utterly based on personal taste and opinion, such as "doesn't need to be sexualised"-says who? And does it "need to not be sexualised" instead?-Says who again? "Going against character" Really? You legitimately think personality has a bearing on clothing? There are clothes that reflect thinking types or mindsets? I really don't agree with that and its implications.
The whole concept of positive/negative sexualisation can't appear to seem as anything other than subjective and taste-based, from what I've seen so far.
The only thing that could make sense is your "would break art-style of Dragon Age", since there are obviously stylistic trends in DA and suddenly having a character in outfits like Terra online would be..."not in agreement with the current fashion style of the world" , to put it mildly, but then again, even in real life there are exceptions and new trends or individuals who just don't care and do their own thing, so that wouldn't be an actual issue either.
Edit, I originally thought I wouldn't comment on that, but the post before me that got typed while I was still writing this and I changed my opinion after seeing it. It's obviously not directed at Panda, it's more of a general statement, it's not even addressed at BeefheartSpud.
Some posters here really give out a bizarre "wah, wah, plethora of titillation can't be a valid source of entertainment in video games" bitterness vibe. It's really weird and really sad. People should obviously voice their distaste and ask for things to be as they want but when they try to say that some sort of aesthetics are "superior" to others or that some aesthetics are "questionable" it gets really ludicrous. Especially when we reach levels of wanting things to be one way, not because of personal enjoyment but to spite others.
Obviously, the same goes to people who think that lack of titillation is an issue.
Really? You legitimately think personality has a bearing on clothing?
You don't?
You don't?
Let me make myself clear. You think [wearing of clothes of type x] reveals something about your personality? Like, can you say "Oh, he/she wears x, she must be a personality_type_a1" and consider your justification[wears x] sufficient for your statement [must be a personality_type_a1]?
You're making sense about what you want to say, but the content of what you want to say and do say is muddy at best.
Your point is utterly based on personal taste and opinion, such as "doesn't need to be sexualised"-says who? And does it "need to not be sexualised" instead?-Says who again? "Going against character" Really? You legitimately think personality has a bearing on clothing? There are clothes that reflect thinking types or mindsets? I really don't agree with that and its implications.
The whole concept of positive/negative sexualisation can't appear to seem as anything other than subjective and taste-based, from what I've seen so far.
The only thing that could make sense is your "would break art-style of Dragon Age", since there are obviously stylistic trends in DA and suddenly having a character in outfits like Terra online would be..."not in agreement with the current fashion style of the world" , to put it mildly, but then again, even in real life there are exceptions and new trends or individuals who just don't care and do their own thing, so that wouldn't be an actual issue either.
Edit, I originally thought I wouldn't comment on that, but the post before me that got typed while I was still writing this and I changed my opinion after seeing it. It's obviously not directed at Panda, it's more of a general statement, it's not even addressed at BeefheartSpud.
Some posters here really give out a bizarre "wah, wah, plethora of titillation can't be a valid source of entertainment in video games" bitterness vibe. It's really weird and really sad. People should obviously voice their distaste and ask for things to be as they want but when they try to say that some sort of aesthetics are "superior" to others or that some aesthetics are "questionable" it gets really ludicrous. Especially when we reach levels of wanting things to be one way, not because of personal enjoyment but to spite others.
Obviously, the same goes to people who think that lack of titillation is an issue.
Yes I very much believe personality has affect on clothing and what way person wants to express themselves as ^^ Like in high school, you can often guess what persons hobbies are from their clothing. I think in video games and in other medias where character are created this is high-lighted in making character wear outfit that not only shows their environment and status, but also shows their personality. I think sexy is also character trait, something that translates to outfits for characters who it fits, simply with characters who would want to appear as sexy like Isabela and Zevran. In other hand character like Cassandra doesn't fit in revealing armor, her armor is tough like her and shows off her profession as Seeker as well.
You are right though that what people feel is negatively and unnecessarily sexualized and what is sexy in good way is different and that's why we are having these debates here ^^ Like some here think Iron Bull is negatively sexualized, some don't etc.
In other hand if there is lot of negative feedback and discussion that something is too much, I think it's good if developers and artist can take that feedback and maybe improve their product. Like one good example is this cover of Catwoman's new series, one in left is what cover was going to be and one in right is what they changed it after feedback.
On artist defence, it seems like one in left was supposed to parody, but I doubt that parody would have translated well to comic readers ^^;
Yes I very much believe personality has affect on clothing and what way person wants to express themselves as ^^
No.
Sorry, no.
I can't accept that. It's reeks too much of examples like "she's constantly wearing short skirts, she's a sl*t who is just looking to get f*cked", regardless of if that was your intention or not -which I don't think it was-.
No, I just can't support that mindset.
No.
Sorry, no.
I can't accept that. It's reeks too much of examples like "she's constantly wearing short skirts, she's a sl*t who is just looking to get f*cked", regardless of if that was your intention or not -which I don't think it was-.
No, I just can't support that mindset.
Well people usually buy their clothes themselves and they often buy what they like. They buy their favorite color, their favorite brand, their favorite style and usually people's clothing style tell what they like in life and what kind of persons they are, well at least it's your first impression of people that might be right or wrong.
In character building outfit is very important. Morrigan wears her iconic clothing to give that dark, cynic and hard to approach- witch look. Isabela's outfit is both carefree and sexy. Sebastian's shiny armor is as polished and virtuous as he wants to be. Cassandra's practical armor shows that she's serious and business-like, but little heart-details show her romantic size.
Let me make myself clear. You think [wearing of clothes of type x] reveals something about your personality? Like, can you say "Oh, he/she wears x, she must be a personality_type_a1" and consider your justification[wears x] sufficient for your statement [must be a personality_type_a1]?
I personally hate that "what you wear tells who you are"-mentality. I have been labeled so much because of this. I have tattoos too. Again, I get labeled because of this. Worst example: mother of two children was very surprised that I don't smoke because " you look that type of person who smokes". This happened 10 years ago and it still pissess me off. I take labeling people by their looks not only stupid, but offensive.
I agree with Tahol and TevinterSupremacist.
TBH I get annoyed at that theory too. It is one of the cornerstones of the 'well she was wearing short skirts, she WANTED it' arguments and we all agree, I hope, that that is utter nonsense. I know that is not what you meant in this thread, but it is the essence of your argument nonetheless.
That said, I know from observation (heck, even I know the feeling, as a man) that people may pick specific clothes to express a specific mood. Women may decide to wear high heels because they want to feel sexy. I have a set of clothes I pick when I feel particularly happy and carefree. But 'mood' is so far away from 'character' that I don't really think that there is any correlation, at least none that allows interpreting clothes to deduce personality.
I really enjoyed the last pages of discussion, it felt as if we were getting somewhere. It's a bit disheartening though that we seem to be back at base, saying 'if I like it, it's okay, if I don't, it's not'... I really was hoping for something more substantial.
I agree with Tahol and TevinterSupremacist.
TBH I get annoyed at that theory too. It is one of the cornerstones of the 'well she was wearing short skirts, she WANTED it' arguments and we all agree, I hope, that that is utter nonsense. I know that is not what you meant in this thread, but it is the essence of your argument nonetheless.
That said, I know from observation (heck, even I know the feeling, as a man) that people may pick specific clothes to express a specific mood. Women may decide to wear high heels because they want to feel sexy. I have a set of clothes I pick when I feel particularly happy and carefree. But 'mood' is so far away from 'character' that I don't really think that there is any correlation, at least none that allows interpreting clothes to deduce personality.
I really enjoyed the last pages of discussion, it felt as if we were getting somewhere. It's a bit disheartening though that we seem to be back at base, saying 'if I like it, it's okay, if I don't, it's not'... I really was hoping for something more substantial.
Nah, c'mon, there's progress... Like, I was almost going to back up the 'clothing reflects personality' crowd, but now I've read your post and thought about how I like light/bright colors and casual yet attractive cuts... and how I'd love to stab every other person that tries to talk to me with a spork, most of the time.
Eh, if characters outfit doesn't reflect who they are as person, I don't know what the point is character design then 
And umm, people don't buy clothes just buying the cheapest option, at least generally. Usually people have certain styles that reflect who they are, what they like and what kind of person they are, though it's not always straight-forward.
I don't think these two points are theory, I think they are more about common sense.
Eh, if characters outfit doesn't reflect who they are as person, I don't know what the point is character design then
And umm, people don't buy clothes just buying the cheapest option, at least generally. Usually people have certain styles that reflect who they are, what they like and what kind of person they are, though it's not always straight-forward.
I don't think these two points are theory, I think they are more about common sense.
That is also true, due to the issue I keep bringing up - that characters are not 'designing' themselves. In their case, there is always a point to the way a character is dressed (being dressed).
With real people it's a lot more convoluted due to the multitude of factors, from money to social pressures.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut