547 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

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. 

 

Cassandra is pretty heavily "sexualized" (and consequently somewhat "sexy") to me, she has pretty good skin, those eyes that go kinda of doe in moments of shock and let the frowning go away. She has pretty ample breasts, I mean... it's all related to sex appeal on some fundamental level. By the standards of a random person she's basically a runway model. Iron Bull is basically an alien race but he's basically a blue MMA fighter, so it's also fundamentally tied to sexiness, sexualization, and sex appeal. 

 

I think this sexy/sexualization distinction is pretty meaningless to be honest and makes me more confused than normal. The only reason it comes up is because I guess Cassandra has shorter hair and a few other things like full plate or whatever that supposedly make her not "sexy," which is like if you want a companion that's not sexy you would have a beholder in the party.

 

Incidentally I don't really see a problem with this, so Bioware wants to use sex appeal to sell their game, great. They just have that in common with 100% of all the art ever created like ever in all of human history. I mean really, that Venus statue from like 35000 BC is basically a harem anime girl from 2015. Or the Greeks had one of the most famous civilizations in history and they appeared to sexualize the **** out of everything.

 

To be honest I'm not really sure where this whole conversation is going... it almost sounds like "don't judge people strictly by their appearance" which I had assumed we all learned in 2nd grade?

[The Oracle]

Yes. It's wrong to compare character design in a game to how we as individuals behave in life. This is a fictional world that, though it is constantly being expanded on, is so limited in scope that anything but the most basic of comparisons to real life will always fall flat. Our choices of clothing/personal style have so many influences ranging from where we live, the climate, our family, culture and religion all combined with each unique personality, outlook, taste and budget. Whew...

 

This game, while large in scope is incredibly short in any real dialogue or scenes which would allow you to truly know and invest in a character. Therefore, the designers have to reinforce the main aspects of a character in every way possible to make any impact. Everything they say, the way they move, the clothes they wear, it all needs create the illusion of a fully faceted personality and history which can only be briefly brushed upon in game.

 

[Edit: I feel I've just stated something terribly obvious. My apologies. Today seems to be one of those "No-one needs to hear your babbling" days for me.  ]

[Lady Artifice]

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.

Sounds like measuring in extremes to me. ::shrug::

There's a middle ground between negatively profiling people on their appearance and acknowledging that people often express themselves through clothing and style, provided that they have the freedom to do so.

[Panda]

I do agree that resources and environment that people have affect also in the way they dress, but I think that within boundaries their resources and environment provides to them people still try to go for their own style. Sometimes it's more obvious like dressing in glothic or lolita-style, sometimes you don't get much information maybe other than this person seems practical or provocative or feminine etc. Sometimes you can go wrong, but I think people in general look these small hints on people's outfits IRL, but even more so in video games and other art forms where characters are much less limited by resources and artist can make them look just right.

[DomeWing333]

How people dress is of course informed by how they wish to present themselves. People decry the practice of judging books by their covers, but the reality is that book covers are often purposefully designed to give some indication as to what's inside the book.

 

Now, of course, there may be discrepancies between what the book cover is trying to convey and what the contents of the book actually are and this can be either incidental or itself intended. I may put a nude female figure on the cover of my book to symbolize freedom and spirituality but someone who picks up my book might interpret that as sexual. Or I may purposefully make my book cover seem to convey one concept and then subvert it with the actual contents.

 

The same thing happens when designing characters and in real life. Iron Bull was designed to bias the audience towards an interpretation that he's just a big lumbering, mindless brute and then have that notion be subverted by his shrewdness as a spy and demonstrations of intellect (such as when he plays mind-chess with Solas).

 

The important thing to do isn't to avoid judging books by their covers altogether, because that's pretty much impossible unless you're actually blind. Human psychology is designed to look for patterns in the world and whether we want to or not, a person dressed in a certain way will complete whatever pattern has been established in our heads. The important thing to do is to, as the presenter, be mindful of what patterns of biases might be out there and decide whether you want to conform to or subvert those, and as the audience, be open to the possibility of your preconceived notions being proved wrong.

[Terodil]

Yeah. So now I agree with (almost) everybody here and am still confused -- or even more so xD

 

Considering what DomeWing just said (critically check patterns and preconceptions for their applicability in a specific case, which ultimately implies a subjective assessment that can be right or wrong), I'd like to pull RatPack's (I think it was yours, sorry if not) assumption into question again whether we can really make the posited distinction between an NPC (gets the choice made for him/her) and a real person (decides for him/herself). Authors play a lot with clichés, both by using them or by subverting them, so we should really be questioning our perception for the duration of the entire game to see if we are seeing a cliché fulfilled or subverted... or simply ignored -- just like with a person IRL.

 

Still, the more I think about all this the 'spongier' it all gets. Art style is a multidimensional continuum, as is the definition of beauty; we also have difficulty pinning down the interrelationship between clothing style and character because it is further muddied by the impact of mood. For every one of these major points that we discovered (probably even forgot a few) we end up with big ifs and whens which can simply not be covered by a character designer for lack of both time and presentation 'space'.

 

So wouldn't it be reasonable to offer the player the option to fill in the blanks? Isn't that what fantasy is about? Since you have to fill in whatever the author wasn't able to fully specify, we can just embrace this option of empowering the player as the interpreter of the game. In which case asking for more variance in the availability of NPC looks and clothing does not seem so out-of-whack any more.

 

Edit/PS: It's very similar, though to a lesser degree obviously, to reading a book. I remember reading one of Tolkien's books, where one of the more prominent elves (I can't quite remember if it was Legolas or that 2nd age elf hero... good gracious I have to read the Silmarillion again) never had his hair colour specified. For the longest time I pictured him with raven hair, until I saw an illustration with him as a blonde. For me it held significance, I couldn't really befriend the suddenly blonde picture of him. So what if a game offers the player some say in how s/he perceives its NPCs? SWTOR does it pretty well, and I really like the idea.

 

(HERE THERE BE SWTOR SPOILERS)

Edit 2/PPS: Speaking of SWTOR, I have an example where such interpretation is actually absolutely crucial to the player's perception of an NPC. Take Quinn, one of the Sith warrior's companions. In a big (fantastic, if I may say so) surprise turn, he ambushes the warrior at the behest of his former master, who has now turned into the protagonist's enemy. He fails to kill you in that ambush, obviously, but the interpretation of that incident is entirely left to the player. One can interpret Quinn as a slimy traitor who simply failed at getting the protagonist killed. In the original release of the game, you could kill him for that. However, given what happens at the start of the game -- where Quinn helps you on a mission, but says that he considers the chance of you making it back near nil -- and given how Quinn operates with a highly intelligent, very strategic and logic mind (he promises to learn from that initial miscalculation), one could also arrive at the conclusion that his betrayal was actually a supremely clever act of two-sided misinformation, by which he actually saved the protagonist while still saving himself from the wrath of his former master. In that case the warrior and Quinn as a pair of lovers (which you could establish beforehand), in fact, even as husband and wife, remains intact. If this isn't a fantastic opportunity for player empowerment I don't know what is.

 

Modifying the looks of an NPC is child's play compared to that.

[DomeWing333]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at, Terodil. I don't think anybody was trying to argue that players shouldn't be allowed "fill in the blanks" of a character. A trickier argument is to what extent is it acceptable for a player to reject a reality put forth by the artist and replace it with their own, such as in the case of modding a practically-minded warrior like Cassandra to have a chainmail bikini.

 

My stance on something like that is that players should certainly have the freedom to do whatever they want to a product that they purchased, but it's also fine for others to look down on particularly tasteless applications of that freedom. If I purchase an American flag, it would certainly be within my right as a consumer to then use that flag as a rag to mop up spills. But when I declare that as my intention, I shouldn't be surprised that people might express their disapproval at my action.

[Lady Artifice]

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.

 

This one, in particular, went to an extreme. What you're talking about is stereotyping, and extremely negative stereotyping at that. It also seems to confuse personality with an assessment of moral caliber. 

 

Again, it is possible to find a balance between that potentially harmful way of thinking, and recognizing the fact that people who freely choose their own clothing are usually going to choose clothing based on something, whether it be convenience, style, comfort, practicality, etc. The act of making that choice, in itself, is going to have something to do with a person's preferences and probably their personality. Most books written about crafting characters will make note of the reality that the way a character is depicted as dressing is going to tell the audience something about them. 

[Winged Silver]

That does raise a good point - in a limited space, such as within one game, a lot of information about a companion needs to be shared without listing every character quality. Clothing plays a role in that. 

 

It's also where things get interesting, as everyone interprets the apparel differently. 

[TheRatPack55]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at, Terodil. I don't think anybody was trying to argue that players shouldn't be allowed "fill in the blanks" of a character. A trickier argument is to what extent is it acceptable for a player to reject a reality put forth by the artist and replace it with their own, such as in the case of modding a practically-minded warrior like Cassandra to have a chainmail bikini.

 

My stance on something like that is that players should certainly have the freedom to do whatever they want to a product that they purchased, but it's also fine for others to look down on particularly tasteless applications of that freedom. If I purchase an American flag, it would certainly be within my right as a consumer to then use that flag as a rag to mop up spills. But when I declare that as my intention, I shouldn't be surprised that people might express their disapproval at my action.

 

Actually, not really: 

Spoiler

18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

(a)

(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

 

But yeah, when it comes to games. I mean, I guess one can mod to their heart's content, but when you come to a site dedicated to that game to showcase your creations/choices, and make a claim that that is what everyone's games should look like, expect opposition.

[DomeWing333]

Actually, not really: 

Spoiler

18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

That's actually the "Flag Protection Act" and was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech. (I had the same concern when I thought about using that as an example, but then I remembered this from a Simpsons episode.   )

[TheRatPack55]

That's actually the "Flag Protection Act" and was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech. (I had the same concern when I thought about using that as an example, but then I remembered this from a Simpsons episode.   )

 

Huh, well, let nobody say gaming forums aren't educational. 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

OK OP. lets work this out.

Question. what is the naritive of the story? dose the realistic armor fit in it?

forinstance in it a Tolkentsque epic whith gritty graphics or a Jrpg whith chainswords and Maebari and pasties for the chickd and a bananahamock for the guys?

ultimately i dont care as long as its a fun game.

[M_Helder]

I'm afraid you've misspelled 'I want boobs' in your 'fantasy-realism' rant far too many times, my friend.
 

Honestly, the game has so many actually important flaws (gameplay/story/immersion-wise) that obsessing over digital pixels, i.e. women curves, seems a bit odd. I mean, really? That's what bothers you?

[Terodil]

Honestly, the game has so many actually important flaws (gameplay/story/immersion-wise) that obsessing over digital pixels, i.e. women curves, seems a bit odd. I mean, really? That's what bothers you?

We all know that curves excel at distracting straight men and lesbian/bi women. Hence the proven high defense value of bikini armor against enemies of these types in the first place. I think the OP is making a helpful suggestion, as it would allow BW to gloss over the numerous, sometimes indeed painful shortcomings of DA:I with relatively little time, effort, and cloth/chainmail requirements. BW just need to make sure that the straight ladies and the gay/bi guys get similarly distracting eye candy, or there won't just be cries of sexism, but these groups will continue to see the shocking reality of DA:I.

(P.S. sorry for not picking up on the latest contributions to the discussion, might do so tomorrow... too tired for anything serious tonight)

[Commander Rpg]

We all know that curves excel at distracting

Every sexual fan service is distracting, the less there is, the more quality the game can have.

[SnakeCode]

Every sexual fan service is distracting, the less there is, the more quality the game can have.

 

That's not necessarily true. It's just your opinion which is entirely subjective. The OP actually proves that this isn't the case for everyone, as he clearly would get more enjoyment out of the game if it had more fan service aimed in his direction.

 

Those two things aren't on the same scale and don't affect each other, neither do a games quality and your enjoyment of it. You can have a very good game with a lot of fan service, and you can have bad games with little to none.

[Commander Rpg]

That's not necessarily true. It's just your opinion which is entirely subjective.

Tastes are subjective, but quality is not, as I can like something poorly done and dislike a masterpiece. It doesn't mean the opera isn't bad/good, it means my tastes cannot recognize either a fistful of feces or a seventh wonder.

[SnakeCode]

Tastes are subjective, but quality is not, as I can like something poorly done and dislike a masterpiece.

Yes that's exactly what I just said. The amount of fan service doesn't affect a games quality though, it affects how much you enjoy it. 

[Commander Rpg]

Yes that's exactly what I just said. The amount of fan service doesn't affect a games quality though, it affects how much you enjoy it. 

It affects quality because it eats into the main body of the opera, polluting it with unnecessary and detrimental material. If there are people that enjoy it and don't bother, it's not a reason to approve it.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Tastes are subjective, but quality is not, as I can like something poorly done and dislike a masterpiece. It doesn't mean the opera isn't bad/good, it means my tastes cannot recognize either a fistful of feces or a seventh wonder.

And what objective codex for deeming what has good quality and what not would you use, that would be more than just taste?

 

 

It affects quality because it eats into the main body of the opera, polluting it with unnecessary and detrimental material. If there are people that enjoy it and don't bother, it's not a reason to approve it.

There's no such thing as "main body". It is a whole product/object/piece of art/whatevah , every piece of it is just as much a piece of it as something else. Where would you draw the line on where the "main" body part and what is extra? And with what non-arbitrary, objective, non-taste-based guideline?

[SnakeCode]

It affects quality because it eats into the main body of the opera, polluting it with unnecessary and detrimental material. If there are people that enjoy it and don't bother, it's not a reason to approve it.

That's another opinion. 

[Terodil]

P.S. humour helps. You should try it some time, Commander Rpg

[o Ventus]

Every sexual fan service is distracting, the less there is, the more quality the game can have.

 

...

 

What?

[Commander Rpg]

That's another opinion. 

This statement of yours is an opinion. Checkmate.