I don't know.Nudity makes sense in art and is (can be) appropriate, but it doesn't make sense in Stratego or chess.
I suspect that it wouldn't make a difference for me to explain why I personally think it's better, since it's automatically assumed that the reasons must be shallow anyway, but I appreciate that the character is exposed in a scene that is meant to be emotional. Sure, they could capture this scene in any number of ways to reveal less, but I for one think that it works better when you see more of the character. There's no real point in going deeper into that, because it's really just a matter of taste in how a subject is framed and in what context. That being said, I don't really see the problem with "hot" when it's used appropriately, as in not being overly silly or gratuitous or out of context to the point of becoming wearisome. Like, Cassandra's scene, in my opinion, works just fine, whereas Miranda's constant ass shots do not, because at least the former fits the situation.
I don't really see what the fuss is about though. If this is just an argument that they don't really need to do this, then that's not really meaningful. They don't need to do a lot of things. That they do it because they like it and think that the fans will like it too doesn't necessarily make it bad. Sometimes it can be, but I don't think that Inquisition is a particularly bad example.
I personally think it's fine to have it, just not that it should be required viewing for anyone who dares to want to have a romantic plot in a bioware game lol. As long as it's not required, I don't mind it 1 bit!
And I respect your personal preferences, but they're just that, personal preferences. If you enjoy it for reasons that aren't themselves immature or anything like that (and they don't seem to be as you've outlined them), that for you they genuinely add to the scene, more power to you. I just don't personally agree with said preference and don't see how it objectively adds to the scene. I'd get the same sense by just seeing her bare shoulders, just as an example. To each their own.
I'm not saying they're the same, I'm gaming in general is closer to those things.
I'd say it depends on the game. Even the ones that are stereotypically "gameplay" focused, like Halo, get a surprising amount of love in terms of developing a main story narrative. That's no less a product of artistic intent than a movie, comic, or novel, regardless of someone's like/dislike of the narrative.
Still, on the spectrum, I'd say Bioware trends a bit too far for the comparison to hold, just given their general reputation/advertising as storytellers and via companion characters.
Do you not agree nudity itself can be shallow in certain circumstances, and that just because art often is in the nude that does not mean that therefore all nudity is de-facto "classy"? As long as you agree that nudity can be shallow, and that it is not in and of itself non-shallow, my point stands regardless of if you agree with my analogy or not.
Absolutely, we have an entire porn industry that demonstrates that 100%. But note that saying nude bodies can be shallow isn't the same as saying nude bodies are always shallow. That's where the argument runs into difficulty, because it can only work if we accept the conclusion that there's never any artistic reason to display someone in the nude. The same reason that motivates naked sculpting or love scenes in film equally apply to games. Regardless of the medium, Chealec's argument does work in that context. Likewise with Kaiser's statement regarding a better aesthetic.
And by virtue of games being interactive in their very nature, like board games, I think that broadly puts them in a category with board games. Perhaps you enjoy games for their artistic flavor and such, that doesn't mean that's what they're closest to.
All art is, by nature interactive though. I can look at the Mona Lisa standing on my head and Da Vinci couldn't stop me. That filter will always exist in terms of how I interact with a creator's work.
But (half) jokes aside, what you're suggesting is still a very bold statement for a developer (and their fan base) who prides themselves on narrative and character interactions. We can "broadly" classify them as video games, yes. But part of the reason we create sub-classes and all that fun stuff is when a single label doesn't hold up well under scrutiny (Ex: Firefly the Space Western). In that context, saying "it's a game, so they're not allowed to show the human body" doesn't really work all that well. We would probably have to jettison the story, dialogue, and character companions of all types in that context.
The degree to which this is an art form keeps coming up. I don't think it makes a big difference, personally. Artists are generally entitled and responsible for their artistic integrity, whether they're genre is highly respected or not.
Depends on the game. Even the ones that are stereotypically "gameplay" focused, like Halo, get a surprising amount of love in terms of developing a main story narrative. That's no less a product of artistic intent than a movie, comic, or novel, regardless of someone's like/dislike of the narrative.
Still, on the spectrum, I'd say Bioware trends a bit too far for the comparison to hold, just given their general reputation/advertising as storytellers and via companion characters.
Oh I agree, I'm talking about gaming in general. Where most games are gameplay or narrative-centric, and very few are aesthetically driven (merely supplemented).
I'd still classify Bioware as closer to a board game because of the fact that their games aren't merely interpreted, but are in some sense shaped by, their players. It's about your choice (at least insofar as their standout qualities). Further, it's interactive in the strong sense as opposed to the soft sense. Meaning, while art is interactive in the sense of you may be moved to interpret or feel a certain way about it, you do not actually interact with it. In Bioware games, however, you do shape much of what occurs and no 2 stories are the same (generally). Strong vs soft in this case would altering a painting vs observing a painting, respectively.
Absolutely, we have an entire porn industry that demonstrates that 100%. But note that saying nude bodies can be shallow isn't the same as saying nude bodies are always shallow. That's where the argument runs into difficulty, because it can only work if we accept the conclusion that there's never any artistic reason to display someone in the nude. The same reason that motivates naked sculpting or love scenes in film equally apply to games. Regardless of the medium, Chealec's argument does work in that context. Likewise with Kaiser's statement regarding a better aesthetic.
Oh I agree that 1) there can be artistic reason (there just, in my opinion, very rarely is) and 2) not all nudity is shallow (those are in some sense similar, but two different points in a more important sense).
The reason their argument doesn't work is that it's by definition subjective, but it's stating in objective format. It concludes to "it is better" instead of "it is better in my opinion". There's a logical leap there that can't be made. We'd have to get into the philosophy of aesthetics, but in my opinion there is no objectively positive aesthetic, only subject interpretations and generalizations.
So we're left to make up our own conclusions on if we think things are handled well, or not. And I respect alternate conclusions, as long as they don't claim to be objectively true when they're not. If people think these things are handled well, that's fine, but I just do not agree.
All art is, by nature interactive though. I can look at the Mona Lisa standing on my head and Da Vinci couldn't stop me. That filter will always exist in terms of how I interact with a creator's work.
That's the difference between soft interactivity and hard interactivity. The type of interactivity I'm talking about is in some sense literally altering something, not perceiving it differently. For example, I'm not simply perceiving Mass Effect 3 differently if I shoot a certain scientist in the mid-game (we probably all know to whom I refer), I'm actually experiencing something different than if I had not shot him.
But (half) jokes aside, what you're suggesting is still a very bold statement for a developer (and their fan base) who prides themselves on narrative and character interactions. We can "broadly" classify them as video games, yes. But part of the reason we create sub-classes and all that fun stuff is when a single label doesn't hold up well under scrutiny (Ex: Firefly the Space Western). In that context, saying "it's a game, so they're not allowed to show the human body" doesn't really work all that well. We would probably have to jettison the story, dialogue, and character companions of all types in that context.
I agree, that's why I said that it was closer to these things, I'm not saying it's just like them or is restricted to things these things would do. My point was more to demonstrate that bringing up art is not terribly relevant because it's so dissimilar that even something super dissimilar (Stratego/chess) is overall more similar. Like I said, if you don't agree with that example/analogy that's fine, but then we'd only need to go over a different one. I don't feel it's terribly important to my overall point.
Is nudity really THAT big of a deal guys? "Oh that sex scene was too safe/shallow, now I'm gonna lose sleep over it"
Like, are we all seriously debating artistic integrity and whatnot over nudity? Both sides say something, but follow it up with something that makes them look like they're on the fence about it all.
"I don't want nudity... unless it's done in tasteful manner and doesn't come across shallow" (Because that's totally specific)
"I want nudity... unless it's too barbaric and shallow. I'm not down with that. I don't want you guys thinking I'm a perv"
Well what is this middle ground then?
Let's see so far I have:
Sex scenes that are tasteful, but somewhat graphic, but not too graphic because you don't want the media jumping all over you, but don't play too safe either because it might look half-assed, but don't go fully into it so people don't call it "gratuitous", but really go into it so you can really show a moment of passion between two lovers, but keep it somewhat safe because people might make angry sexist-themed tweets about you.....
Well what is this middle ground then?
As Joker put it: over the clothes action
I think last time I was here, I got temp banned.. because my only complaint about nudity is that the characters aren't ugly. Don't know why it got me banned. Touchy moderator...
I still stand by this stance.
Is nudity really THAT big of a deal guys? "Oh that sex scene was too safe/shallow, now I'm gonna lose sleep over it"
Like, are we all seriously debating artistic integrity and whatnot over nudity? Both sides say something, but follow it up with something that makes them look like they're on the fence about it all.
"I don't want nudity... unless it's done in tasteful manner and doesn't come across shallow" (Because that's totally specific)
"I want nudity... unless it's too barbaric and shallow. I'm not down with that. I don't want you guys thinking I'm a perv"
Well what is this middle ground then?
Let's see so far I have:
Sex scenes that are tasteful, but somewhat graphic, but not too graphic because you don't want the media jumping all over you, but don't play too safe either because it might look half-assed, but don't go fully into it so people don't call it "gratuitous", but really go into it so you can really show a moment of passion between two lovers, but keep it somewhat safe because people might make angry sexist-themed tweets about you.....
I want nudity. Especially if its barbaric and shallow. Its fine if you guys think Im a perv.
I want nudity. Especially if its barbaric and shallow. Its fine if you guys think Im a perv.
You are my kind of people lol
Screw taking the high road explaining artistic integrity and whatnot, I want nudity. That's it. End of sentence.
Nudity makes sense in art and is (can be) appropriate, but it doesn't make sense in Stratego or chess.
So that's where I've been going wrong!
Last time I checked, while video game's status as "a form of art" was up for debate, it was not itself art. Gaming is more akin to a board game than it is to a sculpture or a painting.
Board games include sculpture and painting as part of their whole. If you look at the kickstarter for Scythe it's selling itself on having cool miniatures and gorgeous artwork as much as its mechanics. Games are ensembles of visual and audio, dynamic mechanics and linear events, stories and emergent narratives. People make them to focus on many different combinations of that and people play them for different reasons.
Games aren't bound by the history of their medium.
Oh, but you do have a choice! Just don't pursue her. Easy enough, I think.
Not really, no. There is no choice in that relationship other than "bang her or end it". The choices shouldn't be ultimatums like that.
Not really, no. There is no choice in that relationship other than "bang her or end it". The choices shouldn't be ultimatums like that.
I'm only for this if they replace the bad words with goofy substitutes
Games aren't bound by the history of their medium.
Not really, no. There is no choice in that relationship other than "bang her or end it". The choices shouldn't be ultimatums like that.
Shouldn't that depend on the particular character ?
Shouldn't that depend on the particular character ?
Since we are the protagonist, the option should always be there since we are that character.
Whatever. If people don't like it, they should get that option to fade scene or something. It doesn't hurt anyone.
This is far less irritating for me to see than some obsessive and/or autistic person ranting about military regulations and how Shepard shouldn't have romance options at all. 
Since we are the protagonist, the option should always be there since we are that character.
He's talking about the other characters and their agency to decide whether to give an ultimatum or not.
That's the difference between soft interactivity and hard interactivity. The type of interactivity I'm talking about is in some sense literally altering something, not perceiving it differently. For example, I'm not simply perceiving Mass Effect 3 differently if I shoot a certain scientist in the mid-game (we probably all know to whom I refer), I'm actually experiencing something different than if I had not shot him.
That's certainly true, but I think this approach becomes overly literal, especially with more story-focused mediums: films and novels for example aren't being perceived when they're sitting on our shelves, outside their front covers. On the other hand, we have a whole host of performance art (including music) too that literally can't be perceived when not in practice. As a side point, the interactivity we have is often too viewed as an implementation of the artist.
As an example, when ME3 came out, we had reviewers come out and say that they were against changing the ending on artistic integrity. Fans pointed out that ME was essentially a choose your own adventure book, but they countered that technically-speaking every decision was Bioware's, not ours, even in that context. In effect, every decision we are given was the creative decision of an artist, in some capacity. Bioware may have given us a number of different ways to interact with Garrus Vakarian, as an example (more than we typically associate with other mediums), but even in the context of not talking to him all, pushing him paragon, or pushing him renegade, we had some artist involved laying out the dialogue for Garrus, the dialogue for Shepard, and how he feels the scenario should play out. The sheer amount of artistic control in terms of writing characters, setting, and the overall narrative makes the chess comparison a bit more difficult.
So we're left to make up our own conclusions on if we think things are handled well, or not. And I respect alternate conclusions, as long as they don't claim to be objectively true when they're not. If people think these things are handled well, that's fine, but I just do not agree.
To be clear, I don't recall that being pushed as the objective truth (will double check). It was put out as being an option which the creator could view as making for an improved experience. In describing naked fine sculpting, the point was not necessarily to illustrate that all naked sculpting is objectively better, but to illustrate that there is an entire artistic medium where it's looked on as a positive. It's meant to provide credence to the idea that it's a legitimate option for an artist.
In other words, I think there's a difference between saying "but what's the point of making them naked?", which is why people point out a long-standing/highly respected practice, and saying "Aristic integrity be damned, I don't want naked people in my games". I generally fall into the latter camp.
As a side point, just given the general depiction of naked characters in video games, I wouldn't disagree though that (thus far) it's been done for pretty weak reasons.
I'd still classify Bioware as closer to a board game because of the fact that their games aren't merely interpreted, but are in some sense shaped by, their players. It's about your choice (at least insofar as their standout qualities). Further, it's interactive in the strong sense as opposed to the soft sense. Meaning, while art is interactive in the sense of you may be moved to interpret or feel a certain way about it, you do not actually interact with it. In Bioware games, however, you do shape much of what occurs and no 2 stories are the same (generally). Strong vs soft in this case would altering a painting vs observing a painting, respectively.
I hit on this a bit above, but I'm not sure how much benefit we get from the distinction, going back to traditionally story-focused media. With a book, the words might exist, but the medium is inherently more subjective since the story can only call so many details to the mind's eye, at which point the viewer makes up the rest. Likewise, the book sitting on our shelf or the movie we watch isn't really doing anything, until we interact with it, at which point our interpretive approach takes hold.
Putting that aside too, we run into issues like the Halo example, which does go out of its way to render aesthetically amazing cut-scenes, which are within the full control of the writer. As a player, you have two options: watch the cut-scene or don't. And in Bioware's case, they make a substantially greater effort at implementing companion characters with story arcs, designing the general world, and providing plot points for players.
I think, for what you're suggesting to apply, the developers would have to feel little to no control over the story/experience they're shaping and I'm not sure how well that works even in the context of Bioware games. Even going back to your Mordin example, some writer put together the overall arching plot on who Mordin was, how he felt regarding certain matters, how he would respond to Shepard's inputs, as well as how his story could potentially conclude.
Since we are the protagonist, the option should always be there since we are that character.
So you want companions to be just puppets with flexible personality we can shape as we want. Well maybe would be fine and I prefer set personality's and character in some they affected by our decisions. Like Iron bull in trespasser. But willingly accepting something they would never do just feels wrong. Like say Isabella you don't want sex or wait, and she agree it wouldn't make any sense. Most logical think she would just break up and find Zevran and have sex, or anyone.
Last time I checked, while video game's status as "a form of art" was up for debate, it was not itself art. Gaming is more akin to a board game than it is to a sculpture or a painting.
... and Dear Esther is more akin to an Installation piece than anything else and yet it's still perceived as a game because that's the medium used to create the artwork. Being a "game" merely defines the medium, not the work itself.
Though, granted, a Fine Art AAA title is a contradiction in terms.
Not really, no. There is no choice in that relationship other than "bang her or end it". The choices shouldn't be ultimatums like that.
Unless that actually matters to the other character.
Retour en haut