Yes this would be cool. To take it further, I'd like each class to have a style all their own as well when it comes to armor. I'd think that would be pretty cool too.
If we had rules set up so that, for example a vanguard wore armor that is lighter than a soldiers because risk vs reward, then it would a little more sense, imo. But adding different designs for different classes can be added into the; not enough dev time for it. Buuut, this ain't Dragon Age with different armor classes.
I don't care what anyone say. I LOVE fanservice, 1. but fan service is often only happening to girls. 2. It's not really sexist toward women if both men and women are treated as objects.
Just saying.
Even just outside of fanservice, 3. there are people in real life like to dress in skimpy or revealing outfits. 4. If it fits with the characters, then I don't see why not. 5. If Bioware is truly progressive then the idea of nude or tight clothing shouldn't be a subject of sexualizing, but just a matter of preference.
1. As a guy... there are tons of fan service that has never happened to me e.g. coop mass effect singleplayer, coop fallout singleplayer and so forth...
2. That's not ... what sexism is... o.O
It is sexist, if you objectify every single man or woman, just because they are men or women.
It's not sexist, to objectify a single man or woman (or any amount thereof), because of eg. subjective beauty, subjective attraction, subjective suggestive clothing and so forth...
3. And call me predjudiced, but I suspect that in the far majority of cases... it is to show off their body rather than their brains. We see very few transparent skull implants. And it's done explicitly to elicit an reaction to their body.
4. I don't mind skimpy outfits or a bare chest or whatever in my game... I just, personally, it has to fit the situation.
Examples:
A: In the messhall, with recruits around? No, inappropriate.
B: In combat, when there are vital organ covering armor available? No, stupid and evolution demands the character deserves to die for it...
C: Going to a bar/disco? Sure, show a little skin folks...
D: Private cabin twosomeness? Go nuts... literally and figuratively...
E: Memorial scene? No, inappropriate...
5. That is not progressive... that is regressive...
Because it allready is a matter of preference and to some it is sexualising and to not accept that is thought policing.
I'm not talking about medium or light armor or anything like that. I'm talking like what they did in Inquisition with companion style. Even if the player customize; say bull outfit, he'd always have a certain look, and if that armor is put on Cass she'd look different with it on. Example a soldier and an engineer can find the same armor, but when they both equip it, the armor looked different on both of them.If we had rules set up so that, for example a vanguard wore armor that is lighter than a soldiers because risk vs reward, then it would a little more sense, imo. But adding different designs for different classes can be added into the; not enough dev time for it. Buuut, this ain't Dragon Age with different armor classes.
I'm not talking about medium or light armor or anything like that. I'm talking like what they did in Inquisition with companion style. Even if the player customize; say Dorian outfit, he'd always have a certain look. Example a soldier and an engineer can find the same armor, but when they both equpt it, they look different from each other.
I rather them continue to build on the armor part system Shepard had. Thus we would get that, you just swap out anything you don't like with another part. Also, the companion armor in DA:I was what I wanted my character to wear, but nope she had to go all practical while the comps got the sexy ones. Sigh...
1. As a guy... there are tons of fan service that has never happened to me e.g. coop mass effect singleplayer, coop fallout singleplayer and so forth...
2. That's not ... what sexism is... o.O
It is sexist, if you objectify every single man or woman, just because they are men or women.
It's not sexist, to objectify a single man or woman (or any amount thereof), because of eg. subjective beauty, subjective attraction, subjective suggestive clothing and so forth...
3. And call me predjudiced, but I suspect that in the far majority of cases... it is to show off their body rather than their brains. We see very few transparent skull implants. And it's done explicitly to elicit an reaction to their body.
4. I don't mind skimpy outfits or a bare chest or whatever in my game... I just, personally, it has to fit the situation.
Examples:
A: In the messhall, with recruits around? No, inappropriate.
B: In combat, when there are vital organ covering armor available? No, stupid and evolution demands the character deserves to die for it...
C: Going to a bar/disco? Sure, show a little skin folks...
D: Private cabin twosomeness? Go nuts... literally and figuratively...
E: Memorial scene? No, inappropriate...
5. That is not progressive... that is regressive...
Because it allready is a matter of preference and to some it is sexualising and to not accept that is thought policing.
So is the furry people who objectifying half-human half-animal bestialist or something? We're talking about fictional characters here. Some people like to fantasize about the characters, but they're fantasize about them because they're that character, not because they're male or female. When I find someone attractive, I fantasize about that person, but it's not because of their gender but because my sexual orientation dictate the person I find attractive according to taste, have nothing to do with gender but the person themselves. Sexist is when you're only allowed to fantasize about a particular gender, where only female characters are nude to be sexualized while males are not allowed to be sexualized. If the issue is about sexualizing both equally, then they're not sexualizing them because they're male or female, but because they're the object the player desire.
And that's you imposing your values on what's considered appropriate and inappropriate, talk about thought policing.
And that's you imposing your values on what's considered appropriate and inappropriate, talk about policing.
When have I imposed this on anyone?
I'm stating my subjective preferences, which by your own logic is ok.
The imposing things... began with this line:
"If Bioware is truly progressive then the idea of nude or tight clothing shouldn't be a subject of sexualizing, but just a matter of preference."
Where a matter of preference, which just so happens to be the sexualization of nudity or tight clothing (even subconsciously) is not worthy of the same respect or have the same validity as other preferences to your subjective liking... and if Bioware doesn't do that (discriminate and tell people how they should think and feel), they are not progressive.
Which is why the whole statement is more regressive than progressive. Exclusive rather than inclusive.
I'm a fan of practical things that work, I find raveling armor practically an aesthetically highly idiotic and inappropriate. Samaras armor for example made me cringe so hard.....
This kind of armor is exactly what I want to see in ME:A
thats my favorite chestplate, you cant even see Shepards boobs
Nice body.I'm fine with this kind of armor(Ashley's) for females in ME:A.
When have I imposed this on anyone?
I'm stating my subjective preferences, which by your own logic is ok.
The imposing things... began with this line:
"If Bioware is truly progressive then the idea of nude or tight clothing shouldn't be a subject of sexualizing, but just a matter of preference."
Where a matter of preference, which just so happens to be the sexualization of nudity or tight clothing (even subconsciously) is not worthy of the same respect or have the same validity as other preferences to your subjective liking... and if Bioware doesn't do that (discriminate and tell people how they should think and feel), they are not progressive.
Which is why the whole statement is more regressive than progressive. Exclusive rather than inclusive.
And that's my subjective preferences, which by your own logic is ok.
I don't know where you live, but being being open about sexuality is more progressive rather than regressive, when we start to move away from fanservice violence is ok, but sexual stuffs are some evil sinful things.
I demand space Viking armour.
Personally my objection to revealing armor has always been that it's a bit of an oxymoron innit? But if the shields are what really keep you safe in ME and the armor it just icing then sure, why not. Within reason I mean cuz you're in the army I'm assuming and unless the idea of dignity/gravitas has changed substantially they're unlikely to greenlight nipple tassles.
And also choice is never demeaning, if the discussion was strictly centered around that then I really wouldn't see an issue as long as those (ie 'sexy') weren't the only armors available.
I doubt those are the main motives as much as they would just want people's get-ups to make sense within the setting. ME2 had a strong focus on characterisation because that's the kind of game they wanted to make, hence we got stuff like Jack's "armour" and helmet-less outfits. We don't truly know what they'll prioritise with this one, but I would like to see a return to more sensible armours as we have so far seen. For those that want more revealing outfits, maybe you'll get it when you're onboard the Tempest between missions? If so, it's a win/win
I would like that too. One thing I really loved about ME1 everybody wears an armor for the mission.
Because we are on a mission guys. This is work. That doesn't mean you can't be sexy (men or women) but... in a planet with unbreathable atmosphere, high gravity, where the PC is fulled armored and with the helmet on... I don't know, see my squadmembers semi-naked is like... why gravity and atmosphere don't affect them as me? 
For normal environmental planets and on board the Tempest, free time, shore leave... let the sexiness flow! 
I bought the ME2 dlc that changed Jack and Miranda's outfits as soon as it became available. I don't care what they wear on the ship, but if someone's going into a warzone they shouldn't do so wearing a cat suit.
For characters like Miranda and Jack, it makes sense that they would be wearing at least form-fitting clothing. In reality, a biotics-trained individual is going to need as much range of motion as they can possibly get. The fact they they can create their own biotic barriers makes conventional armor a bit irrelevant. For soldier-esque characters, conventional body armor absolutely makes sense, however.
Meh, don't care about practicality. I'm playing a video game. And it's not a space simulator. I like the tight bodysuits. The big bulky armor always looked stupid to me. So yeah, I support (equal) fanservice. Bye xoxo
Clothing and armor isn't the same thing.
If someone wants to wear only undies while off-duty, more power to them (albeit I'll have a hard time taking them seriously myself).
If someone is in combat, I expect them to wear some damn armor. Doubly so if we're going in vacuum. No more Miranda-esque catsuits or Jack-style nipple harness in space. That just looks completely ridiculous.
1. And that's my subjective preferences, which by your own logic is ok.
I don't know where you live, but being being open about sexuality is more progressive rather than regressive, when we start to move away from fanservice violence is ok, but sexual stuffs are some evil sinful things.
1. Your subjective preference does not define what eg. the word sexism means.
2. Have I, at any point in time, said people couldn't be open about sexuality?
But you make a curious statement, which is completely contrary to what you said earlier:
""If Bioware is truly progressive then the idea of nude or tight clothing shouldn't be a subject of sexualizing, but just a matter of preference."
To some people, nudity or tight clothing is sexual per default and they will automatically sexualize nudity or tight clothing. It's just how these people are...
But Bioware shouldn't accept that some people are like that... they should go by the definition of other people... the right people.
It's not progressive and it's not being open or accepting about sexuality. It's seeing someone of a different sexual nature and telling them it's wrong or worth less than others.
...
PS: I'm not saying noone can have skimpy outfits, because some people will sexualize skimpy outfits or just like me who, will find it immersion ruining in the subjectively for me wrong circumstances.
I'm saying, that there are other people in the world, that are different from ourselves and have different tastes and sexualities and they have as much right as the rest of us to a game they like.
And I'm saying, that if people want only skimpy outfits, all the way, all the time and if other people sexualize skimpy outfit sor just find it immersion breaking at times, then they're sick and wrong and shouldn't be listened to and don't count? Then these first people are... selfish bad people with no empathy.
Which is silly... Because there's an easy solution... Custumization... So people can get what they want no matter who or how they look at things.
But the least one can do is respect other people as people of equal worth to yourself.
I would like that too. One thing I really loved about ME1 everybody wears an armor for the mission.
Because we are on a mission guys. This is work. That doesn't mean you can't be sexy (men or women) but... in a planet with unbreathable atmosphere, high gravity, where the PC is fulled armored and with the helmet on... I don't know, see my squadmembers semi-naked is like... why gravity and atmosphere don't affect them as me?
For normal environmental planets and on board the Tempest, free time, shore leave... let the sexiness flow!
Agreed. I actually think they got the balance spot on with Ash in ME3: A tight space flight suit that looked cool plus armour for combat missions. I used to do the same with Miranda in ME2, keeping her catsuit for the ship & citadel, then switching to armour for missions.
I heard in a video, I think one of Biofans, that the direction for Ryder was that they wanted a space suit style of thing that armour panels could be attached to. This sounds cool as long as the suit itself can be customized as much as the armour.
For all the people saying that boob plates don't make sense, you're not entirely right. The US military just recently funded a program to design and build body armor specifically tailored to the female physique. Female military personnel have been reporting bruising of the hips and chest due to wearing armor designed for a male body. Added room for breasts and narrower shoulders are among the changes being made to the body armor. An uncomfortable soldier is not a combat-efficient soldier.
What the female character is wearing here, I think is okay. But that spandex outfit Miranda wore, I think is pushing it a bit. We are going to be fighting huge beast in Andromeda. I don't think a suit made out of spandex material would be good enough. Armors need to be actual armor. They can be form fitting, but they have to be actual armor material. Plus we're going to be in space.
I have no problem with that armor, nor with Miranda's outfit - as long as you could choose for you or her not to ever wear it. Personally I love outfits like Miranda's, and especially Aria's which was cool and sexy at the same time. Though the thing missing from BW is body morphs, thus an armor like the one in the pic would look even better, imo. Because curves. Unfortunately BW still gives female lead chars the slim and athletic build, while female comps are allowed a little more. While the dudes are all muscle dudes.
1. Your subjective preference does not define what eg. the word sexism means.
2. Have I, at any point in time, said people couldn't be open about sexuality?
But you make a curious statement, which is completely contrary to what you said earlier:
""If Bioware is truly progressive then the idea of nude or tight clothing shouldn't be a subject of sexualizing, but just a matter of preference."
To some people, nudity or tight clothing is sexual per default and they will automatically sexualize nudity or tight clothing. It's just how these people are...
But Bioware shouldn't accept that some people are like that... they should go by the definition of other people... the right people.
It's not progressive and it's not being open or accepting about sexuality. It's seeing someone of a different sexual nature and telling them it's wrong or worth less than others.
Sound like it doesn't fit into your definition. I love how you use your subjective opinion to call me out on my subjective opinion. lol
I suppose you're the right people? Who give you the authority? No one is telling anyone that it's wrong or you worth less. What you want is ruining other people's experience because of your value of sexuality. If Bioware wants or doesn't want to include sexual contents, it shouldn't be because some people have problems with sexuality and dictate how the rest of the players experience those contents. If anything, Bioware should give people what they want, not to pander to a few people who have problems with sexuality and force it on others. I don't force anything on anyone, I merely offer those clothing styles as optional contents. You take it upon yourself to be offended by these suggestions that somehow it makes your sexuality worth less since you based your opinions and your worth on a video game.
I have no problem with that armor, nor with Miranda's outfit - as long as you could choose for you or her not to ever wear it. Personally I love outfits like Miranda's, and especially Aria's which was cool and sexy at the same time. Though the thing missing from BW is body morphs, thus an armor like the one in the pic would look even better, imo. Because curves. Unfortunately BW still gives female lead chars the slim and athletic build, while female comps are allowed a little more. While the dudes are all muscle dudes.
shepard in mass effect 3 was borderline anorexic, i mean I have bigger arms then that, and mine are mostly muscle soooooo......
Retour en haut
