Jump to content

Katrar

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Katrar

  1. What side of social inequality am I on? Let's see... if my female Paladin is going toe to toe with an ogre, I'd like her to be in well fitted, fully protective plate or mail armor. But I don't mind if my rogue, slinging arrows from the back row, wants to show a bit of cleavage. That's sexist? Let's say I have a female monk, neck to ankle covered in fluid, black (stealth supporting) linen. Doesn't even show any ankle, thanks to those boots. That's fine? But my female elven mage, who sits back and tosses fireballs, not minding a mage robe that might possibly show a thigh, that's sexist? See, your interpretation of sexism - if its the same as that displayed by others in these threads - is overbroad and a caricature on its own merits. Sexism is a prejudicial attitude, sexism is NOT the availability of fantasy armor that doesn't meet the Taliban's strict moral codes. I haven't seen much sexism here, in fact I've seen a lot of people saying they hope for range and choice. Not minding the risque DOES NOT EQUAL SEXISM. [Edit] You know, I'm actually a bit pissed that you felt comfortable pulling this sexism card. It's unfounded by the content of this thread, irresponsible and inflammatory.
  2. Sure. Margaretha, yourself on page 21: @Katrar sexism is not ok and as long as RPGs are sexist, there is a problem and "the people" will keep arguing against it. And sexist people will keep telling them to shut up. See, RPG's are inherently sexist, and a war must be waged to stop this sexism. I guess.
  3. Personally, I was hoping to build up an army that I could dispatch across genre to invade and pillage DA3.
  4. According to some posts within a page of this one, it's "sexist" if a female rogue's leather armor shows a little cleavage or leg. According to some common attitudes in similar threads, this is probably because of the influence of "male privilege" which dictates everything conform to male tastes. Or something. Can't have that. That's sexist. If it is form fitting, it's compound sexism. Turtlenecks can be sexist, if you are a turtle. And on that note, I agree with you.
  5. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Joan_of_arc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica http://en.wikipedia..../wiki/Æthelflæd http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Anne_Bonny ...just to name a few. Certainly most women were relegated to child-rearing duties, but there are plenty of examples of women on the battlefield throughout history. Just because they were rare doesn't mean they didn't exist. Actually they were rare enough that the 4 examples you showed (which are about, what, half of all the main examples prior to the 20th century?) were singular examples separated by centuries? There's a strong trend in female warrior examples of antiquity, though... they were almost all queens or royalty of some sort or another, and generally speaking they were "conquerers" not "warriors", IE they were spiritual or political rallying points, they weren't tearing through the ranks themselves with hammers and short swords. A commoner or peasant woman that dared to want to fight alongside the men would in almost all cases have been strongly disabused of the notion.
  6. ... ie games did a good job? take a halfling with all stats being 8. in bg2, give him red dragon armour,helm of constitution, hammer o' t-bolts... whatever else. see, by mid levels, starting stats in ad&d and d&d becomes almost negligible... character actual abilities not matter. is all 'bout gear. so, while we agree with initial premise that the clothes should not make the man, the ie games were hardly the example we would be wanting to use. HA! Good Fun! So your counter example is a character with uniform stats of 8, with one that managed to get every best piece of gear in the game? And by the way, that equipment's true functionality is heavily affected by character specific stats like THAC0, # of attacks, hp's, saving throws, etc that are heavily character derived.
  7. Really now, some of you are fighting phantoms inside your own mind. No one here has asked for gender neutrality. No one has asked for no nudity or no cleavage. No one. And yet there are those who keep posting claiming EVERYONE is demanding those things. No one has. Obsidian's done a great job in the past and so far with their portrayal of female (and male, for that matter) characters; and Josh Sawyer thought boobplate was silly and removed it. I'm happy. Others are, too. The people who aren't happy are those who are moaning over the loss of boobplate and calling it censorship, PC, caving, whiteknighting, etc. For the last time. If you think so little of Obsidian, perhaps Project Eternity is not for you. If you don't see how leaving an overly exaggerated stereotype behind for a more nuanced portrayal is the opposite of limiting, it's expansion of the mind, then perhaps this kind of RPG is not for you. There are a plenitude of games out there that look like TERA if that's what you prefer. And that's okay: we don't all have to play the same games. LOL Yeah, ok man. Who thinks so little of Obsidian that they need to barf all over these forums with thread after thread after thread in abject fear of blade deflecting nipple tassles? I think you are a little confused about who has the problem here. Protip: It's not the people, like me, saying quit with the hand wringing about S&M gear. And beyond that, if you haven't seen posts complaining about male privilege, and wanting female PC's to "cover up", you haven't actually been engaged in this conversation very deeply. You should go read before you post.
  8. Because some aren't asking for practical armor, they are demanding the sexual neutrality of women in a crpg. Practical armor isn't really the issue here, not the fundamental issue at least. BG/IWD/D&D/etc has never had a practicality issue with regards to armor. Black Isle and Obsidian have also never had a practicality issue. For the most part CRPG's have not had a practicality issue. Consoles have on occasion had practicality lapses, sure (as have console games ported to PC). There have been just as many arguments made about male privilege, the titilation of men, etc. A little cleavage in a rogue's leather armor has been likened to fan service on these forums. This argument is NOT simply about practicality of armor. A feather boa will not keep someone warm in the arctic, this is true. An iron tassle will not stop a broadsword, this is true. What's also true is that for several people, these aren't the root issues. I don't think I am alone in saying... I agree that there is strength in a degree of practicality, and I don't have any fear whatsoever that OE isn't building a world of practical aesthetics. However, taking the argument beyond that - fighting against cleavage, or showing some leg, etc - that's ridiculous and I'm glad so many people have a problem with it.
  9. This is such a made up controversy. You know what this whole argument is about? Teh interwebz. People love a good argument on teh interwebz. Remember all the controversy over fantasy costuming during the 70s, 80s, and 90s? Yeah, neither do I. Thing is, fightin' on teh interwebz gets REAL SERIOUS for some people.
  10. I think the typical p&p inspiration of the IE games did a very good job of tying gear and character together in a reasonable manner. I think the disparity between a mundane longsword (1D8), a simple magical longsword (1D8+1), and a very powerful magical longsword (1D8+4+extras) is reasonable and doesn't overshadow the power inherent to the character. IE games and other D&D inspired games have generally not had a problem in the gear department, and I feel comfortable that OE doesn't plan on turning PE into some kind of Diablo knock-off. The very thought is pretty ridiculous actually.
  11. I'm all in favor of were-type character developments, so long as said characters are forced to urinate around the boundaries of their house and/or keep once per day. It should be a real time, skill based activity.
  12. Optimally you will hire a personal assistant to refresh the forums every 3 minutes, make a note of any important developments, and given you verbal updates every hour on the hour. If that cannot be managed, personally checking in once per week or so should suffice.
  13. I've read and participated in several of those threads and I have not seen people demanding for there to be no revealing clothes at all. Heck, there's plenty of unreasonable responses and misdirections from people who are advocating for chain bikinis. Did you not notice things like this? "Why do you think women don't fight wars even today, with all this feminism culture going around with all the equality and stuff, cuz thats only good in the paper, in real life everyone knows the male is the strong and rational figure and the women is the emotional and weak creature.Men have more willpower to accomplish goals, that's why there arent many women Newton's around. just my opinion, I admit I havent met every women in this planet, but so far, I'm pretty sure that's how it is for everyone of them, their purpose in life is just to find a strong man and cling to it." "Like the previous guy said well, it's just unrealistic to have women running around in full plate armor and fighting against men toe to toe, why bring realism into this? Just leave women with the bikini armors, what's the big deal? they like to show off their features, and I, like any male, like to look at them." See what I did there? Providing actual evidence. Of course the opposite extreme of the argument, the male chauvinist point of view, is wrong. The fact that you've been to those threads and selected those particular exhortations of dumbassery (on the original posters part), proves to me that you've also seen the yin to that yang. So I'll move on to more urgent and important topics of conversation. Like curtailing fetch quests.
  14. This. Although I wouldn't say "all," I'd say mainstream. That sort of disparity, yes it is a bit silly. A 5 square centimeter iron tassle as "plate armor" and the men wear full plate can't even see their eyeballs. That's silly. Here's the thing... that's never EVER been an issue in games these guys have made, either as BI/OE, or individually, and it's generally not been an issue within the real CRPG scene. Where's it been an issue? Consoles. I don't think we have a problem here even needing a solution. However, if you look through some of the many threads on the subject here, a good number of the positions are not "fairness in armor protection", but are specifically of the "don't show skin" type, and/or lamentations of male privilege in the CRPG world. Those are completely different arguments.
  15. I agree with the fellow who likes monster/animal gods as well. Not every god needs to be "humanized". =)
  16. What you just said, pretty much sign me name below yours. I'm hoping for the full gamut in PE, and there is as much strength in the plain as there is in the beautiful or ugly. Often moreso. However, I hope that OE doesn't fear the holier than thous enough to just give us ugly and plain, where a little cleavage on a rogue's leather bustier might be thematic and fun.
  17. That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all. Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages. But where have "they" specifically said that? Where have "they" said that there shouldn't be any women who look like super models or wear revealing clothing at all? Where have "they" said that female monks or acrobatic type warriors shouldn't wear less clothes? And where have "they" said that chain bikinis would be wrong on a female warrior who actually has a more muscular build? Oh please, there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of pages on these forums that have suffered no shortage of demands that female NPC's not wear revealing clothing, lamenting male privilege's effects upon game aesthetics, etc etc etc. If you don't want to see it, can't really help you, but it's here for all to see. The list of threads on the first page of this particular thread is a good place to start.
  18. I'm pretty sure that every time I show up to work in the morning, I have entered a meta-dungeon.
  19. That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all. Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages.
  20. Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told. The white knight brigade are fools.
  21. As has been said, it really depends on how PE does commercially. If this proves to be a $$$ making winner, there should be no reason OE would want or need to engage with a publisher. If the game fails to succeed, that fact alone would probably eliminate any need to even discuss funding of a sequel.
  22. I don't think there's necessarily that much distance between what Avellone wrote, and the familiar trope of bodies inheriting souls. Especially if Avellone's reference of a soul finding a new body meant the body of a newborn child, then the question "how much of your own behavior is free will ... etc etc ... how much is the soul," is pretty standard. It's an open question as stated. The interesting part of the whole soul thing is, to me, the "shards of souls" component, or the rarity of intact souls. That seems to lend itself to the possibility of some kind of fantasy dissociative identity disorder if your "main" or "first" soul is a shard, allowing room so to speak for other bodiless souls to pop on in and wreck a little havoc.
  23. I think it is entirely possible that OE will come up with a very good system that people generally understand to be superior to the hand holding of modern RPG's, but that it will not be adopted - at all - by publisher driven developers, who will consider PE to be a one-off "successful old school RPG in spite of the old school part". They will be wrong, of course, but my prediction is that very few of the groundbreaking decisions made by Obsidian during the course of this game's development will be picked up by the rest of the game development ecosystem for various and sundry reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...