Karranthain Posted November 17, 2012 Author Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Since we've touched upon the East, I thought I'd post this one too. I think it challenges the notion that using historical influence would ultimately result in drab and boring designs : Not to sound condescending, but it's fascinating how little progress they had made since the days of Kievan Rus and the Varangians. If it weren't for the rifle, the boots and the tassels, you'd barely be able to tell the difference. Peter the Great really had his work cut out for him... Indeed - but I find that mix quite appealing visually. Definitely. I love the whole Old meets New thing. One of the reasons I'm so fascinated by the Meiji Restoration and the Hundred Days' Reform. You'll love this one too I bet : Eastern Roman Empire embodies that very idea. Edited November 17, 2012 by Karranthain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Magic is made up to be awesome and allow for the impossible. Boobplate is made up to get nerds off. They were made for the same reason magic was; 'cause it's cool. And anybody stupid enough to wear plate against a dragon would probably die a painful death due to being cooked alive rather quickly. Yes. At least they made SOME effort to wear some kind of protection. Unlike the nimble tube-top rogue, killing the dragon with a dagger. Hey, I'm not saying I like this either. A tarp would offer you more protection than metal. So skimpy clothes means a woman's asking for it, and I'M the sexist? In a medieval-esque world? Of course. I'm not saying I agree with this thought process, just that it'd be pretty common in this kind of setting. And explaining that skimpy clothing would therefore not be preferred by women in said setting. Yes, you are still the sexist. So you're okay with sexist stereotypes being reinforced as long as they're realistic (back then it was like that guys, so it's okay!), but god forbid someone wants their character to look sexy. Female gamers like boob plates too you know, just not the fat ones (calm down, that last bit was a joke). The monk class as it is in DnD and elsewhere is silly, sure. If they protect themselves thanks to mystical training or magic, it's alright for them not to wear armour. I don't see why he couldn't wear a shirt though, sure. So if a female fighter finds a magical chainmail bikini that radiates an aura of protection (or whatever) then you'd have no problem with it? Great! Or are only monks allowed to have skimpy magical protection? Read this (page 14, to be precise). You can't be both against the idea of using sex to sell games while being okay with Torment which is why I said I wasn't sure about Torment. It's a vision statement, those are written for a very specific purpose and for a very specific kind of people. I don't know how sincere it was. It might've been. If it was, that sucks. I vaguely recall Avellone being alright with boobs, although I kind of doubt he set out to make a game about boobs, or to market it solely on the fact of it containing boobs. There aren't very many ways to interpret that vision statement; it's obvious they added the babes in because they wanted them in there and not because they felt compelled by marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agelastos Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 There aren't very many ways to interpret that vision statement; it's obvious they added the babes in because they wanted them in there and not because they felt compelled by marketing. Isn't that supposed to be written in the voice of Morte, a character who's constantly going on about wanting to share coffins with all the "hot undead babes"? If it is, then I wouldn't read too much into it. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Apart from pain... and maybe humiliation. And obviously death and failure. But apart from fear, pain, humiliation, failure, the unknown and death, we have nothing to fear but fear itself!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlkir Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 They were made for the same reason magic was; 'cause it's cool. Errm, no. It's not cool. It's unrealistic and its point is to show breasts. You emphasize breasts to make something arousing, which is a silly goal for armour. And kind of insulting. Definitely not cool. A tarp would offer you more protection than metal. I don't think that's true, but whatever. The whole idea of a lone hero going at a dragon with a sword is silly. So you're okay with sexist stereotypes being reinforced as long as they're realistic (back then it was like that guys, so it's okay!), but god forbid someone wants their character to look sexy. Female gamers like boob plates too you know, just not the fat ones (calm down, that last bit was a joke). It's not a modern sexist stereotype that's in there to make me feel aroused. It's sexist behaviour which is common in this type of setting. It being there doesn't imply it's good, or that it should be followed. The game may or may not comment on it, it just makes sense for it to be there. Unlike a boobplate. So if a female fighter finds a magical chainmail bikini that radiates an aura of protection (or whatever) then you'd have no problem with it? Great! Again, if it made sense for it to be bikini, I might be ok with it. But it's hard to imagine. If a female monk enjoyed confusing her foes by fighting naked (as ridiculous as that sounds), sure, I could understand that. But if it's there just to be sexy and to make my willy jump in mah pants, that's just stupid. There aren't very many ways to interpret that vision statement; it's obvious they added the babes in because they wanted them in there and not because they felt compelled by marketing. Once again I feel that is a matter of reading minds and an opinion, rather than fact. Still, Torment - not my favourite game evar. If I play it (and I am currently playing it for the first time), it's because I heard it's well written. It's a bit sad they felt the need to repeat "babes" twice, but hey. It's still two paragraphs in a whole design document. It's not BOOBS: THE GAME. ======================================http://janpospisil.daportfolio.com/ - my portfoliohttp://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/ - my blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karranthain Posted November 17, 2012 Author Share Posted November 17, 2012 Since Mughal Empire has been mentioned, take a look at this one : Looks quite amazing, doesn't it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Again, if it made sense for it to be bikini, I might be ok with it. But it's hard to imagine. If a female monk enjoyed confusing her foes by fighting naked (as ridiculous as that sounds), sure, I could understand that. But if it's there just to be sexy and to make my willy jump in mah pants, that's just stupid. So a chick fighting naked to confuse her foes makes sense to you and you're okay with, but a woman wanting to look sexy blows your suspension of disbelief? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) If we take PST as design base there should be no armours and swords that player character can wield and generally combat should be only after though. Or you are saying that torment was bad game. Edited November 17, 2012 by Elerond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlkir Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Again, if it made sense for it to be bikini, I might be ok with it. But it's hard to imagine. If a female monk enjoyed confusing her foes by fighting naked (as ridiculous as that sounds), sure, I could understand that. But if it's there just to be sexy and to make my willy jump in mah pants, that's just stupid. So a chick fighting naked to confuse her foes makes sense to you and you're okay with, but a woman wanting to look sexy blows your suspension of disbelief? What? what? What? What? No, of course not. Good grief, read what I write sometimes! A woman wanting to look sexy if she can afford to do so is absolutely fine. A woman wanting to look sexy in combat (for what reason? Is she trying to attract her fellow fighters? To the extent of exposing her body to harm?), or a peasant woman dressing sexy in a society that's doesn't exactly look down on rape, not so much. And that's not the same thing as the monk! Even that, as I said, was an extremely extreme example, which is silly, but at least tries to make up an excuse for the boobs. ======================================http://janpospisil.daportfolio.com/ - my portfoliohttp://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/ - my blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) If we take PST as design base there should be no armours and swords that player character can wield and generally combat should be only after though. Or you are saying that torment was bad game. I wouldn't say combat was an afterthought, just not necessary to progress through the game (it was basically BG's combat, which was great in and of itself). But I'd be alright with that as long as each companion had a very unique look to them. Also maces and fist weapons are way more bad ass than swords. Again, if it made sense for it to be bikini, I might be ok with it. But it's hard to imagine. If a female monk enjoyed confusing her foes by fighting naked (as ridiculous as that sounds), sure, I could understand that. But if it's there just to be sexy and to make my willy jump in mah pants, that's just stupid. So a chick fighting naked to confuse her foes makes sense to you and you're okay with, but a woman wanting to look sexy blows your suspension of disbelief? What? what? What? What? No, of course not. Good grief, read what I write sometimes! A woman wanting to look sexy if she can afford to do so is absolutely fine. A woman wanting to look sexy in combat (for what reason? Is she trying to attract her fellow fighters? To the extent of exposing her body to harm?), or a peasant woman dressing sexy in a society that's doesn't exactly look down on rape, not so much. And that's not the same thing as the monk! Even that, as I said, was an extremely extreme example, which is silly, but at least tries to make up an excuse for the boobs. Why would she want to look sexy in combat? For the exact same reason soldiers paint flames and eagles and **** on the sides of jets; 'cause it looks awesome. Edited November 17, 2012 by Dream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlkir Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I wouldn't say combat was an afterthought, just not necessary to progress through the game (it was basically BG's combat, which was great in and of itself). But I'd be alright with that as long as each companion had a very unique look to them. Also maces and fist weapons are way more bad ass than swords. And he hates swords. Come on! Which reminds me I still have to destroy Avellone for saying swords are lame. :/ I do like the emphasis on different weapons in Torment though. I could however do entirely without combat in that game, so far it's just annoying filler which keeps me well supplied with brass rings and bracelets. :/ ======================================http://janpospisil.daportfolio.com/ - my portfoliohttp://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/ - my blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga C Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Why would she want to look sexy in combat? For the exact same reason soldiers paint flames and eagles and **** on the sides of jets; 'cause it looks awesome. Simply, NO! A woman in combat would want to look intimidating and competent, not sexy. Nothing shouts "Gang rape me!" like flashing cleavage, thighs, and buns amidst battlefield conditions where virtually all traces of civilized behavior have been suspended. http://cbrrescue.org/ Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear http://michigansaf.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If we take PST as design base there should be no armours and swords that player character can wield and generally combat should be only after though. Or you are saying that torment was bad game. I wouldn't say combat was an afterthought, just not necessary to progress through the game (it was basically BG's combat, which was great in and of itself). But I'd be alright with that as long as each companion had a very unique look to them. Also maces and fist weapons are way more bad ass than swords. Avellone has himself said that combat was somewhat after though why it was so painful and if he would make torment now he would put more efort on it. So you dont want actually see another Carsomyr in the game and you would be satisfied for realistic maces and fist weapons. <- it is so nice to put word on others mouths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agelastos Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Why would she want to look sexy in combat? For the exact same reason soldiers paint flames and eagles and **** on the sides of jets; 'cause it looks awesome. I'm pretty sure that's a modern form of warpaint. It's supposed to look imposing, not just cool. It's a kind of psychological warfare, basically. Edited November 17, 2012 by Agelastos "We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Apart from pain... and maybe humiliation. And obviously death and failure. But apart from fear, pain, humiliation, failure, the unknown and death, we have nothing to fear but fear itself!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyCrimson Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 It's post limit time again. If someone wants to start a Part3, feel free. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts