Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I also hope Obsidian does a more realistic look instead of an idealistic based approach.

I have love their concept art for Cadegund and Sagani.

I personally don't "like" cadegund but Sagani looks pretty to me.

I will go with that overly used statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

To me some "plain" women are beautiful.

And some "beautiful" women are just not.

I think Obsidian realizes this and will try to make the women as real as their classes allow for.

Edited by Technatorium
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) An average distribution of the population in regards to beauty and body-size and yes, that should go for companions as well

 

There is no reason to expect that the physique of the average highly trained adventurer/warrior should be the same as the physique of the average American civilian.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D Charisma scores combine aesthetic beuty and confidence - the two are generally correlated. So maybe a women is super fine, or maybe she is just a shrewd diplomat. In a character sheet, they might have equal bonus to Charisma - though you would hope they way in which the DM handles them would reflect this (seduction versus debate, etc.). The old World of Darkness handled this with an assortment of stats - Appearance, subterfuge, charisma, manipulation, intimidation. Any two combine to equal a feat, but the ratio characterises the methodology. Ex: Seduction is made up of appearance and subterfuge, which means either your character is a sweet talker or a hottie, or some combination. Persuasion is made up of scholarship and charisma - confidence and understanding of psychology, basically. Now maybe everyone has taken time to develope one direction of these things, but I think most games serve to the players - why make everyone look ugly, when it just means someone is going to go mod in a bunch of tall, unrealistically proportioned amazons (I'm just citing a Fallout 3 mod here). That said, I think a good portion of the populace should look plan - not necessarily ugly, but you know. Oblivion was alright, except it took it to the extreme of no one being particularly attractive.

 

One's appearance is largely a result of genetics. You take what you're given with those, and work with them. So yeah, the majority might have so-so genes, but only so many will spend the time working it out to the most pleasing appearence - others might instead invest time and energy in learning how to read people's body language and attitude to know what they need (scholarship) and be confidant enough in that to try and talk them into things, or perhaps they'll be confidant enough in their other abilities to simply make do (charisma as confidence). Or, maybe, they'll just get really buff and make everyone afraid to call them anything but beutiful (or disobey them).

Edited by UncleBourbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly everybody should have really bad teeth, so they wouldn't smile much. :grin:

 

Remember the young woman (Valentina Vargas) in the conclusion of The Name of the Rose? She was at least plausibly attractive in that setting: a dirty faced, uneducated peasant woman with poor teeth.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I just think that "good looking" people (this includes the male characters as well) are part and parcel of the fantasy genre. Movies, games, etc. all feature attractive heroes/heroines, because that's what people who play the games/watch the movies want to see. People want Snow White to look like Kristin Stewart, not Kathy Bates. So I don't really think there's anything wrong with a focus on making characters attractive.

 

Where I think they could sprinkle in a bit of flavor is with the -- for lack of a better word -- comic relief characters. And I think this is where male characters are done better, and certainly more in abundance, than female characters. Anytime there's a character that's more about their charm, or personality, or quirkiness, it's usually a male character (and usually a beer-swilling, belching, perverted dwarf). I think that's the one area they (developers/television producers) could utilize for adding women who aren't necessarily attractive.

 

Another area that could work is taking a formerly attractive female, but giving her some kind of disfiguring facial scar. Not just a minor scar that might even add charm to her features, but like a deep, red diagonal slash across her face that mars her looks. Which could also add to her backstory, since the PC would then be trying to get her to open up about how she got that scar.

 

In general, though, I just think it makes sense to make the characters attractive (other than the above two exceptions) because that's what most folks expect out of fantasy. And, as I said, this relates to *both* male and female characters. I don't really think it's just a female issue.


"Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque

"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And where are those statistics based? Why is only 20% good looking if as you say, average women can be beautiful? Statistics are, or at least should be, based on a population or a group. Natural beauty also needs to be taken care of. And again if "average" can be beautiful, why would that beauty not affect her diplomatic and social skills, or at least their success?

 

These statistics are completely made up by me, as I said, founded on the word average. But let me try once more. I am talking about two kinds of beauty here. The first one is purely physical, close to perfection and standard in many video games. The second one may have average or even ugly looks, but the character of the person has some (as clicheed as that sounds) "inner beauty", that makes him/her stand out. Now, I don't say that someone physically beautiful can't also have "inner beauty". If these things come together it is great. But a majority of the population (the "average" part, estimated by me at 60%) is not close to perfection, though they can still be beautiful.

 

Now, diplomatic and social skills could of course be influenced by both (and doubly so in the case that physical and inner beauty are combined). Thus, good-looking female diplomats might make sense. But not thiefs. Or warriors. Or priests. Or mages. Their skills are not influenced by beauty. So it is quite logical, that interesting (because skilled in their field) characters of these professions mostly are not physically perfect, because the majority of them would belong to the biggest group - average looking women.

 

They would still be beautiful and interesting in their way, for sure! Thats were i want to go. Dwarf woman with beard, stunty, but charming and capable? Beautiful, in her way.

 

There is no reason to expect that the physique of the average highly trained adventurer/warrior should be the same as the physique of the average American civilian.

 

First of all, I am German ;) Secondly, you are of course right. But a trained body does not equal a beautiful face. Not even a beautiful body. You can be well-trained, without being "beautiful" in the perfect-body-sense which is predominant in many video games.

Edited by Chabneruk

"Was du nicht kennst, das, meinst du, soll nicht gelten? Du meinst, daß Phantasie nicht wirklich sei?

Aus ihr allein erwachsen künft'ge Welten: In dem, was wir erschaffen, sind wir frei."

- Michael Ende, Das Gauklermärchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) An average distribution of the population in regards to beauty and body-size and yes, that should go for companions as well

 

There is no reason to expect that the physique of the average highly trained adventurer/warrior should be the same as the physique of the average American civilian.

Yes, this is a good point. If this is analogous to 16th century, being fat should be very rare, and mostly exclusive to royalty and aristocracy. Having a fat diplomat companion with no combat skills but great charisma and intelligence would be acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are too soft these days. Especially when it comes to failing in a video game! The amount of newcomers raging over losing rookies in the new XCOM game is crazy. Sometimes, you just can't win a situation.

 

I'm all for there being failures. However, the failures need to have a longer reaching application than just "u not get exp". Perhaps have a different quest come up down the line where you can redeem yourself for a past failure. Maybe have an NPC be killed because you couldn't put down a murderer in the past... have an item shop be missing some items because you didn't stop a bandit. Perhaps even something like that could lead into getting a new quest to stop the WHOLE gang instead of just one guy.

 

The ideas are limiteless. It boils down to the fact that I would have failing, but take away the reason to have people reload their save by having something come out of it. While reloading saves for failing is common place, it becomes mechanical and people start quicksaving every 5 seconds.. I feel that breaks immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, this is a good point. If this is analogous to 16th century, being fat should be very rare, and mostly exclusive to royalty and aristocracy. Having a fat diplomat companion with no combat skills but great charisma and intelligence would be acceptable.

 

Body fat should be a sign of wealth, I think, but also predominant amongst people who work with food and thus use the opportunity to stuff themselves when they can. But as I said, well-trained or lean bodies are not necessarily beautiful.


"Was du nicht kennst, das, meinst du, soll nicht gelten? Du meinst, daß Phantasie nicht wirklich sei?

Aus ihr allein erwachsen künft'ge Welten: In dem, was wir erschaffen, sind wir frei."

- Michael Ende, Das Gauklermärchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to remember that beuty is largely a cultural thing, and that some individuals will value appearence over other dynamics. I would quite like it if they had multiple skill checks that a character could attempt but never succeed, simply because the NPC won't be convinced that way (like these two hermits my paladin could NEVER reason out of wanting to kill each other over a chicken). Of course, talking to them or doing some research should hint at this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also have to remember that beuty is largely a cultural thing...

 

Also an interesting point. What if you were out on a quest for the most beautiful women in the land and in the end it turns out that the culture in question favors obese women? :) Or what if your attractive character would find himself utterly lost in another culture, having depended on his/her beauty and now finding that he/she needed a lot of tattoos to be adored there as well?


"Was du nicht kennst, das, meinst du, soll nicht gelten? Du meinst, daß Phantasie nicht wirklich sei?

Aus ihr allein erwachsen künft'ge Welten: In dem, was wir erschaffen, sind wir frei."

- Michael Ende, Das Gauklermärchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about defining physical beauty in context with definition of the games races, physiology and technological advancement? I would prefer it fits with the game rather than something decided independently.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And where are those statistics based? Why is only 20% good looking if as you say, average women can be beautiful? Statistics are, or at least should be, based on a population or a group. Natural beauty also needs to be taken care of. And again if "average" can be beautiful, why would that beauty not affect her diplomatic and social skills, or at least their success?

 

These statistics are completely made up by me, as I said, founded on the word average. But let me try once more. I am talking about two kinds of beauty here. The first one is purely physical, close to perfection and standard in many video games. The second one may have average or even ugly looks, but the character of the person has some (as clicheed as that sounds) "inner beauty", that makes him/her stand out. Now, I don't say that someone physically beautiful can't also have "inner beauty". If these things come together it is great. But a majority of the population (the "average" part, estimated by me at 60%) is not close to perfection, though they can still be beautiful.

 

Now, diplomatic and social skills could of course be influenced by both (and doubly so in the case that physical and inner beauty are combined). Thus, good-looking female diplomats might make sense. But not thiefs. Or warriors. Or priests. Or mages. Their skills are not influenced by beauty. So it is quite logical, that interesting (because skilled in their field) characters of these professions mostly are not physically perfect, because the majority of them would belong to the biggest group - average looking women.

 

They would still be beautiful and interesting in their way, for sure! Thats were i want to go. Dwarf woman with beard, stunty, but charming and capable? Beautiful, in her way.

You take perfection into account, when nothing is perfect, or at least I didn't say so. And I'm not talking about "inner beauty", but about exterior beauty. Even if we take your "statistics" at face value, it doesn't matter how much percentage is considered ugly or beautiful, the real question is: What stops beautiful women from being skilled or smart in their majority? Who says that the "ugly" woman won't be the one not skilled? Not saying that "inner beauty" doesn't matter, but what says that the level of external beauty controls the possibility of skills of a person? That's a false dichotomy. Was Fall-From-Grace considered ugly or average? In the chance she's none of those, did that affect her skills? negatively or possitive or none at all? If she was one of those, would her skill ability be affected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why our "modern" ideals of diversity and equality would have a place in some fantasy world, though it really depends on the world.

And honestly, I'd rather meet good-looking NPCs than ugly ones, unless it enhances their character in some way (scars, gluttony, old witches, the suffering...). There's way too many hideous people in real-life already; no need to give fat and ugly hambeasts space in an RPG as well. After all, this is the one chance where you can escape the ugly reality.

 

Detecting some kind of fat-pride in PE would kill the game outright for me- unless it's just done to make fun of them.

 

Edit: Of course everyone being a big-breasted super model is just as outright offensive. That's obvious. Obsidian can handle this. Just look at Safiya and Sagani and Qara - bald, plain and hideous, respectively. There's 0 need to worry.

Edited by Jasede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You take perfection into account, when nothing is perfect, or at least I didn't say so. And I'm not talking about "inner beauty", but about exterior beauty. Even if we take your "statistics" at face value, it doesn't matter how much percentage is considered ugly or beautiful, the real question is: What stops beautiful women from being skilled or smart in their majority? Who says that the "ugly" woman won't be the one not skilled? Not saying that "inner beauty" doesn't matter, but what says that the level of external beauty controls the possibility of skills of a person? That's a false dichotomy. Was Fall-From-Grace considered ugly or average? In the chance she's none of those, did that affect her skills? negatively or possitive or none at all? If she was one of those, would her skill ability be affected?

 

You are turning my statements around. First of all: Many women in Video Games ARE perfect looking. In some games ALL of them are perfect looking. Thats what i critizise.

 

Now, again: NOTHING stops physically beautiful women from being skilled. But they are never the only ones skilled. Statistically speaking beautiful, skilled women should be less common than average looking, skilled women (because the majority of the women in a world ARE average-looking, thats the point of the word). Thus, if you gather a party of skilled characters, the majority of them should be average-looking. But there should be beautiful skilled women and ugly skilled women (and men) for that matter.

Edited by Chabneruk

"Was du nicht kennst, das, meinst du, soll nicht gelten? Du meinst, daß Phantasie nicht wirklich sei?

Aus ihr allein erwachsen künft'ge Welten: In dem, was wir erschaffen, sind wir frei."

- Michael Ende, Das Gauklermärchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is reason to believe appearence would bias an individual in various ways. Physical beuty correlates strongly with success, both in being accepted for jobs and rising in position - as well as greater opportunity for optimal mate selection. Also, statistics indicate there may be a bias in teachers, professors and authority figures around aesthetically pleasing individuals - meaning they might be helped more after class, or protected more from bullying, or being given more warnings before arrest. That said, there are plenty who bias against them for being of superior appearance.

 

The point is, physical beuty DOES likely correlate with opportunities for advancement and profit. In this new setting, we're not sure how much of an importance is placed on aesthetics. As such, being pleasing to the eye might mean either greater respect and chance of being accepted as an apprentice, or for some a chance to become a consort or marry into higher status. Or, it could have much less, or greater impact.

 

Of course, as stated, there should be a good few skilled, able warriors/mages/priests who are not terribly pleasing to the eye, if only because beuty is a cultural concept, and only a society with EXTREMELY low genetic diversity would have similair enough appearence to have everyone fall into those bounds. Such an inbred group might actually have the mental defencies required to consider the whole of society beutiful, but with a slew of other issues. The introduction of godlike individuals would likely increase the tendency toward physically appealing adventurers, I imagine. In a highly military society, the well-toned, able bodiedness of the warrior women might indeed be considered more sexy or desirable than even a naturally very pretty priestess.

Edited by UncleBourbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, when I first saw the title of this thread, I thought of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Tcl6qvfy4

 

I suppose the way the title is worded just made it sound like we were talking about a game that had already been released, and so I thought PE rather than P: E.

 

I know that one issue in games - especially games where there is supposed to be more than one body type model (for non-humans in fantasy and sci fi games, for instance), is that it can be very tempting to cut corners by creating as few body/character models as they can get away with. That's why Wynne in Dragon Age: Origins looks just like Morrigan from the neck down (if you change their default clothing to a different mage robe.)

 

But if we are going to get a game that has this sort of a perspective:

 

baldurs_gate_2_shadows.jpg

 

 

The only female we can really make out in detail is ... well ... the dragon, and I don't think her design was chosen for the hawtness factor.

 

We might not notice much beyond the obvious differences of gender/race/equipment. The Infinity Engine games did have a noticeable issue with boob plate / revealing robes for female humans especially, but this should be easy enough to avoid.

 

Joinable companions of the same gender/race might not vary hugely due to the limits of creating models that will have all the necessary animations, but based on the concept art we probably won't be getting characters as fan-servicey as even Annah of the Shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in the only one what grew with fantacy setings filled with perfect people that showed skin.

 

And For some reason at my 30s with my wife i keep liking it. Call it nostalgia, call it the 14 year old hordy kid sindrom I dont care, i want the game to have some chain mail bikini, and i want to have some real looking 17 century armor, i like the contrast of having the option to choose both.

So I love those sexy and over sexualized woman armors. And considering a party of 6 Having more options will for diferent tastes will be good right.

 

And as long as we can have some moding tools to change and edit the armors to change them to my taste then good for me!

If not then to bad for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be 100% fine if I didn't have to see any fat/ugly women in PE, perfectly fine in my book. :thumbsup::yes:

 

Yep.

 

No People of Walmart in my video games, I see enough of them in real life.

  • Like 1

For Firedorn all the Lads grieve

 

This Adam woke up next to Eve.

 

But beneath leaves of Fig,

 

He found Berries and Twig,

 

So Himself off a cliff he did heave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be 100% fine if I didn't have to see any fat/ugly women in PE, perfectly fine in my book. :thumbsup::yes:

 

Yep.

 

No People of Walmart in my video games, I see enough of them in real life.

 

I found some new concept art!

4291.jpg

 

Vashlyna, the warrior princess. She may not be one for looks but her incredible coat of fatty tissue gives her great damage resistance.

Edited by Jasede
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You take perfection into account, when nothing is perfect, or at least I didn't say so. And I'm not talking about "inner beauty", but about exterior beauty. Even if we take your "statistics" at face value, it doesn't matter how much percentage is considered ugly or beautiful, the real question is: What stops beautiful women from being skilled or smart in their majority? Who says that the "ugly" woman won't be the one not skilled? Not saying that "inner beauty" doesn't matter, but what says that the level of external beauty controls the possibility of skills of a person? That's a false dichotomy. Was Fall-From-Grace considered ugly or average? In the chance she's none of those, did that affect her skills? negatively or possitive or none at all? If she was one of those, would her skill ability be affected?

You are turning my statements around. First of all: Many women in Video Games ARE perfect looking. In some games ALL of them are perfect looking. Thats what i critizise.

But no one says anything about perfection.

 

Now, again: NOTHING stops physically beautiful women from being skilled. But they are never the only ones skilled. Statistically speaking beautiful, skilled women should be less common than average looking, skilled women (because the majority of the women in a world ARE average-looking, thats the point of the word). Thus, if you gather a party of skilled characters, the majority of them should be average-looking. But there should be beautiful skilled women and ugly skilled women (and men) for that matter.

And the statistics come out of nowhere, so they are null. What the companions will look like, will depend on where you pick them up and who they are as well as the developer's choice. They are individuals, not a random pick from the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do go the route of everyone being rather attractive, I'll use the same headcanon that I did in the mass effect series - either a Khan-like uprising of the eugenically superior succeeded sometime in the past of the timeline, or the undesirables were simply exterminated. Makes it a bit more grimdark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and this is a definitive improvement over this.

Indeed. I wouldn't mind some sexualized characters, but when 90% of women look like models and fight in sexualized and ridiculous armor, something is wrong.

  • Like 1

Batman: [intimidate] "Let her go".

Joker: [Failure] "Very poor choice of words."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my treasured PnP module books during the brief open source D&D era covers the issues of catch-all Charisma score.

 

Charisma should be broken into two stats, a Charisma attriburte to cover mental attractiveness - personality and charm; and a physical Appearance attribute. In this manner, attractiveness is not one dimensional.

 

This also addresses, at least from a PnP standpoint, the issue of dressing attractively. Being eye candy (high Appearance) does not endow a person to be any more likable in a physical conversation (Charisma).

 

This also opens up a cultural perspective issue on balancing Apperance versus Charisma. Modern real-life societies have a tendancy to strongly desire people with high appearance scores over those with high charisma. But what if the tables were turned? What if a society viewed high physical appearance attributes to be a curse and scorned those people? What if a society viewed wordplay and charm to be appealing and totally disregarded any care for physical appearance at all?

 

What if societies went to war over differences in opinion over their perception of Charisma and Appearance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...