Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

What things do you NOT want in Project Eternity?

kinect multiplayer co-op social casual bugs

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#41
Gavinfoxx

Gavinfoxx

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 58 posts
Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.
  • HangedMan, Karkarov and some guy like this

#42
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4358 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.


But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

Edited by BruceVC, 13 January 2013 - 12:41 AM.

  • Vaesark and Shane-o like this

#43
Alexjh

Alexjh

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Northants, UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.


But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.


OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/
  • HangedMan and some guy like this

#44
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4358 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.


But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.


OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/


Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake.

The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche.

Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist".
  • Shane-o likes this

#45
TMTVL

TMTVL

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 109 posts
  • PSN Portable ID:TMTVL
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
Forced fights without a way to escape or avoid it where if I die I just have to reload and try again (and again and again) until I win.
  • HangedMan, Doppelschwert and some guy like this

#46
Alexjh

Alexjh

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Northants, UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.


But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.


OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/


Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake.

The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche.

Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist".


I think the main thing is that we need more female characters who have a primary attribute other than sexiness. Realistically, proportionally in sci-fi and fantasy (particularly, the problem is more widespread than that by far) the big problem is not that there are sexualised women, its that there are not enough women who aren't sexualised. I'd say that on average, youare less likely to find a female physically over the age of 35 or a female character who isn't specifically attractive, than say, a black character, which is just silly. It's well established that non-white ethnic groups are underrepresented to begin with, but to say that over the age of 35 and/or not conventionally attractive members of 50% of the population is frankly bizarre. I'd like to see characters with different body types to just skinny with big breasts, and importantly, sometimes give them a lead role in things, not just be a randomer in the street or whatever. Make female characters who are asexual, conservative, pragmatists, intellectuals, middle aged, disinterested in sex, married, thinks the protagonist isn't their type etc.

On that note, by FAR my favourite female character in a game ever is Aveline from DA2. She wasn't conventionally pretty, she wasn't conventionally feminine, she was tough and willfull and had depths and would argue with you when she thought you were wrong. She wasn't even interested in you! When was the last time you have a game where a character falls in love with someone who isn't you the protagonist? None I've played! In other words, she was written as a character, not just as a strange male concept of a woman. DA2 was pretty good for this in general, although some feministic people disliked Isabella for instance, I think they are missing the point that people like her do exist and we shouldn't pretend they don't. Equally I have met people like Merrill, and the fact that all three of them came off as real characters with their own motives and itnerests was far better than the generic action-girl flirtacious love interest or shy flower to be swept off her feet that 90% of games do.

Edited by Alexjh, 13 January 2013 - 06:37 AM.


#47
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters :)


I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.

There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point.

In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc.

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u
  • BruceVC, HangedMan, Vaesark and 1 other like this

#48
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4358 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters :)


I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.

There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point.

In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc.

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u


You make some relevant points and I agree with almost everything you have said

Another point from me, many people say that women are objectified in games as there purpose in the game is as some kind of sex symbol only. All my female characters are chosen because they add value to the overall mission. Viconia was an important War Cleric and Isabella was an invaluable aid in combat. I know this may seem simplistic but its disputes the argument where people say " women in certain games have no purpose except for aesthetics"
  • Shane-o likes this

#49
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Another point from me, many people say that women are objectified in games as there purpose in the game is as some kind of sex symbol only. All my female characters are chosen because they add value to the overall mission. Viconia was an important War Cleric and Isabella was an invaluable aid in combat. I know this may seem simplistic but its disputes the argument where people say " women in certain games have no purpose except for aesthetics"


Hells yeah! Tali was my favorite in the Mass Effect trilogy, despite the fact that Miranda was practically wearing body paint. Of course, she was genetically bread to be perfect, and was a biotic (so she cared more about mobility than armor). But, yeah, Tali was fully covered all the time. She wore a helmet 24/7, for heaven's sake. But she used shotguns, AND tech abilities, and her culture was interesting, etc.

Alas, poorly-designed games with sexualized females might offer nothing more than the aesthetics of sexualized females, and maybe a bunch of immature kiddies (for whom the ratings system was specifically created, yet you still see parents buying their 10-year-olds Grand Theft Auto 4 and DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball) can't tell the difference between the usefulness of characters and their character models' clothing, but the argument that sexism can be blamed on the existence of female sexualized portrayals in video games is like saying serial killing can be blamed on the existence and availability of people.

It's... it's kind of like the arbitrary racism card. Some person who happens to be of a certain race rams their car into someone else's car, and you say "Man... what an idiot... should've been paying attention..." And then someone chimes in with "YOU JUST THINK THAT PERSON'S AN IDIOT BECAUSE THEY'RE (insert ethnicity here)!". I'm thinking, "Erm... I think they're an idiot because they were texting AND spreading jam on a bagel while trying to make a u-turn and rammed into that other car... you're the one who just connected their ethnicity to their competency." You think "This female character happens to have an awesome backstory and very tactically-useful combat abilities. You're the one who suggested she was just eye-candy when you called me sexist for liking her."

Annnnnywho. Off-topic again. Sorry.

Edited by Lephys, 13 January 2013 - 10:43 PM.

  • HangedMan likes this

#50
Luridis

Luridis

    Nightfall of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 551 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I don't want to see super-massive-over-the-top success of PE and subsequent porting to every platform under the sun. "What?" "Huh?" "Why?"

Success, I do want to see, but...

I don't want to see this place turn into Blizzard/Bioware forums over night, that's why. It's remarkably civil here at the moment and the last thing I want is an infusion of several million cheeto-eating-console-playing teens that have as little control over their commentary as they do their own hormones. The incoming nerd-rage-o-rama from such a success, over future IP development, would contain complaints about everything from the size of a female NPCs boobs to "dur why are there <insert-deragatory-name-for-same-sex-romances> in the game?". This place would become absolutely untenable in a matter of weeks. Basic principals of story evolution and creative license would be destroyed in their infancy by the sheer power of the weapon of mass destruction that is raging testosterone powered commentary.

"Aww, come on... Why are you bashing on the kiddies." - I'm not bashing the kids, I'm bashing the behavior. The title of the topic is, after all, "What don't you want..."

Games are rarely a black-and-white experience these days, just like any other creative medium. How many musicians do you know of where you liked every song on every album? Writers that you know where you liked every chapter of every book? Producer and every movie? Probably few, if any, I'd wager...

So, here's a realistic projection for Project Eternity:
  • You will not like every character.
  • You will not like every quest.
  • You will not like every zone.
  • You will not like every mechanic.
  • You will not like every feature.
  • You will not like every model.
  • You will not like every musical score.
  • But...
  • You still may very much like the game.
It would be really nice if we could avoid millions of rabid internet rage posters on this one...

Edited by Luridis, 14 January 2013 - 08:46 AM.

  • Lephys and Shane-o like this

#51
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4358 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I don't want to see super-massive-over-the-top success of PE and subsequent porting to every platform under the sun. "What?" "Huh?" "Why?"

Success, I do want to see, but...

I don't want to see this place turn into Blizzard/Bioware forums over night, that's why. It's remarkably civil here at the moment and the last thing I want is an infusion of several million cheeto-eating-console-playing teens that have as little control over their commentary as they do their own hormones. The incoming nerd-rage-o-rama from such a success, over future IP development, would contain complaints about everything from the size of a female NPCs boobs to "dur why are there <insert-deragatory-name-for-same-sex-romances> in the game?". This place would become absolutely untenable in a matter of weeks. Basic principals of story evolution and creative license would be destroyed in their infancy by the sheer power of the weapon of mass destruction that is raging testosterone powered commentary.

"Aww, come on... Why are you bashing on the kiddies." - I'm not bashing the kids, I'm bashing the behavior. The title of the topic is, after all, "What don't you want..."

Games are rarely a black-and-white experience these days, just like any other creative medium. How many musicians do you know of where you liked every song on every album? Writers that you know where you liked every chapter of every book? Producer and every movie? Probably few, if any, I'd wager...

So, here's a realistic projection for Project Eternity:

  • You will not like every character.
  • You will not like every quest.
  • You will not like every zone.
  • You will not like every mechanic.
  • You will not like every feature.
  • You will not like every model.
  • You will not like every musical score.
  • But...
  • You still may very much like the game.
It would be really nice if we could avoid millions of rabid internet rage posters on this one...


Sorry, but thats not something you can prevent. If PE is as wildly successful as I predict then we will see thousands more people these forums. Some will add value and some won't. Basically the same as any forum that has been formed around a popular game. But I also think PE is a relatively niche market, so it will never have the popularity of BSN.

I also think that BSN has thousands of people on it who are normal, reasonable and contribute constructively towards debate.

#52
Luridis

Luridis

    Nightfall of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 551 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Sorry, but thats not something you can prevent.


Didn't say it could be prevented, said it's something I'd rather not see... There is always hope! :biggrin:

#53
Umberlin

Umberlin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.


But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor.


Yes, they wore so much full armor that Conan spent large portions of the Black Stranger naked or in a ragged peice of cloth he'd tied around his nethers, while fighting picts in little more than that, and usually that little more being incredibly strange. The truth is, while there are plenty of actual uses of armor in his books, they're far - far - from the rule. Generally considers the idea that it happened more often than not, and, it's true, there's plenty of armor abound in the Conan books, on men or otherwise, but there are plenty of completely unarmored, naked or 'strangely' armored men in those books. The amount of nudity and 'revealing' armor and 'revealing' garb on the men in those books is part of the reason the revealing stuff on the women isn't noticeable. Because it's all around, and everywhere. Heck, going back to the Black Stranger the opening of that book has him in just a tattered, dirty rag tied around him dangly bits. Seriously, that book is full of naked or barely dressed men and women of all ages you name it it's there, and it's not an exception amongst the Conan books. Howard liked his nude and skimpy men in those books every bit as much as the nude and skimpy women.

I'm not really for skimpy armor, but I am not for 'armored' either. I don't even like calling it skimpy because it's not skimpy as much as, well, let's go back to the Picts and some of the other oddly armored, or unarmored, peoples in the Canon books who existed along side armored peoples and cultures in that setting. Skimpy is relative, but some just didn't wear armor or only wore 'some', and I'm not talking about women here. That's not fiction. That's reality, people of differing levels of technology exist at once even not, and in our past, some never embracing armor of any sort, and still to this day being unarmored. There are parts of this world, even today, still so primitive some people seem to not even realize they exist, and they exist right along side cultures with nuclear arms and shotguns and assault rifles. They existed right along side cultures with swords and plate armor and chain and so on.

Part of the weird thing with fantasy RPG fanatics is they look for this 'proper' armored model in games where 'people are wearing practical armor all the time', so often, where it didn't even exist in our history, and certainly shouldn't in a fantasy. Armor sounds great until you realize how many cultures got by just fine without it. We have kevlar now, but for a long time when firearms were first developed people stopped bothering with armor entirely. Why? Because it no longer mattered, and it's important, in my mind, to think about the power of a firearm . . . now think about the power a Wizard in most settings weilds. In many ways it's the same issue. That armor that didn't work against a musket or cannon ball isn't very likely to work against a fireball or lightning called down from the sky either.

Of course we have gameplay balance to consider, and that's why they do work in fantasy RPGs, but if we're talking practical on levels beyond a game . . . I'm sorry, I'm putting my money on the guy with the gun or the guy who can create fire from thin air over the moron with the plate armor and a sword anyday.

Still, getting back to the armor, here's the thing. I like armor. It looks neat. I like clothes. They look neat. I like robes, they're neat too. I like the conservative - full covering - stuff more for myself and my characters, true, but I also have no problem with the other end of the spectrum, the supposed skimpy stuff, and the middleground in between the two exteemes. I firmly believe in 'something for everyone' and I do think you can create clothing/robes/armor and arms in every tier for both extremes, as well as the middleground, in any type of gear you might need to present a person with. Let them make the decision for themselves, pick what they like for themselves and create different factions in the world that speak to these different tastes, so everyone has a bit of something close to their heart, to their taste, and the only people left out are the extremist that loudly insist:

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but skimpy!"

Or

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Practical!"

Or

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Conservative!"

Or

""No only this is right nothing else is allowed but the middleground!"

Or whatever else didn't manage to make up on the spot.

Anyways, I know only some of that had anything to do with your post . . . the reply is mostly because your post inspired the line of thoughts, rather than an actual direct response - but you inspired me, be happy or whatever.:p
  • BruceVC likes this

#54
NKKKK

NKKKK

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1012 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Posted Image

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr
  • HangedMan, Doppelschwert, Lephys and 1 other like this

#55
Heresiarch

Heresiarch

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I have no problem with armor variety, but I like consistency. If it's actual armor and not a fetish item from the local equivalent of a sex shop, it should be functional, not just a chainmail bikini or a plate codpiece or whatever. If it's a piece of exotic clothing from extremely hot countries, which leaves the wearer on the verge of being practically nude, it should elicit appropriate reactions from NPCs. Same could go for a courtly dress worn in a place with too hot a climate or tradition for skimpier clothing. If overly sexualized or otherwise inappropriate clothes are totally disregarded by everyone around it feels like fan service. And for very immature fans at that.

Edited by Heresiarch, 14 January 2013 - 12:19 PM.


#56
Calmar

Calmar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 188 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Posted Image

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr


This burly lad rouses strong brotherly feelings in me...

Who ist this alarmingly handsome fellow?

Edited by Calmar, 14 January 2013 - 12:59 PM.

  • HangedMan likes this

#57
Luridis

Luridis

    Nightfall of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 551 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr


Still doesn't quite cut it though, that's a prop and they're still trying to highlight her "figure". That scale "dress" couldn't stop a wooden sword. Found this on Google, it's about the most functional looking I saw amongst the hundreds of pictures of Xena.

Posted Image

#58
Helm

Helm

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 714 posts
level scaling (this seems to have been fixed)
regenerating health bar
quest only xp
no "missing" mechanic (this also seems to have been fixed)
any other unannounced "dumbing down" of the mechanics
  • Shane-o likes this

#59
Kecaw

Kecaw

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
Let me add mine three cent's to this:

Magicaly teleporting mine main character to do all the talking with an NPC when i started it with a different character. Seriously if i want to talk with character X let me! dont show mine main in his place (Naturally if the NPC will only talk with mine char. then be so)

Companions only for combat, as in what did NWN2, all your companions aka."friends" were just there to smack about, there was no point in giving them any skill point in more common stuff (diplomacy, bluff etc.)

"Core characters", by that i mean that one (or even two) characters that are always with you because they are esential for the whole game (IE roges that can lockpick because your warior with over 22 str. cant bust a stupid lock, or a mage that has that one uber spell whitout the whole fight becomes a pain in the bum)

Destroying a desk or cabin with brute force destroys an item there? is the item made out of glass or something that really easy breakes? no? then i dont want to see it breake.

Boxes/chest's/cabines that i open with brute force get destroyed in to milion pieaces, no no no, im trying to open a "lock" not chop them in to firewood.

Useless companions, as in they dont fit anywhere despise what your try to do.

(this will not be the problem in PE but still) to many companios to little space in the party to know everyone. (NWN2 and ME2 did it totally wrong)

(I said it in another topic but it will fit better here) Companions that leave you for no aparent reason, if the dude dosnt like me then let him leave in the mid game dont make him leave or switch sides right before the final boss with a text like "Hey i like you and all but im gonna join this bady here, and it dosnt matter that despise that his minions tried to kill me countles time and that it will be 10 vs 2 and you probably will kill me and him in like 2 min. from the start of the fight"

Infinite spawning mobs in the middle of a fight for no reason, like seriosly where do thouse guys come from? is there like a factory of clone's next door?

Overbuffing as in, buff everyone for 5min, run 10min killing everything, rest, buff, kill and so on.

Edited by Kecaw, 15 January 2013 - 05:29 AM.


#60
HangedMan

HangedMan

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 197 posts
  • Location:Miskatonic U
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

In regards to including that stuff - if you did want to, the simple solution is to have a part of two of the game where somebody has decked out all their guards in utterly impractical ceremonial stuff because the guards are there to look impressive rather than be actual legitimate defenses. It'd of course be statted out to an appropriate level of uselessness, but that way you let people use and wear stupid things and let natural selection run its course...

I like this.

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

I'm saving this.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: kinect, multiplayer, co-op, social, casual, bugs

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users