What should a female breastplate really look like

[TrashMan]

I'll admit laziness in not reading through everything.

 

But this game needs male/female versions of breastplates and armor.  The main reasoning is quick and easy discernment of each character.  While historical accuracy would probably dictate similar styles, this is a game.  And a game such as this needs to give the player the ability to quickly and easily discern each individual character.  And male/female armor anatomy, while not historical, gives the player more visual cues to know exactly who each character is.

 

So put a few boobs in those armors guys.  And make sure we can still customize armor colors, just like old IE.

 

 

No it doesn't. There is no real need for it.

 

Again, if you want visual difference, there are more visible and easier ways.

And it's not like it's a big problem in RPG?s like this, because you can pause and contemplate your moves whenever you want.

The pace of these games is slower, it's not an action-romp where you have 0,25 seconds to identify everyone on screen and issue commands.

 

Case in point?

http://www.hookedgamers.com/images/3559/xenonauts/screenshot_pc_xenonauts006.jpg

 

All soldiers look the same there. Men and women. And there's 16 of them to command around. And yet not a single complaint has been made reagrding visibility issues.

[BruceVC]

 

I'll admit laziness in not reading through everything.

 

But this game needs male/female versions of breastplates and armor.  The main reasoning is quick and easy discernment of each character.  While historical accuracy would probably dictate similar styles, this is a game.  And a game such as this needs to give the player the ability to quickly and easily discern each individual character.  And male/female armor anatomy, while not historical, gives the player more visual cues to know exactly who each character is.

 

So put a few boobs in those armors guys.  And make sure we can still customize armor colors, just like old IE.

 

 

No it doesn't. There is no real need for it.

 

Again, if you want visual difference, there are more visible and easier ways.

And it's not like it's a big problem in RPG?s like this, because you can pause and contemplate your moves whenever you want.

The pace of these games is slower, it's not an action-romp where you have 0,25 seconds to identify everyone on screen and issue commands.

 

Case in point?

http://www.hookedgamers.com/images/3559/xenonauts/screenshot_pc_xenonauts006.jpg

 

All soldiers look the same there. Men and women. And there's 16 of them to command around. And yet not a single complaint has been made reagrding visibility issues.

 

 

Trashman I am getting confused by your point, are you saying you want Chainmail bikini Armour or not. If you want that then I agree with you, if you don't then I guess I don't  agree with you? 

[TrashMan]

You are right to be confused, since I want both. And you can be even more confused because I sometimes do not discuss what I want, but what *is* in a broader sense.

 

Chainmail bikini's have their place, but in a game where the zoom is limited and you cannot fully appreciate the fine details, it is wasted. Besides if I want to oggle b00bies, I got the internet in all of it's perverse glory...

[BruceVC]

You are right to be confused, since I want both. And you can be even more confused because I sometimes do not discuss what I want, but what *is* in a broader sense.

 

Chainmail bikini's have their place, but in a game where the zoom is limited and you cannot fully appreciate the fine details, it is wasted. Besides if I want to oggle b00bies, I got the internet in all of it's perverse glory...

 

 

You make me laugh, but I think I understand

[Dream]

Not so funny. Look, you're not shaming me, you're not exposing me.

 

 

1.) Art directors are not in my profession.

2.) I take every opportunity to talk about realistic depiction of swords and armour in ALL media, not just games or art. It has nothing to do with the author being more successful than me.

3.) It's not "Your taste and art sense are awful!", it's critique of functionality, accuracy and sometimes aesthetics of the design.

 

I do this, because it's a thing I've been interested in for a long time and that I care about. I can't not look at things this way, I'm sure gun fans are rolling their eyes just as often while watching movies. 

 

 

So, again, you sit there and judge other people's work, but place your own work (which has the exact same "issues") above similar critique with a neat little justification. It's the classic amateur's perspective: everyone else does it wrong, but the reasons I did it wrong were out of my control and thus should not reflect upon me.

 

Most people mature out of that mindset once they become professionals; apparently you never did.

[Diagoras]

 

I'm sure gun fans are rolling their eyes just as often while watching movies. 

 

Buddy, you best believe it. Rampant confusion of "clip" and "magazine" are big ones, as well as horrific trigger discipline from the actors. And I'm not even into modern guns.

 

Also, what's Dream's problem? Did you kill his dog or something, because the amount of effort he puts into crawling your background for evidence to use in denouncements is...interesting.

[Merlkir]

 

Not so funny. Look, you're not shaming me, you're not exposing me.

 

 

1.) Art directors are not in my profession.

2.) I take every opportunity to talk about realistic depiction of swords and armour in ALL media, not just games or art. It has nothing to do with the author being more successful than me.

3.) It's not "Your taste and art sense are awful!", it's critique of functionality, accuracy and sometimes aesthetics of the design.

 

I do this, because it's a thing I've been interested in for a long time and that I care about. I can't not look at things this way, I'm sure gun fans are rolling their eyes just as often while watching movies. 

 

 

So, again, you sit there and judge other people's work, but place your own work (which has the exact same "issues") above similar critique with a neat little justification. It's the classic amateur's perspective: everyone else does it wrong, but the reasons I did it wrong were out of my control and thus should not reflect upon me.

 

Most people mature out of that mindset once they become professionals; apparently you never did.

 

 

Are you at all able of not telling me what I do for a living, or what I think?

I am well aware of the cases when I disagree with the design I'm supposed to paint. I don't consider my work to be above critique, I am very critical of it myself. It's not a justification of mine, it's a fact. Sometimes the design is not up to me. I still do it, because it makes me money and I need that. I don't think the client is a bad person, or that the product is ****, because the design is not as I'd do it.

 

There's objective critique that can be applied to anything and I don't exclude my work from it. There's also nothing wrong with critique of other people's art, if I don't shove it in their face without them asking for it. Neither do I see everyone doing it wrong while only I do it right. In fact, there's plenty of people doing stuff in the direction I enjoy, a big portion of fantasy is evolving towards a more realistic style. And even so, I can enjoy "unrealistic" fantasy art, while simultaneously pointing out what's unrealistic about it.

 

You keep pushing this into the line of me being jealous of my more successful peers, which I understand. It's just not the case and you won't make it so by repeating it. I have friends who work for Blizzard painting World of Warcraft cards, who do illustrations for Warhammer, DnD and even more out-there fantasy franchises. I don't think any less of them because they do it, I wouldn't mind doing it myself if there wasn't other work. Luckily, there is. I'm booked months in advance and it's all very historical looking fantasy, fitting my preferences and style.

 

There's a difference between personal preference of functional historical designs and being jealous of "more successful illustrators", one you fail to grasp even now. I AM a professional. I do this for a living and keeping the best business practices I can. 

 

Please, either come up with a real argument, or stop wasting my time insulting me and telling me what I'm like as a person and an illustrator.

[Dream]

Sometimes the design is not up to me. I still do it, because it makes me money and I need that.

So when you do it for money it's okay, but when DA:O's designers do it it's:

DA:O armour design was pretty awful, especially the horrendous pauldrons.

 

Also

I have friends who work for Blizzard painting World of Warcraft cards, who do illustrations for Warhammer, DnD and even more out-there fantasy franchises. I don't think any less of them because they do it, I wouldn't mind doing it myself if there wasn't other work. Luckily, there is. I'm booked months in advance and it's all very historical looking fantasy, fitting my preferences and style.

But yet you still take jobs that don't fit your style because you need the money? Which is it? Either you're this super successful guy turning down work at Blizzard, or you're a struggling artist getting jobs where he can. You can't claim to be both.

[Merlkir]

If you weren't a native English speaker, I'd assume you have trouble understanding text. No, I don't have a problem painting unrealistic designs for money, nor does it mean I can't find them unrealistic or badly designed when I see them. 

 

Have you ever worked freelance? Yes, I do take jobs that don't fit my preferences, for various reasons. They may be high profile jobs that will give me good experience and work credits, or they may pay very well. It also depends on what jobs I have lined up and if any of them get cancelled suddenly. I haven't turned down Blizzard, no, I haven't even applied. Surprisingly, because I don't play WoW and am not that interested in their style. Still, I'd do it, I don't have a block about it. I do turn down job offers, because my schedule is full at the moment. So guess what, it's neither. You presented a false dichotomy. I'm not a struggling artist, nor am I turning down Blizzard. How can this be?! 

 

As I said, there's plenty of good historical fantasy work for me.

 

You continue to mistake (or twist on purpose) a couple of things.

 

1) Preference, or finding designs bad or poorly functional does not equal to "I'd never do it." or "The person who made this is a loser and should burn in hell." It's ok for DA:O's designers to do their designs however they want. I don't know them, I don't hate them, I don't think they're idiots. The designs aren't very functional, that's my professional opinion and my preference lies elsewhere.

 

2) I am not a bitter loser hating any more successful artists. In fact, artists are a very friendly bunch. I got a lot of helpful advice from a few artists I've admired for a long time, some of them I've become friends with. I have a lot of respect for the artists at Blizzard, despite my personal preference of design style. Do I wish I made more money, or had more high level clients? Sure. But that's natural, it's ok to have dreams and aspirations, plans even. I learnt a long time ago not to wish someone else's job was mine. I know I get the jobs I earn and deserve. 

 

And you know what? I'm doing alright so far. I'm getting better at what I do, I'm getting better jobs and work with more professional clients. 

 

I'm not sure why it is I'm explaining myself to you. Perhaps because you're being really offensive and my work is very important to me.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Merlkir

[Gfted1]

Ok, lets see if we can get back on track and discuss the thread topic and not the posters within.

[motorizer]

 

 

Case in point?

http://www.hookedgamers.com/images/3559/xenonauts/screenshot_pc_xenonauts006.jpg

 

All soldiers look the same there. Men and women. And there's 16 of them to command around. And yet not a single complaint has been made reagrding visibility issues.

 

 

 

All the soldiers in xenonauts are essentially the same though apart from minor stat differences, they are not really "characters" as such, the main difference is their equipment...which is visible.

 

My opinion...have some  armour which looks female and some that doesn't...

 

and don't for the love of all that is holy, just have one "best" armour

 

that way people can use different stuff, which is to their taste, without being nerfed

 

I'm not convinced about plate anyway myself, I really doubt a small party of adventurers would actually use it.

[Lephys]

In real life you are "not" 6 people.

The "not" is really confusing me here. Am I only allegedly not 6 people in real life? o_O

 

Technicly neither are you in the game. You control the PC and have a party of 5 NPC's..you are the PC, but are not hte NPC...if that makes sense.

How do you play the game? You control one or more characters to accomplish things in the game world via the characters, as per the game's rules. What do you do with your "NPCs" in combat? You control them and have them do things. So, yes, I'd say technically, you are an entire party of characters. You already even have limited control with your main character, since you can't give him a Swordsmanship skill of 100, then go around having him suck at swinging his sword. There is no "strike crappily" command in combat. You get do make his attack decisions, and he carries them out with his own skill and precision, as dictated by the game. So, there are things you cannot get him to do, just as there are things you cannot get the rest of your party to do, and yet you still control them all.

 

But also, in real life poeple worked together and went int obattles together, facing the same problems you describe. Visibility.

Generals and commanders also had a group of people under their command.  And they went around it with armor decorations, tabbads, plumes, fancy hats, colorfull garb and stuff.

You insist that visual destinction *must* ALWAYS exist a-priory without player intervention. I say it doesn't.

Notice I never argued against this. Also notice, though, that you're talking about large-scale battles that are made up of more than 6-concurrent party members that must all exist within the same combat interface at the same time. I don't foresee any "Wait, is that Sir Cedric down there where we're about to aim this cannon? I don't know... he's in my party, but now he's 3 miles away, down on the plain, fighting those goblins, and it's foggy today. It's a good thing he's wearing that brilliant, yellow armor and that hydra crest on his tabard. I can JUST make it out with my spyglass."

 

Also, I have yet to insist that visual distinction "*must* ALWAYS exist." I even specifically stated the contrary. It doesn't HAVE to happen. It's simply an important thing in a video game, with a player-character interface that has you controlling multiple characters, that, however unlikely, COULD be of the same race but different genders, and bear the same type of armor, and not have any optional decorations added to their armor specifically to tell them apart (which wasn't a problem until they put the armor on).

 

See, here's what it keeps coming back to. I'm playing a game, and I'm controlling 6 people (potentially), so I want to be able to know who's who. Oh, look, there's Human Tom, and there's Human Suzy. Okay, I can already tell them apart. They are easily, EASILY distinguishable from one another, because of the culmination of all their physiological differences. Okay, hey! I found some plate armor! They're both Warriors! I can afford 2 sets! Okay, I'd very much like them to both have some good quality armor, so I equip them both with plate. Wait, what's this? Now, the majority of those physiological differences are covered, because Suzy just put on twice the padding under her armor to make up for the fact that the armor is basically the exact same as Tom's. So, now, all I have to do is go out of my way to make Suzy distinctive again.

 

Let me ask this, at this point: Would you call me silly if I went out of my way to make them look identical, THEN complained that they looked identical? I mean, I gave them the same haircut, same hat, same clothes, same little customizable accessories and plumes and such. THEN said "Hey, this is ridiculous... they look identical!" Wouldn't that be silly?

 

Well, here's the difference between that and plate armor: With plate armor, my goal is to improve both Tom and Suzy's armor effectiveness. NOT to make them no longer visually distinguishable from one another. But, if the armor does that, then I have no choice. It's a packaged deal, at that point. And it doesn't need to be.

 

Guess what? In a video game, it doesn't MATTER if you stray 15% from reality. You can get out your calculator and say "Wait a minute! Her armor would actually have a 1.2-point lower rating than Tom's, because of the way the developers decided to fit the armor slightly differently!" all day long, and it doesn't matter, because there're no inherent video game world physics that dictate whether or not the armor is any less effective.

 

Would a 3-foot-tall Gnome's suit of full plate be as effective as a 9-foot-tall Half-Ogre's suit of plate? Probably not. And yet, no matter what your race in a typical game, plate is plate, and you get the same bonus. It's an abstraction that we accept. You're already much more physically frail than a Half-Ogre, as a Gnome, so why the need to make armor suck, too?

 

Why, then, is there ANY need, whatsoever, to say to me "Yeah, okay, but there's absolutely no reason for any of that, that you just said there's at least some kind of reason for, but there's TOTALLY a reason to make sure it's 1000000000% realistic, because that generates highly helpful affects across the board, versus your zero-reason abstraction."

 

And, for the record, subjectively, there IS no right and wrong. That's kind of the whole point of subjectivity. The rightness or wrongness depends on the perspective. Where as, OBJECTIVELY, you're right that a lack of abstraction is more realistic, and that realism has positive benefits, and I'm right that, here, there is A purpose to be served by abstraction, and that it's more of a purpose than pure realism serves in this particular matter. As I said, you can agree with that, and still not WANT the abstraction (so, subjectively, you'd still opt for the realism.) If the game were only made for you, and not a billion other players, I'd agree that the abstraction would be pointless.

[Darth Trethon]

What to talk realism? Screw realism....people do NOT watch movies, play games or read fantasy books because they want realism. If I wanted realism I wouldn't touch any form of entertainment.....the worst argument that can be made here is about realism. Why aren't people arguing realism in trying to say there should be no magic in the game? That IS what pure realism people should say. Take your garbage arguments about political correctness elsewhere......games like this are NOT made to adhere to 21st century political agendas.  Same to all the romance and sexual orientation arguments....go find some other forums and other people to annoy.

 

I hope obsidian does not give in to these kinds of trash arguments. Want to see awesome armor for females? Here you go:

 

Thank you Larian!!!!

[PrimeJunta]

Erm, Darth. This is the 21st century. The game is a 21st century artifact. How could it be unaffected by the 21st century political agendas its makers hold? The chief designer is a self-declared leftist and feminist, for example. I would find it strange if these views were NOT reflected in the game in any way.

 

In any case, not liking the politics of a game is a perfectly good reason not to play a game. I make such choices too. I haven't played any of Larian's games precisely because the art – like the one you posted – gives a strong vibe of women-as-eye-candy-only, which is a big turn-off for me.

[HoonDing]

 

[TrashMan]

 

How do you play the game? You control one or more characters to accomplish things in the game world via the characters, as per the game's rules. What do you do with your "NPCs" in combat? You control them and have them do things. So, yes, I'd say technically, you are an entire party of characters. You already even have limited control with your main character, since you can't give him a Swordsmanship skill of 100, then go around having him suck at swinging his sword. There is no "strike crappily" command in combat. You get do make his attack decisions, and he carries them out with his own skill and precision, as dictated by the game. So, there are things you cannot get him to do, just as there are things you cannot get the rest of your party to do, and yet you still control them all.

 

You control 6 people in battle, but you are't NOT them. Only the PC is "you" or your character.

The others are followers who follow the others the PC barks during combat..which is abstracted away.

 

 

 

 

Notice I never argued against this. Also notice, though, that you're talking about large-scale battles that are made up of more than 6-concurrent party members that must all exist within the same combat interface at the same time. I don't foresee any "Wait, is that Sir Cedric down there where we're about to aim this cannon? I don't know... he's in my party, but now he's 3 miles away, down on the plain, fighting those goblins, and it's foggy today. It's a good thing he's wearing that brilliant, yellow armor and that hydra crest on his tabard. I can JUST make it out with my spyglass."

 

And? It still doesn't matter.

100 poeple or 6, if they wear the same, they wear the same.

And percisely because they are in your party, you should know where everyone is without even looking...which is how peopel generally play games like X-Com.

You know Bob is first, Sam is covering the left flank and John the right flank and Suzy has the roocket launcher. Even without any cues whatsoever.

Combined with all of other cues and it's near impossible to ever get confused.

 

 

 

 

 

See, here's what it keeps coming back to. I'm playing a game, and I'm controlling 6 people (potentially), so I want to be able to know who's who. Oh, look, there's Human Tom, and there's Human Suzy. Okay, I can already tell them apart. They are easily, EASILY distinguishable from one another, because of the culmination of all their physiological differences. Okay, hey! I found some plate armor! They're both Warriors! I can afford 2 sets! Okay, I'd very much like them to both have some good quality armor, so I equip them both with plate. Wait, what's this? Now, the majority of those physiological differences are covered, because Suzy just put on twice the padding under her armor to make up for the fact that the armor is basically the exact same as Tom's. So, now, all I have to do is go out of my way to make Suzy distinctive again.

 

OH THE HORROR! You have to equip a different weapon or change cloak color or something.

Truly the most work-intensive and boring activity. OH poor little player you! I weep for you hand, it is surely broken by that one extra click.

 

 

 

Well, here's the difference between that and plate armor: With plate armor, my goal is to improve both Tom and Suzy's armor effectiveness. NOT to make them no longer visually distinguishable from one another. But, if the armor does that, then I have no choice. It's a packaged deal, at that point. And it doesn't need to be.

 

And it doesn't need not be a package deal either.

 

Actually, one could argue that it should be..

 

 

 

[qutoe]

Guess what? In a video game, it doesn't MATTER if you stray 15% from reality. You can get out your calculator and say "Wait a minute! Her armor would actually have a 1.2-point lower rating than Tom's, because of the way the developers decided to fit the armor slightly differently!" all day long, and it doesn't matter, because there're no inherent video game world physics that dictate whether or not the armor is any less effective.

 

It might matter to some. You'll find that people are like that and different things matter to different people.

 

 

 

 

Would a 3-foot-tall Gnome's suit of full plate be as effective as a 9-foot-tall Half-Ogre's suit of plate? Probably not. And yet, no matter what your race in a typical game, plate is plate, and you get the same bonus. It's an abstraction that we accept. You're already much more physically frail than a Half-Ogre, as a Gnome, so why the need to make armor suck, too?

 

And therefore, we should accept any abstraction? No thanks.

I already told you that "it's a game" is not sufficient justification for anything in my book.

 

 

 

 

Where as, OBJECTIVELY, you're right that a lack of abstraction is more realistic, and that realism has positive benefits, and I'm right that, here, there is A purpose to be served by abstraction, and that it's more of a purpose than pure realism serves in this particular matter. As I said, you can agree with that, and still not WANT the abstraction (so, subjectively, you'd still opt for the realism.) If the game were only made for you, and not a billion other players, I'd agree that the abstraction would be pointless.

 

Are you arguing that a billion other players would prefer X (abstraction in this case) over Y (realism)?

That would be hard to prove...even morese because often people don't even know if they will like or hate something, and often end up liking what they thought would hate or vice-versa.

 

Trying to play the numbers game is kinda pointless, since the game isn't made only for you, or anyone for that matter either. Yet at the end of the day any single feature will still be to the liking/disliking of one group or another.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

 

 

Case in point?

http://www.hookedgamers.com/images/3559/xenonauts/screenshot_pc_xenonauts006.jpg

 

All soldiers look the same there. Men and women. And there's 16 of them to command around. And yet not a single complaint has been made reagrding visibility issues.

 

 

 

All the soldiers in xenonauts are essentially the same though apart from minor stat differences, they are not really "characters" as such, the main difference is their equipment...which is visible.

 

 

 

Given that I've seen people care more for those "not characters" than any RPG NPC in the history of forver, I'll have to disagree here.

Also, difference in equipment is only visible if they carry different equipment. 4 people in the same armor with the same weapon will look exactly the same.

Which is true for PE too...except in PE you have more armor parts and accesories, so you can make them visually distinctive despite that.

 

 

 

 

DARTH TRETHON:

What to talk realism? Screw realism....people do NOT watch movies, play games or read fantasy books because they want realism. If I wanted realism I wouldn't touch any form of entertainment.....the worst argument that can be made here is about realism.

 

*YOU* don't watch it for that.

*YOU* don't want realism (altough the amore accurate term would be believability/versimilitude)

But that doens't mean others don't. People ultimatively want different things from their entertainment - often depending on mood and what you feel like watching/doing today.

 

So blanket statements like that are the true trash argument.

 

And political correctness?

What does that have to do with political correctnes? Hmm... I guess can see a possible link in thinking that more unigendered armor equals hiding the female form as soem sort of PC agenda. But the truth is that I don't really care about PC, as I find the most vocal proponents of it to be just as abbrasive and judgmental as the vocal sexists/mysgonists/racists/whatever.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TrashMan

[FlintlockJazz]

Trashman, I gotta say you have the patience of a saint to still be posting without killing anyone. I would have gone on a killing spree by now or at least put my head through a wall! :D

[JadedWolf]

There are many ways to make two people in the same armour distinguishable. In the BG series of games, there were black armors, gold armors, red armors... All with a different look and colour to them. Granted, these were only the magical variety, but if you would give such choices at the basic level, I am sure you could distinguish two characters from each other while keeping armour unisex.

[Kjaamor]

Trashman, I gotta say you have the patience of a saint to still be posting without killing anyone. I would have gone on a killing spree by now or at least put my head through a wall! :D

 

With the greatest of respect to Trashman, I'm not sure even he would describe his approach to responding in this topic as patient.

 

 

What to talk realism? Screw realism....people do NOT watch movies, play games or read fantasy books because they want realism. If I wanted realism I wouldn't touch any form of entertainment.....the worst argument that can be made here is about realism. Why aren't people arguing realism in trying to say there should be no magic in the game? That IS what pure realism people should say.

 

While I disagree with most of your post in the context of this thread, I agree that the repeated arguments for 'realism' do display an odd juxtaposition between using historically accurate armour while you use your magic spells to kill a Dragon. I often find myself arguing on the other side to people in favour of 'immersion', but it does seem to hold a rather more sensible base position in the context than 'realism'.

 

But to approach your wider point, it does indeed come down to whether P:E is going to be another game where the best female armour is the Thong +5. I get the impression that it isn't going to be, and while I would applaud the decision it's not exactly a revelation given that the graphics system doesn't encompass a 'Camera behind ass/in front of ****' feature. Still, given that such approaches have become something of a norm within the genre, it is nice.

 

Unfortunately, for all the political sensibilities in the world, the Thong +5 is going nowhere in the genre, since it's inevitably popular within the target audience. The whole rpg setting is littered with 'Adult Content for non-adults', and each new generation of fans - plus many (most?) of the previous generation - will lap it up. Ultimately, sex sells, and in a non-kickstarter program you'd have great difficulty selling PC to a publisher. Indeed, even with P:E, you can guarantee that the portrait art for female warrior-types is not going to display a 16-stone harridan with cauliflower ears and half her teeth missing.

 

This whole thing is an issue I start with a moral standpoint on, and rapidly descend into Nihilism. Thinking about it, I should probably make that my signature.

[PrimeJunta]

Sex is great, but constantly staring at pixelated T&A makes it boring.

 

I can't, off-hand, think of any cRPG where sex was done really well. However I think The Witcher 1 & 2 are worth looking at because of the differences in which it was done in them.

 

One of the many reasons I liked The Witcher is that many of the women in it were fully-fleshed characters, not just eye candy, ego stroking, or wanking material. This was let down by the really dopey sex minigame with the collecting cards. The Witcher 2 was a great deal better: Geralt's relationship with Triss was complex, many-layered, conflicted, without sliding into emo angst or melodrama, and Triss's character was much better developed too. (I thought the sex scenes were too far in Uncanny Valley though.)

 

The point? If Triss had been wearing a Thong +5 all through the game, the impact of the sex scenes would've been greatly diminished. That she wore practical adventuring garb most of the time made the times when she... didn't... that much more effective. And yeah, speaking very much from my male gaze POV here!

 

This is another reason I dislike gratuitous near-nudity in computer games so much. If all the women are babes and all the babes are half-naked all the time, then neither of these things make any difference any more. I would like the games much better if the women and the men both looked and dressed like real women and real men. Then you could have courtesan famous the world over for her beauty, charm, wit, and style, or the dashing troubadour breaking the hearts and stealing the virtue of fair maidens from castle to castle, and make them stand out and look the part.

[Kjaamor]

Sex is great, but constantly staring at pixelated T&A makes it boring.

 

The pattern of sales would appear to suggest that you're in the minority.

 

It does appear from your post though, that you've slightly misunderstood the content of my post by taking it literally at its word. I'm not referring strictly to sex, as much as sexualisation. A more appropriate phrase would have been 'Sexy sells', but that is just phonetically horrible so I went for the standard.

 

 

One of the many reasons I liked The Witcher is that many of the women in it were fully-fleshed characters, not just eye candy, ego stroking, or wanking material. This was let down by the really dopey sex minigame with the collecting cards. The Witcher 2 was a great deal better: Geralt's relationship with Triss was complex, many-layered, conflicted, without sliding into emo angst or melodrama, and Triss's character was much better developed too. (I thought the sex scenes were too far in Uncanny Valley though.)

 

The point? If Triss had been wearing a Thong +5 all through the game, the impact of the sex scenes would've been greatly diminished. That she wore practical adventuring garb most of the time made the times when she... didn't... that much more effective. And yeah, speaking very much from my male gaze POV here!

 

It's clear that we're coming at this discussion from the same direction, but from vastly different standpoints within that direction. Which is fine, of course. However, I have to say that if we're honestly using The Witcher or its sequel as an example of positive female modelling and not being a case of 'Selling Sexy' (*shudders*) then, to pinch one from Yahtzee, the Sexism in Rpgs ship hasn't so much set sail, as circumnavigated the globe and returned home laden with exotic spices.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, I was talking about sexualization as well. And I'm quite aware that I'm in the minority here!

 

Re The Witcher, I think it's interesting precisely because it embodies both a lot of what's wrong about women in videogames, and how it can be done right. What's more, The Witcher 2 is much better than The Witcher in the good, and has dropped a great deal of the bad. What I thought most jarring about The Witcher 1 was that the writing didn't really mesh with the visuals -- Shani, Triss, Abigail, and a quite a few others were well-written, complex characters, but they all looked like drool-worthy 17-year-olds; the babydoll nighties were especially corny.

[Elerond]

Ask GR Anything: Do boobs actually sell games?

http://www.gamesradar.com/ask-gr-anything-do-boobs-actually-sell-games/

Edited April 30, 2013 by Elerond

[Merlkir]

 

While I disagree with most of your post in the context of this thread, I agree that the repeated arguments for 'realism' do display an odd juxtaposition between using historically accurate armour while you use your magic spells to kill a Dragon. I often find myself arguing on the other side to people in favour of 'immersion', but it does seem to hold a rather more sensible base position in the context than 'realism'.

 

Just so you know, this is a fallacy, often used while discussing realism in games. 

 

The problem of a person advocating this position is a misunderstanding of the opposition and what they're asking for. 

 

Magic and dragons are fantastical and out of this world on purpose. They're something we do not have any reference for, only parallels at best. Whether or not the game contains dragons and magic, the only relevant part is if it has people in armour. If it does, we have a ton of reference and experience from real life. If the game's laws of physics are similar to our world (not counting in magic of course), if the humanoids wearing the armour are similar to humans, there is absolutely no reason for the armour not to be functional. We know how it works, why lower our chance of immersion by showing something obviously not functional, or just silly? 

 

Of course the armour doesn't have to look like Earth armours from the middle ages, but IF it's significantly different, the designer should know why it's different. Actually tying an outlanding cool looking design into the world's specific features is awesome and will only strengthen immersion.

 

It's actually quite similar with dragons as well. If you look at early dragons in fantasy art, they were either quite badly constructed and don't look functional at all, or they were just big lizards, directly referenced from iguanas. As the genre evolved, dragon stereotypes began to crystalize. Nowadays you still get dragons which don't look like they could "work" as real animals, but you also get Todd Lockwood's dragons, which are absolutely stunning in how accurate and believable their anatomy is. (his anatomical approach draws strong influence from cats btw, other DnD authors used pitbulls for instance)

 

Magic certainly changes things, I can well imagine magic armours looking quite strange and awesome, perhaps even showing a bit of skin (ventilation? vanity? who knows, mages are weird). 

But plain old metal/leather/cloth armour is just armour, we know what works and how it works, there's no need to blame magic and then invent a square wheel.