AAA Gimmicks I`m Sick of Seeing
- Thread starter Emiscary
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Once again, who exactly, besides you, considers John Norman a master of anything?Therumancer said:
Huh, that explains why women's boxing and MMA don't exist. Oh wait, they do. Hang on, I'm gonna get the IOC on the phone and tell them they should cancel women's boxing for the 2012 games because someone on a video game site doesn't understand how tits work.Therumancer said:
Unless you count the various steppe cultures where both sexes fought for centuries, the various peasant and refugee armies throughout history composed of men and women, the several women who went into battle because of class duties, and so on. Don't get me wrong, most fighters throughout history were men, but like many things in history it's a trend, not an iron-hard rule. Incidentally, out of the various cases of women fighting and/or leading armies in Europe, the Mideast, the Eurasian steppe, and east Asia, I can't think of a single case where they didn't basically wear the same things that men wore (because, you know, dying of stab wounds and/or infection sucks.)Therumancer said:
The "Amazons underwent masectomy to shoot bows" thing is probably derived from a false cognate. The most likely origin of the word "Amazon" is from an Iranian root roughly meaning "warrior," not a Greek root. Compare Herodotus's giant ants and the kimono [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9whwwTK6I] scene from My Big Fat Greek Wedding.Therumancer said:
Also, the inherent silliness of a woman having to have a masectomy to shoot a bow is pretty [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/14/xin_22208051419001711815942.jpg] apparent [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI].
The historians who actually look at grave goods and archaeological sites disagree, along with the primary source depictions of actual women fighters by historical artists who actually lived in a time period where people were eminently familiar with what it was like to take arrow/sling fire and kill trained, armed, and armored opponents in closed combat.Therumancer said:
Like, I get that you really like looking at pictures of women in bikinis, but claiming that it would make sense to wear one to a battle IRL is pretty laughable. Fiction isn't always realistic, and cover art most certainly isn't realistic.
The historians who actually look at grave goods and archaeological sites disagree, along with the primary source depictions of actual women fighters by historical artists who actually lived in a time period where people were eminently familiar with what it was like to take arrow/sling fire and kill trained, armed, and armored opponents in closed combat.Kahunaburger said:
Like, I get that you really like looking at pictures of women in bikinis, but claiming that it would make sense to wear one to a battle IRL is pretty laughable. Fiction isn't always realistic, and cover art most certainly isn't realistic.[/quote]
Much snipped for the sake of brevity and absurdity.
Let me be painfully blunt here, unless you spend a LOT of time with politically correct historical re-inventionists I have absolutly no idea where your getting a lot of your information from. I've spent more time on this than most people, and have visited a lot of places like the Higgins armory museum and other locations, and trust me, the people who actually know this crap say exactly the opposite.
Cases of women fighting with or against men are more or less non-existant despite attempts to try and make it seem like they did otherwise. In most cases those pictures and sculptures of woman warriors represent very specific divinities, like Athena, Freya, Diana, and others who being gods/ideals were shown to be doing things that actual women did not do and were not permitted to do.
You ARE correct in that there have been numerous cases where women lead armies, but they rarely if ever fought. Joan Of Arc for example, despite many stories, was mostly an Icon. Hatshepsut commanded both the army and navy of Egypt but never personally entered the battlefield. Later records showing imagines of these people armed and armored did not mean that they ever entered battle, especially successfully. There has been a lot about it in debunking modern feminism.
Now, as far as boxing and MMA goes, your dealing with absurdities, because you are dealing with seperate leagues where women fight other women, as a way of compensating for the lower physical abillities. Attempts to create fighting-game-like co-ed fighting tournaments and such have failed. Many years ago ESPN had this huge thing going with some feminist kung-fu champion (the name eludes me) who thought she should be able to fight men. She was promoted heavily as the ultimate warrior, and was given a chance. She was like the #2 ranked female fighter in the world, she was put up against a guy in the same weight class who was ranked in the 40s for the guys as a demonstration. The guy tore her apart, I mean not even close, he pretty much stood there and let her try and do whatever she wanted, and he pretty much laughed her off and then put her down like a little kid. The fight was all over the pla
ce for a long time.
The bottom line is that taken to their peak, men will always be physically better than women. Given top end development, the same level of training, the guy will always win, and really it takes more for a woman to even have parity when they are still at the level where she can compete. It's a huge, huge issue that has gone from fighting into arenas like the phyical standards for certain military or police jobs.
Reality is that some girl of average size going into battle with men of average size, is going to get kicked around like a soccor ball. She's liable to be 4" shorter (like 5' 8" to 6' in many cases.. it varies with area and ethnicity) and there to be tens of pounds on her. If everyone is a professional fighter, and has worked out as far as they can specifically to kill... it's not going to go well, beyond the issues involved in armor.
Now some people will be sitting here going "OMG Therumancer, your a sexist to go along with all the other horrible things we think about your right wing arse", but in reality it's a matter of me being a realist. As much as people might try and insist otherwise, women did not really fight in ancient armies, that is why you don't have much armor for them in dedicated armory museums, and when asked the people there will tell you flat out "this does not exist" with the exception of very specific pieces crafted for the handful of exceptions, many of which were preserved so well because they were never actually used on a battlefield. Hatshepsut allegedly had a Breastplate (I've never seen it, supposed to be in a museum in Cairo, it's beem mentioned) which was designed to her feminine countours, but she never actually wore it in battle. It might be fun to think of her at the head of some huge egyptian army, but that pretty much didn't happen. Albiet Egypt was relatively peaceful during her reign.
As far as who considers John Norman a master of fantasy, that's kind of a loaded question. I think it's better answered by pointing out that you, and pretty much everyone who follows fantasy has heard of him, he's sold 12 million books which makes him pretty bloody well sold and circulated for this paticular genere, and he did most of this before sword and sorcery was as popular as it is now. You might not want to accept it, but he pretty much speaks for himself. I kind of realize he wasn't a good example, because on a site like this one people are unable to look beyond all the bondage philsophy stuff to the rest of what was in his writing.
Therumancer said:
Much snipped for the sake of brevity and absurdity.
Let me be painfully blunt here, unless you spend a LOT of time with politically correct historical re-inventionists I have absolutly no idea where your getting a lot of your information from. I've spent more time on this than most people, and have visited a lot of places like the Higgins armory museum and other locations, and trust me, the people who actually know this crap say exactly the opposite. [/quote]
Yeah, what do all those politically correct historians know, finding politically correct armor in the tombs of politically correct steppe warriors? And they're aided by those politically correct medieval paintings from Europe and Asia, as well as politically correct eyewitness accounts from across the Eurasian world! Women totes wore bikinis to battle, dude, I went to a museum once!
I'm talking about the primary sources. I.e., stuff along the lines of "this woman led this armed force at this battle. Here is a picture of her. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Hangaku_Gozen_by_Yoshitoshi.jpg/220px-Hangaku_Gozen_by_Yoshitoshi.jpg]" Or "this woman, dressed as a knight, killed a bunch of people in this battle. [http://www.alshindagah.com/mayjun2003/woman.html]" Seriously, man, reading some SF novels loosely based on IRL history does not mean you know things about history.Therumancer said:
You seem to be straying from the issue here. The point is not that ancient wars were settled by one-on-one boxing matches. The point is that you don't seem to grasp how boobs work, and it's hilarious to me.Therumancer said:
I enjoy the fact that on one hand you are trying to convince me you know the first thing about military history and on the other hand you're making "no items, swords only, final destination" sort of argument that it was impossible for women (or, if we're following your logic, short men, young men, and men suffering from malnutrition) to fight. Ancient/medieval battles were not fought between pairs of equally trained, equally armed, equally armored, equally dismounted opponents at peak physical condition.Therumancer said:
To elaborate, let's look at some historical examples of female fighters. If (to name a common situation that comes up when people who weren't steppe nomads fought steppe nomads) a spearman on foot is taking fire from mounted archers, his chances of survival are not going to be influenced by how many X chromosomes the people shooting at him have. Or if someone is on the receiving end of Khawla bint al-Azwar's (from the example above's) lance during a cavalry charge, the fact that she could probably bench less weight than a male knight of her level of training and physical conditioning isn't going to make him any less dead.
It still cracks me up that you're approaching this from a speculative mindset. We don't have to ask ourselves "what would happen?" because we have historical evidence about what did happen. Unless you think dark age Muslims and feudal Japanese count as "politically correct liberal feminist revisionist historians."Therumancer said:
Let N equal the number of shitty rape-themed SF novels crapped out by John Norman. I'm willing to believe that at least [12,000,000/N] people in the world have no taste in SF.Therumancer said:
Robert E. Howard? Fritz Leiber? Clark Ashton Smith? Michael Moorcock?Therumancer said:
Although I'm noticing a theme with you claiming knowledge in areas anyone with actual knowledge in these areas has no problem poking holes in.
Hey, I'm a connoisseur of tortured sentences and shitty SF. I definitely found a way to see past the "creepy rape porn for neckbeards" angle to the other reasons John Norman is a terrible writer.Therumancer said:
Please tell me I didn't just read that.Therumancer said:
It's more effective for women to wear as little as possible?
Uh...
do you honestly think wearing "little as possible" is going to benefit a woman in a fight? and Im talking "literal bikini" hereTherumancer said:
it doesnt matter that men are physically stronger
it doesnt matter that historically women didnt do the fighting
woman have parts that need protecting too, you may think going the "agile" route makes more sense but that doesnt mean you have to hsow unessicary skin...thats just retarded
and alot pf those "hyper fantasy *armour*" contumes go bwyond simple fan-service..it goes into the realm of mind blowing retardedness
GeneralTwinkle said:
Unless your trying to troll, read back a few messages and I explain it in detail. Quoting me out of context and making peanut gallery comments is kind of annoying.
Same traffic as my last response, I've written several posts explaining it within this thread. Peanut gallery comments and out of context quoting is fairly trollish. Anything I could say to explain this has already been said. Such comments are just designed to provke a response. Go troll someone else by calling them a retard.Vault101 said:
I'm tired of bothering to debate with people and then having to deal with this garbage every single time. Sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but don't call me a retard and expect attention. Especially when all your answers are in the same thread.
... and there goes any credibility or respect I had for you in this discussion. Once you start tossing out the insults, I'm done. Learn to surrender with grace, I will condede points when I'm wrong, although this is not one of those times. When people have to start getting personal I consider that pretty much a sign that they have gotten their arse whipped to the point where they have no other recourse, yet don't want to surrender, since they can't make the point.Kahunaburger said:
To be blunt, the actual "problem" is that I have knowlege of a great number of topics, and the truth happens to come into conflict with what a lot of people want to believe.
In this case, your basically throwing a giant tantrum because you don't like John Norman, so your all upset that he happens to be a hugely influential writer, and someone to referance on certain subjects. Heck, as I've said I don't much care for him either, but I still give respect where it's do.
Being unable to dispute simple facts of him writing like 20 books in a series (which is huge), and selling like 12 million copies, you instead decide to start screaming about neckbeards and attacking me.
By your basic logic we wouldn't be having this conversation as nobody would have read John Norman for him to achieve that kind of success, and if you think people who sell that much and publish series that long don't inspire others, your incredibly ignorant. Tiny fringe fandoms don't carry things to that kind of success, if he had written a couple of trilogies you MIGHT be able to defend things, but really you can't, because he succeeded on a huge level.
We're pretty much done.
Not an insult - it's an observation. You have a tendency to claim knowledge of things and subsequently demonstrate a lack of knowledge in these things. Then people who have actual knowledge of these things show up and point out your errors, which you try to bluster your way through. I've seen you do this several times on several topics, and while it is entertaining, it does very little to convince other people that your opinion is correct.Therumancer said:
Show, don't tell. Saying "I think these things are true about history because of... um... because I'm very knowledgeable about history! According to me!" is much less persuasive than saying "I think these things are true about history because an archaeological find or primary source presents strong evidence for their truth."Therumancer said:
And what subjects would those be?Therumancer said:
Laughing at neckbeards, my friend. Laughing at neckbeards. Terrible SF porn is mildly amusing. People who get offended when you laugh at their terrible SF porn are hilarious.Therumancer said:
Kahunaburger said:
No, what you typically see is me tell people the way things are, and then people get butthurt, respond with some misinformation and not like it when I don't care for it. In many cases I simply tell them to do the research on their own if they don't like what I'm saying because I find it inherantly ridiculous.
In this case I have given a few referances, including the Higgins Armory Museum. In my case I can claim a bit of first hand knowlege and having actually seen this stuff, and had it explained first hand.
What's more since we're dealing with historical fact here, and that there ISN'T any armor left behind by armies of female warriors (because there weren't any), you'll notice nobody is pulling out anything reliable either, nor has anyone been able to talk about this kind of thing with fisst hand experience.
What's more a lot of this falls under common sense, and really I refuse to argue topics that are common sense with people. In this case if you say decide to go to a MWS meet, or even attend a demonstration at a museum, try getting together with your girlfriend and both putting on breastplates. Then take turns hauling off and slamming a sword or other weapon directly accross the chest as hard as you can. The impact won't penetrate, and will probably knock you on your arse. The differance is your liable to get up fairly quickly, she won't, especially if she has... large tracts of land.
... and yes, there are places where they do demonstrations like this (put on the jacket, now the breastplate. WHAM!). They have policies about the ladies for a reason and you'll notice very few are exactly eager to want to try it. Granted the stuff being used for this is reproductions, but it makes the point.
The entire arguement being made here is pretty much comes down a a simple chain of underlying logic. People think girls don't like fantasy because of all of the skimpily dressed women used in the artwork (which is false, female artists and authors tend to create things that are far worse in these directions). Nerds think that girls will become more interested in their interests and thus perhaps in them if they can somehow limit this. Hence impassioned arguements about "sensible armor" for female fighters, when in reality there is no such thing. With rare exceptions (as mentioned) women did not fight for a reason, and were generally not armored up when they did because a lot of this armor wouldn't have worked.
See, people seem to have this idea in their mind that people actually ran around like in a D&D game, armed and armored, skirmishing accross the land, and that combat flows like in an RPG. The thing is that when someone hits you in real life you don't just lose a couple of hit points and keep right on fighting until the last one is gone. The arguement about any kind of protection being better than none, doesn't apply when you consider that if you get hit your going down and staying down (as the guy your fighting is going to finish you) if you get nailed, whether your wearing armor or not. As a result a girl hypothetically going into combat is going to try and rely on not getting hit in the first place. The armor keeping her alive from the initial impact doesn't much matter if she's downed and the guy is going to just finish her (in reality you don't generally let the other person recover in a serious fight).... and your absolutly correct, that's not practical or paticularly effective when it comes to fighting.. as a result women did not generally fight. When they did fight it was a very wierd, isolated case, or an act of desperation (refugees or whatever). In general you don't see tons of armor laying around for these female warriors, because there weren't any. Sure there were pictures in Egypt, Greece, and all over the world of warrior women that wear stylized armor, but those were generally divinities or retellings of stories (ie they had fantasy themselves), that armor does not exist. As I said, I've heard (but will admit to not having seen) abouut Hatshepsut's breastplate, that represents a very specific piece of armor that resembled some of those illustrations, used largely for ceremonial reasons. That said I know little of the Egyptian order of battle, I mostly use it as an example because of what I've read about that piece of armor.
At any rate, the bottom line is that you might not LIKE the points I'm making, but you not wanting to accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. Likewise there are limits to what I'm going to put into an internet discussion, on something that more or less falls under common sense.
Sort of like how I feel little need to "prove" that whether I like him or not, that John Norman is a master of fantasy and hugely influential. The guy wrote 20 books in Gor alone, according to wikipedia he sold 12 million copies. That goes beyond "neckbeard fringe". That doesn't even need justification. Not many authors can claim to have sold that many books, or to have kept a single series going on that long. The problem in these discussions is that your trying to claim ridiculous things, rather than saying "well I don't like John Norman, so thus anything anyone says about him that isn't negative has to be untrue". What's more you fail to grasp that especially early on it wasn't porn.... and even later on it's borderline, more along the lines of "erotica". Nothing John Norman did as far as I read even came close to needing an X rating. Your comments like that make it seem like your argueing the point simply to oppose me, rather than having any idea of what your talking about. I very much doubt you have actually ever read a Gor novel from your descriptions of the content. If you talk about rape, or porno, or whatever else, your kind of not getting it.
Ever read Terry Goodkind's "Sword Of Truth"? (yes I know, by definition you probably think he sucks too simply because I'm referancing him). Remember that whole bit where he's a prisoner of the Mord'sith who is doing the whole pain/bondage/domination thing to keep our hero under control? That's pretty much Gor. Not much in the way of sex (and when it's there it isn't very descriptive) or even as much in the way of pain (though it is involved), it's mostly all about domination and submission. If anything it has more of a bondage fixation as John Norman likes to go on for pages about the devices to secure slaves, how to tie certain knots, and similar things, which actually tends to ruin the entire flow at times if your into that kind of thing. Indeed one of his big problems as an author is that he suffers from "too much information" sort of like some of my posts. Your expecting a sex/bondage scene and he spends 13 pages explaining what a hurl chain is, and who this guy hurl who invented it was. There is about to be this epic naval battle, and everything pauses while he goes on to explain for 30 pages what Gorean ships are like, how they are constructed, the engagement doctrine, and tons of irrelevent details on how many loogies the navigator of each of the 10,000 ships in the friendly fleet spit over the side, and how there is a midget that runs around keeping a running tally. If in the future you want to act like you know Gor, that's how you criticize it. To be honest I'm a bit of a perv as I've explained in the past, and part of the problem with Gor is not just that I was reading it for fantasy content, but that it actually fails at being porn of erotica.. okay... understand that. These books are not
the literary equivilent of a porn movie, they spend more time discussing sexual/gender philsophy and describing bondage devices and techniques than they do with anything hot happening... and really, nobody even really gets raped. All of the girls are generally "liberated into slavery" and pretty much want to be there. Not realistic, but that's pretty much Gor. If your going to knock it... do it right. Consider this for a later discussion when your actually argueing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about (ie someone besides me).
1 - This reminds me of Yahtzee's review of Fable 2. When you're a kid your sister is murdered, you're shot and then thrown from a window dozens of stories above ground-level. Yet when you reach voting age you can't spread some flint-lock love to the annoying youths of Albion?! Bullshit! Imagine how easy it would have been to join the Shadow-Humpers if you could burn down an orphanage! The big issue I have here though is when a triple A sequel (like Dragon Age 2 or, Mass Effect 2) suddenly introduces the words 'fuck' and 'shit' into the in-game vocabulary. It just seems like such a cop-out in the writing department, especially in Mass Effect 2's case. How do you top talking Saren into shooting himself in the face? Have people say Shit and Fuck!Emiscary said:
2 - THANK YOU! This is a factor that I think a lot of people forgot about during the whole ME3 fiasco. The game's ending was written and, scripted from the very beginning...of the development of that final installment. No matter how much customization a game offers, you're still on rails to an extent and you know what, that's not a bad thing! Linearity brings about focus after all and I'd rather have a clear idea of what needs to be done than a sprawling toybox with no direction. This is why I stopped playing Skyrim after beating the 2 main plots.
3 - I know what you're talking about. There are a few games I bought new that still have un-claimed online passes (which have likely expired). For most of the EA games though, I just buy them used. Online Passes and DRM are also a factor that keeps me playing games offline. I haven't had a Gold XBL subscription since about 2010 I think and, I thought the payed PSN thing was a dumb idea.
4 - I hate frivolous DLC...like you said, a lot of it could have been put on-disc and made unlockable by gameplay like how console games used to be. I do like some DLC of course like the Fallout 3 expansions.
5 - I kind of like these if only because of how silly they get. Really the most annoyed I got by strange titles were with the Dragon Age franchise. Origins, Awakening, Lilliana's Song and Darkspawn Chronicals to start...then Dragon Age 2. What a cop-out! I can tolerate Final Fantasy 10-2 and, 13-2 where the title is concern (to an extent: Hell, 12's sequel/spin-off got a proper subtitle) but for Dragon Age it just seemed really lazy. Why not Dragon Age: Kirkwall Legend or something?
6 - I take those on a case-by-case basis. Case in point: Halo 4's collector's edition is NOT worth an extra $30 by any freaking stretch (to me). Kingdom Heart's 3D collector's Edition is TOTALLY worth $15 or slightly (SLIGHTLY) more. The 3DS case alone could be bought separately for $15, couldn't it?
7 - It doesn't get too annoying outside of a practicality issue. Amazing how much protection you can get out of those solid steel thongs!
8 - I'm kind of not really up in arms about games having great endings. For me a good ending is like a a desert. Most games offer Blue-Bunny ice cream if anything. There are some games where the bad endings annoyed me (fucking Dragon Warrior) but for the most part I don't care about bad endings...unless the ending is a fucking cliffhanger.
9 - I can agree with this one for the most part. I haven't bought a new game in a while but the last new ones I got were same-ish, what with their space marines first-person shooting and, dark fantasy RPGs wherein you fight demons and, dragons and the Mages are persecuted like common elves etc.
I wasn't calling [i/]you[/i] a retardTherumancer said:
I was calling the "sexy armour" itself retarded, it almost hurts to look at its so offensive in many ways
I read your post, and all I was getting was "women have never been wariors, or had to wear armour, they arnt built for it...so its ok!"
The thing is that the people you get into arguments with clearly have done the research. You clearly haven't. Then you realize you've painted yourself into a corner, and have too much pride to do anything other than try and bluster your way out. I've been an outside observer in quite a few of these, and by now can recognize this pattern in your posts when I see it. It would be a wise decision on your part to learn from this experience, but I think it's sadly more likely that you will keep doing the same thing over and over.Therumancer said:
You went to a museum once. Good on you! Doesn't make you the arbiter of all things historical.Therumancer said:
I actually linked you to some examples a while back, but apparently you didn't click on them.Therumancer said:
I'll repost part of a book (free online PDF, in case you're interested in learning about the history of the Eurasian steppe) here since you seem to dislike links for some reason.
See, I tend to regard paying attention to primary sources and archaeological findings as "common sense." On the other hand, it appears that you have defined "common sense" as "preconceived notions."Therumancer said:
And yet the IOC insists on having a women's boxing event in the London Games. Don't they know that some man who reads John Norman novels posting on a video game website thinks that a hit to the chest completely incapacitates women?Therumancer said:
This sort of argument represents an interestingly outmoded mindset, because it implies a belief that:Therumancer said:
A) The people raising issues with this kind of armor are entirely (or even predominantly) male,
B) Men who dislike unrealistic armor don't dislike it because they prefer plausibility, because it looks stupid, or because they think sexism is bad - they dislike it because they want to attract more women to their genre of choice. Because apparently SF/Fantasy is totally still a boy's club.
(Btw, if you're wondering if fantasy is still a boy's club or not, pay attention to who you see on the street/subway/plane/etc. reading ASOIAF.)
I was wondering when this was going to come up. This:Therumancer said:
is what pre-industrial combat could get like. You also had to deal with people raining arrows, javelins, and slingstones down on you. You were often in tight formation with other soldiers, and dodging around like you're in a fencing match wasn't always an option. You're stepping into a meat grinder centuries before the invention of a reliable antibiotic. You need something that protects you from the stuff you can't dodge but still gives you enough mobility to dodge when you do have room, defend yourself, and fight. Hence, armor.
(As the link I sent you earlier on the subject demonstrates, armor does not impede mobility anywhere near the extent that the myths would have you believe.)
No, what proves you wrong is the archaeological findings and primary sources cited in this posts and other posts. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that corroborated medieval eyewitness accounts and histories, backed by overwhelming evidence from steppe grave sites (once again corroborated by contemporaneous accounts) is less valid than the preconceptions of Some Guy On The Interwebs Who Like Totally Went To A Museum Once.Therumancer said:
See, this is what is so entertaining about poorly written stuff. It's funny when you read it because of how bad it is, and it's funnier when you mock it and the sort of person who likes that sort of thing rushes to defend it.Therumancer said:
Therumancer said:
Therumancer said:
Not quite. The point was more that at that tech level there is no practical armor that would actually be effective for women.Vault101 said:
As I also explained in detail, mobility is a big deal, if you HAVE to fight, and armor isn't going to really stop some guy from putting you down and killing you, your going to want to be as unencumbered as possible. Not so much because of dodging, but also because of the range of movement.
You'll notice that when people practice martial arts, acrobatics, etc... they don't come out and do that kind of crap using a set of normal jeans and a T-shirt (or whatever) usually. Instead they swap out of their street clothes, and wear Gis, Spandex, Sweats, Tights, etc... the same goes for when they fight seriously going into tournaments and such. That's simply the most ideal way of going about it.
At a low tech level that kind of wardrobe doesn't exist, thus you wind up with some of these costumes taking it's place. I myself have mentioned that if appropriate to the setting/region such characters could be shown to be wearing say silk fighting trogs, but that really isn't practical for things set in a western-type setting.
Ultimatly "sensibly" dressing your female warrior in say a pair of regular pants, and a tunic or whatever would actually be counter productive as they would limit the range of movement without providing any real benefits at all.
As this kind of thing didn't happen, it's all a matter of playing "what if". Part of my point is that artists, authors, etc... have put thought into this and a lot of what you see in fantasy art isn't JUST cheesecake (though some of it is) the conventions came about from people thinking in terms of "what would she wear if this was practical?".
I'll also say I think some of this is hilarious, I've read some stuff about fantasy back in like the 1940s and 1950s where the skimpy costumes were the height of empowerment in answer to a society that demanded women be demure and fully dressed at all times. Feminism has kind of done an about face over the decades. I can't help but wonder at times if by say 2040 women will insist they can only be shown wesring Burkas in the western world because anything else would be exploitive!
(yes that's a bad joke, but if you follow the trends it's amusing to think about...)You could just surrender you know? Instead of resulting to trolling, flames, etc... It does you no credit.Kahunaburger said:[
Therumancer said:
See, the thing is that I HAVE checked links, sources, etc... but most of them are more or less irrelevent to the case being discussed. See, I myself have said a few times that there are exceptions, and pointing out those exceptions does nothing but reinforce that they exist. It in no way impacts my statements, or the nature of this discussion. Sort of like your little smokescreen about the tombs of women buried with weapons, you'll notice that armor
is not mentioned, though a shield is. What's more all theories aside, there are no real records from that area of the women fighting in any kind of intentional or military fashion. Dying through violence was pretty much expected, since the whole point of getting through the warriors was to kill women in children. Many were probably buried with weapons ceremonially as offerings, and indeed in some cases some of them might have died fighting back while a village was being razed or something (and the death by violence kind of demonstrates how smashingly it went).
You can sit there and be dismissive all you want, and try and act like you've proved something when you haven't. Being the internet it's pretty much expected, but don't think for a second that it means your right. All it means is that you don't want to yield a point when someone has not only told you the way it is, but explained it in excruiciating detail.
When your defense is innane things like women's boxing events (woman vs. woman) which has nothing to do with armor, or the practicality of a chest plate in a REAL fight with weapons being used and that kind of impact to it, you might as well give up... but then again the video-flame is pretty much a sign that I've won, because usually when the "other side" resorts to such things for lack of anything serious to present it's over anyway.
Seriously though, I recommend visiting an armory museum sometime (not to be confused with a regular museum) especially if they do demonstrations and explain this stuff. If you won't take my word for it, maybe you'll take theirs. Or heck, maybe you can see what happens if your girlfriend actually lets you smack her in a breastplate there, assuming she lets you. Of course you'd probably argue with them to, and try and tell the guys doing the presentation that it's obviously all a lie because of women's boxing and MMA.
if you honestly think its more "realistic" (which I still dont buy, theres no reason in combat a ladys mid-riff, you know with all the vital organs needs to be exposed)Therumancer said:
then screw realism
stupid fan service is stupid fan service, it doenst need defending
It all seems to have been said, but I'll reiterate a few points.
A mature rating does not mean everything is allowed. It's just 17+ age rating allowing blood, gore, and all that fun stuff. The killing kids thing was not that big of a problem. Basically, it's the response of "Oh, that's the thing that takes you out of the immersion? Not the dragons or magic?". It's a game, and killing kids is still a taboo thing in our culture, and it's something that plain just doesn't need to happen. It's not "chickenshit" (the use of wording kind of shows you're not mature enough to handle that content anyways), and more likely it's probably that they didn't want that in their own game.
Genital contact in a game? No. Because showing genital contact is not the only way to show romance. Nudity was not the point of those romance scenes. When you throw in Penises and Vaginas, you're now having you're people program a porno. The scenes will shift from being romantic and be more focused on sexual stimulation, making the whole point of a "love scene" pointless. That's not "retarded". Thinking that it's necessary on the other hand, is.
I haven't heard many people make a claim like "revolutionizing the genre" in a while. Ken Levine said it for Bioshock Infinite, but I'd say we're inclined to allow him some leniency to talk like that.
A mature rating does not mean everything is allowed. It's just 17+ age rating allowing blood, gore, and all that fun stuff. The killing kids thing was not that big of a problem. Basically, it's the response of "Oh, that's the thing that takes you out of the immersion? Not the dragons or magic?". It's a game, and killing kids is still a taboo thing in our culture, and it's something that plain just doesn't need to happen. It's not "chickenshit" (the use of wording kind of shows you're not mature enough to handle that content anyways), and more likely it's probably that they didn't want that in their own game.
Genital contact in a game? No. Because showing genital contact is not the only way to show romance. Nudity was not the point of those romance scenes. When you throw in Penises and Vaginas, you're now having you're people program a porno. The scenes will shift from being romantic and be more focused on sexual stimulation, making the whole point of a "love scene" pointless. That's not "retarded". Thinking that it's necessary on the other hand, is.
I haven't heard many people make a claim like "revolutionizing the genre" in a while. Ken Levine said it for Bioshock Infinite, but I'd say we're inclined to allow him some leniency to talk like that.