Leo G.4501
-
Posts
1,216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Leo G.4501
-
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"kapri.5918" said:
> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > > > @"kapri.5918" said:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.
> >
> > You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.
>
> No, it does not. Especially since this is a game where this is the only point that would hold up having bikinis as armor. And you keep dodging my arguments. That doesn't help you.
What argument? The only other portion of the post that had an argument had to do with depth of lore and likely immersion. Are you arguing that swim suits don't exist in the lore of GW2? Or that magic predicates the form that their clothing takes? Or that swim suit skins/outfits is the straw that breaks the camel's back?
I'm waiting to hear a better statement, hopefully not bogged down with other political messages, of what the game needs and doesn't need. But while saying that, I'm also not petty enough to press a dialog when there really is no room for it, for example, with @"Dante.1763".
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"kapri.5918" said:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.
> >
> >
>
> So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.
You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> [snip]
Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.
-
> @"Ashen.2907" said:
> For what its worth, I would prefer a more realistic aesthetic in terms of armor and weapons for the game myself. If bikinis were to be available in the game, I would prefer that they provide zero armor value, just as I would prefer that to be the case for light (and most medium) armor in general.
I'd advocate for realistic aesthetics in the form of less glowing/floating/whatever other bizarre effects that armors have more of as the game progresses, but that's just me. I think the armor situation would be 500% better if they, instead, took various armors that had already existed and just added variations of them. For example: one of the medium coats, make an alternate version that is closed and another that is short; one of the light armors, have it tight or skimpy on the females with a variant that is loose and covered. Etc. etc.
I figure, at some point, people would tire of glowing effects and settle with certain looks but maybe I'm actually the minority and everyone adores all the bright flashy armor that all seem to have the same annoying bits they want to wish away but get bighter and flashier options instead.
> @"Dante.1763" said:
> Most of you what you put here, i already addressed in my response to Leos 2nd response to my post, so at least we are on the same page kinda, and if it did get added(due to lack of clothing not affecting anything), i want an option to not see it(Standard models isnt the answer, as that hides everyone.), because if it did get added, it would be very prevalent.
FYI, I didn't respond to that post because I had no objections to it. Beyond desiring different outcomes, we do not misunderstand each other, as far as I can see.
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
>The ability for women to express themselves freely has been a part of feminism forever. I do not disagree on this. A woman should be free to dress how she pleases without fear of harassment or recrimination of any kind.
No. Women are not 1st class citizens that have rights above every other citizen (or they shouldn't be). They (the adults) will be treated like all other adults and can/will be subjected to the same amount of harassment and recrimination that their actions require. No person should be above and protected from these things call social stigmas.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> I can understand if I am in some way confused by the twists and turns of the basis of promoting women's identity vs. the individual. But there are very understandable things to it. You make an example of sex workers. Now, I am not going to be offended by their choice of profession. But I do not think they have a right to cry foul tbh.
Is it not a tinge hypocritical to withold the ability to express an opinion while descriminating by an individual's choice of profession?
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> Whether Female or Male individuals in this area, it is not a job that I would consider the promotion of either gender. Nor does it promote the human race in any way. Let's be clear on this that I do not believe I am above them either. But, as stated, with the amount of money the sex industry makes, what people feel should be the least of their worries.
Frankly, it's not about who feels what, it's about the double standards being held, not by those sex workers, but by the regular people going out of their way to make other regular people adhere to the same faulty double standards they hold.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> Let's continue. I do treat this subject with both thoughts towards adults and children. Because you sit in a world whose mindset is that "sex sells." Tv, movies, comics, games, etc. You can see that in the most predominant cases that each image of the women involved always seem meet a certain requirement. This game does this as well. For example, Eir Stegalkin. Wording this will be tricky but here we go. Eir is an older lady who has fought many battles. And yet, every time we see her she appears young and without blemish. Why? A woman who has dedicated her life in the fight against Elder Dragons and she does not have a scar of any kind? Yet her image is that of what a strong woman is supposed to be...despite that she has led a very hard life she appears young and unblemished. So furthermore to this, what are women and girls supposed to think when this is not only applied to GW2 but to everything else as well?
I will demonstrate the double standard here. You just explained a particular beauty standard and in the same paragraph you say:
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> I am not saying beauty should not be celebrated...what I am saying is that beauty/sex appeal should not be made predominant to who a woman is. Similar that a man should not be judged on the amount or lack of muscles he has.
This conflates that "beauty standards" are literal for women when, in fact, men are far less likely to judge a woman's appearance against the ideal beauty standard (there have been studies to attest to this) than a woman is...who is also apparently being oppressed by said beauty standard. To word it simply, men don't mind a non-ideal woman.
On the other hand, muscles aren't the standard for men's attractiveness...that tends to lean more on height among other things. I won't go into the standards for men...
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> A bikini would be adding to this and is one half of the basis of why I am against it. I feel that it furthers the legitimization of "a woman should be sexy." Plenty of cases throughout real life, gaming, etc. where a woman did not show off their body through armor or other measures and yet were beautiful. One example to give, in one of my favorite tow separate book series The Belgariod and The Mallorean series is a lady named Polgara. She never wore sexy clothes. And yet she was always one of the most beautiful (and powerful) women around. In the end, adding bikini armor, in my opinion, hurts the character and further sets a mindset that showing more T&A is more important to the character then say the fighting prowess or the intelligence of the character. And, whether you consider the importance of the character being real or just a silly pixel image, I believe it would promote a false legitimization to girls and women that showing one's bodily assets are just as, if not more, important towards strength.
Firstly, take into consideration that your stance may be projecting. You assume wearing certain clothes = sexy (that wouldn't be wrong, in lots of cases) then jump to the conclusion that this "legitimizes women being forced to be sexy". Secondly, your example...I haven't seen it. To be considered sexy is subjective and cannot be made an example of unless it's a widely shared opinion (maybe it is) but dismiss the components of what makes a woman sexy...that is beauty and personality/attitude. Power and intelligence tends not to be in that equation.
The folly you're committing isn't that you want people to stop believing that powerful and intelligent women must be sexy but rather you don't want people to believe powerful and intelligent women CAN be sexy too. By all logic of your argument, you don't want females to put these ideals together either by promoting unattractiveness (good luck with that) or shaming people who like attractiveness (good luck with that also).
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> > > I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.
> > I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.
> >
> > > @"kapri.5918" said:
> > > If you had actually read everything then you would have understood that I don't want bikinis in the game. Nor am I for armor that promotes exposure of skin and vital spots of the body. If you had read my post you would understand this. One thing to be beautiful...whole nother thing with it on the battlefield. If you think blatantly that the over exposure of T&A is empowering to women then you are lying to women. The only people who should say how women should be beautiful are women themselves. Calling yourself a feminine expression advocate is not only a blatant lie and laughably pathetic but is dangerous to women. It's like your Weinstien or some other person who wants to give "advice" to women. Using big words and false friendly terms to objectify how a "strong" woman looks like....
> >
> > I didn't say you wanted bikinis, I was just expressing my opinion that I'd want exposing armor on my male characters too. I think the primary reason lots of people would want it is so they have the option of something that isn't a buttcape to wear that also shows some of the avatar's legs that can be mixed with other armor options, not simply for the sake of wearing as little as possible.
> >
> > And you think the freedom of exposing their bodies is empowerment is a lie? So feminism is a lie? Well thank goodness you said it and not me.
> >
> > And none of this is saying how women should be beautiful. It is and always has been about the freedom of wearing what they want without people like you chastizing them for it...I guess you're at least holding up your end of the bargain. You're not shaming women for wearing exposing clothes, you're shaming men for liking it, society for allowing men to like it and shaming logical people in the middle trying to explain why your view is contradictory.
>
> You're slowly starting to understand what I am saying. Showing one's body in a sexual way is not feminism. How, in any way, does it help promote women as a whole other than give them an image as someone who would only use their sexual assets to promote themselves? Like any group that is non white male, asking for rights but to turn around and only use one asset of their whole being? Would that then be a degradation to those women who want to get into fields that do not require "sexuality" then have to walk around in skimpy attire or bikinis? I am not going to chastise them for wearing what they please. But appearances can tell you a lot about a person. I am also not going to shame my fellow man for enjoying something. But what I am going to do is fight the legitimization that somehow only "strong" and "empowered" women wear sexy clothing or bikinis.
This is probably the closest I'll get to an SJdub in actually direct discussion as most normal people I talk to don't actually like or use and disagree with views that directly target people by proxy of group identities such as male, straight, people of color, white, etc. Those identities have a meaning but those idenities are not entities that exist. They are merely categories that don't carry agency, goals, beliefs or rights themselves. It's the individual people that carry and mix those identities that have these things.
The ideology that we need to promote women (the identity) rather than women (the actual individuals) is why feminism has created such a bizarre contradictory and backwards atmosphere that has you so confused on the subject. You say showing one's body in a sexual way is not feminism when feminism has said that very thing (in defense of sex workers) as well as the opposite at the same time. Degradation to women? Using only one asset? Fighting against sexy women being considered strong? If you truly believe this group identity is a living being that exists, at what point do you start treating this group identity (women) as an adult rather than a child that must be protected from the ills of the world?
But this is getting off topic and likely will get this thread closed.
On topic: Introducing a bikini isn't legitimizing sexy women as being the ONLY strong and empowered women. I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion.
-
> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:
> Only if we go full final fantasy equality on this thing.
> If females were to get bikini armor, males should also get bikini armor.
>
> 
>
> Same for every skirt, dress, pants and any other armor.
>
I actually had that armor on my cat-man Blackmage. Along with boots, gloves, a top-hat and I wanted a cape but they don't have those...I was going for a Zatanna showman-esque costume without the fishnets (not a big fan of fishnets anyway) but for a cat-boy.
-
> @"Dante.1763" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> > > I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.
> > I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.
> >
>
> Id just like to touch on this for a second, i dont want to see men *or* women run around in little floppy bits of clothing that covers almost nothing in real life to begin with. It has nothing to do with the it being sexualiziation, it has everything to do with modesty, of which ive been told i have far to much of, my point on that will still stand. On top of that, having something like a bikini count as "armor" is something ill be against /forever/ because i know for a fact if i was going to go up against a dragon i wouldnt want to do it in a bloody bikini, and the concept is an idiotic trope in RPG, that i would love to see one game not do.
>
>
I can respect your appeal to modesty as I know some people aren't comfortable seeing certain things.
But your argument of roleplay, I don't. There are many equipments I'm sure you wouldn't want to go up against a dragon wearing (cloth, a dress/tux, some leather armor on fire or just plain weak lower quality equipment barely effectual enough to stave off a bandit) but who are you to say who wears what while fighting dragons? There's a reason tropes exist and it's not because people are just idiotic.
-
> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.
I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> If you had actually read everything then you would have understood that I don't want bikinis in the game. Nor am I for armor that promotes exposure of skin and vital spots of the body. If you had read my post you would understand this. One thing to be beautiful...whole nother thing with it on the battlefield. If you think blatantly that the over exposure of T&A is empowering to women then you are lying to women. The only people who should say how women should be beautiful are women themselves. Calling yourself a feminine expression advocate is not only a blatant lie and laughably pathetic but is dangerous to women. It's like your Weinstien or some other person who wants to give "advice" to women. Using big words and false friendly terms to objectify how a "strong" woman looks like....
I didn't say you wanted bikinis, I was just expressing my opinion that I'd want exposing armor on my male characters too. I think the primary reason lots of people would want it is so they have the option of something that isn't a buttcape to wear that also shows some of the avatar's legs that can be mixed with other armor options, not simply for the sake of wearing as little as possible.
And you think the freedom of exposing their bodies is empowerment is a lie? So feminism is a lie? Well thank goodness you said it and not me.
And none of this is saying how women should be beautiful. It is and always has been about the freedom of wearing what they want without people like you chastizing them for it...I guess you're at least holding up your end of the bargain. You're not shaming women for wearing exposing clothes, you're shaming men for liking it, society for allowing men to like it and shaming logical people in the middle trying to explain why your view is contradictory.
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> Do you even understand the conversation or are you basing your responses on my tidbit? Apparently your missing the whole conversation that has happened around these two statements of mine.
I responded as I was reading the thread from the 1st post. No, I understand that you're conflating wanting certain fashion choices as sexualization rather than the desire for feminine expression as outlined by feminist empowerment advocates. Your logic flies in the face of those you're trying to "protect" with your contrary opinion.
That being said, if female avatars get some kind of bikini or 2-piece, my male Charr deserves a banana hammock too.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> How does one take realism to far? I have also already acknowledged that ArenaNet controls the "atmosphere" of the game. Maybe since you came into this conversation you would have read the topic of the post let alone wanting to comment on my post you would know just what I am talking about. But again, it seems like you want to look at one post, ignore everything else, and comment without any understanding of the conversation.
How does one take realism too far? I can give you an easy example: travel. This whole portal nonsense is beyond realism and you should have to travel by mount/foot/cart to all your destinations...and it should take 2-10 REAL days to get there so you need to leave your PC running while logged in....and you have to periodically make sure your character eats/drinks and poops along the way.
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> > > @"kapri.5918" said:
> > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> > > > I've wanted swimsuit outfits for awhile. Nothing as audacious as a metal bikini, but I can still roll with it. I figure, the designs are already in the game, they're pretty easy to implement, and they're in high demand, too.
> > > >
> > > > The way I see it, the point of fantasy is to be, well, fantastic. To stretch the imagination, to play fast and loose with physics, to create idealized people and put them in extravagant circumstances. At its core, GW2 is a power fantasy, where we run around fighting monsters and saving villagers. Sex appeal is power, to a certain extent, and vice versa. Because of this relationship, an idealized form expressed, while attractive, is not necessarily sexualized. While the goal always remains kicking butt and taking names, I also want to look good while doing it. A revealing out is an expression of ideals, in body, form, and spirit. To be unashamed expresses emotional confidence, and the muscular form reveals great strength.
> > >
> > > When do you take fantasy to far? When do you sit there and say "So, how does this protect my character?" You have a steel bikini that only covers a small portion of the female body and we are supposed to throw reality with it? Yet again, we are supposed to ignore the over exposure of vital spots of the body to satisfy fashion? No. Other games have gone down this path and have suffered for it. This throw out reality cause I want my female character to be over sexualized in a bikini. I do not want this game to go down the path that Scarlet Blade did.
> >
> > There's a difference between being sexualized and being idealized. The dress is metaphor. Our character's outfits figuratively represent who they are, and that is all they need to do, because none of it is real.
>
> Real or not, that does not matter and has nothing to do with the point. The word idealized does not mean what you think it does. For one it is a general terminology. Based off of the word idea. Point blank,if you think that a woman in high heels and a steel bikini fighting on a battlefield is not sexual in any way then you are either mentally lacking or just in pure denial of facts. For one, unless your world is blatantly to the point to which even outright nudity is safe from sharp objects, this would never happen.
Who's denying facts here.
Fact: men are idealized for their physical strength not fairness; women are idealized for their fairness not their physical strength.
Fact: because men are physically stronger than women and women are viewed as fairer than men.
I feel the stray of logic comes in with the term of "sexualization". Apparently, it's no longer possible to appreciate physical beauty without wanting to have sex with the thing of beauty same as it's apparently wrong to admire physical prowess without offending those that lack such prowess.
-
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> When do you take fantasy to far? When do you sit there and say "So, how does this protect my character?"
When? That can be answered once you decide when taking realism too far.
It's a pointless argument because it doesn't matter. Immersion isn't some fragile china set that GW2 cradles and protects vigilantly. Instead, it creates its own atmosphere and reality that it decides to adhere to. Unless you can point to an example in the game that adheres to your sensibilities specifically, asking when fantasy or reality goes too far is as futile as hypothesizing the inverse (when do you take fantasy or reality not far enough).
-
That I still can't make my Plague Doctor Tengu Necromancer.
-
-
You don't need to see your character's face and body emote or do stuff that isn't mashing attack buttons. It's not like customization is important or anything.
-
Well what price would you pay for these skins, OP?
You show me a price that is seemingly fair to you and profitable for Anet and I'll show you a person that thinks that's too expensive.
-
Alls I can say is, when they start talks about the new race they're adding is when I'll come back with my wallet.
-
Rather than reminiscing of other games and their systems, I'd ask if there are any games with a particular flavor. I remember something like this in the Balder's gate video games, but no as generic... But is there something out there where the gear all has variables pertaining to stats, special effects (such as causing status or casting some sort of effect or enchantment), appearance, quality and inherent skills (such as improving attack speed or upgrading proficiency) and then have all those variables be random?
Although I'm not a huge fan of gear in the first place, it's the topic and I'm curious.
Another gear design not spoken of here was in classic Blade and Soul. A lot of the gear you got from the story (and your first training weapon) was your end game gear... You just had to go through the process of upgrading said gear by fusing/feeding other gear to it. It was a nice system but they scrapped it and made it "simpler". There were other problems with it (such as the linear progression) they could have fixed but went the boring route.
-
> @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > > > @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > > > > > @"xarallei.4279" said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, I don't see that as a backhand. She says the genre is the fault point here but the partner says "perhaps it's just your game"? That's exactly right. SWTOR is the anti-thesis to her observation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup. I keep seeing people try to bash Deroir and state how doing what he asks is impossible and he doesn't know what he's talking about. They specifically point to the genre and say it can't be done with MMOs....but, well SWTOR did it, so it's obviously not so impossible as they think it is. Now maybe there is something regarding the Living Story in particular that makes it not work? Who knows, but instead of biting the head off of player she could have just answered in a civil manner. Instead she was rude and dismissive. That kind of behavior is simply not acceptable. She is an Arenanet employee in a public setting talking to a customer. When interacting with customers some thought must be put into your responses.
> > > > >
> > > > > SW:TOR had a 200million dollar development budget (this number doesn't include marketing) just for the vanilla game, and has gone down in video game history as the single most costly video game ever produced. (The second most expensive game to produce is GTA V at 137 million)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What SW:TOR did isn't really relevant for studios that have sane budgets. Price's original comment (before she exploded) was more or less on point with the limitations of game writing.
> > > >
> > > > They also made, like 8 branching stories with different scenarios, choices and branching dialogs. I'd assume GW2 making, like, 3 wouldn't break the bank (so to speak).
> > >
> > > It also took them over 6 years to make those stories, and that's with Bioware outsourcing the engine work.
> > >
> > > Do you want to wait a entire year between living world episodes?
> > >
> >
> > Honestly, it depends on the quality of the product. Would I want to wait an entire year for GW2's living world episodes? No. Would I wait over a year for half of one of SWTOR's class scenarios? Of course!
>
> That's about 45 minutes of content once you remove the travel time. Half of the vanilla stories could be summed up with: go to your ship, fly back to Coruscant, exit ship, run for 4mins to the senate building, have a 1 minute conversation with General Garza, and then have to travel all the way back to where you where originally.
>
> I don't understand why ya'll are holding SW:TOR in such esteem. SW:TOR was condemned by both the industry and it's own devs as a overly expensive waste of resources.
I will admit my ignorance as I only got a chance to play the Sith Warrior with my friend's Spy on a free-to-play account and it took us more than 45 min to get through the content. Still doesn't disprove the level of investment we put into our choices and the overall story.
But I would like to actually discuss this possibility in the context of GW2. The only thing I get from your reply is how resource intensive it likely was to which I'd like to brainstorm every aspect that makes it so and think of a possibility to mitigate those aspects.
-
> @"Greyraven.4258" said:
> > @"DaShi.1368" said:
> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > > @"DaShi.1368" said:
> > > > > @"Tolmos.8395" said:
> > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said:
> > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said:
> > > > > > > All I'm seeing through searches about this is a bunch of white men defending other white men. Can someone please help me find some articles and comments from women on this topic?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, I'm a woman, and I am glad beyond belief that Price was fired. Price's disgusting, vile behaviour was utterly unacceptable as a representative of ArenaNet. What other articles or comments are you looking for? I'm a tad confused.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, what does skin color have to do with anything?
> > > > >
> > > > > To some people, everything apparently. In their eyes, not everyone deserves a voice to speak with. It's a shame, but luckily people like that are not nearly as numerous as the many people who disapprove of that kind of hate, so it's ok.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure where you're going with this. I just want to hear what other types of people think. Are you really threaten by that?
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm impressed you genuinely feel that the race or sex of a person trumps objective realities presented unbiasly. Do you not like to think for yourself?
> >
> > How many times to you need to be reported?
>
> Just a heads up grudge reporting often backfires especially on this forum (Heck any Arenanet forum for that matter) My advice is agree to disagree and move on.
>
> .......Ironically none of this would have even happened, if JP would have done just that.
FYI, I don't report anyone (unless you post inappropriate pictures or something). You can say anything you want to me :)
-
> @"Eternity Theory.5392" said:
> I am incredibly disappointed in ANet for this. While the Twitter comments were out of line, the only reason this blew up so much is because it involved a woman talking about sexism; if it had been a male dev mouthing off just because he was having a bad day or whatever, people would have been upset, but it wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention or vitriol, and this is incredibly obvious if you read any of the threads on the subject here or on the subreddit. ANet isn't stupid, they obviously know this. And they chose to feed it, to give in to the seething misogyny instead of taking a more measured approach, jumping straight to firing and shaming the employees instead of taking a more measured approach.
>
Well, if a male dev mouthed off, he probably wouldn't have drug identity politics into it and made it an altercation that was more mano y mano. Can a man use a victim card if no one cares about male victims? lol
The lesson to learn is, politics are a sensitive talking point even when used by a woman. And women have made sexism a political issue.
-
> @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > > > @"xarallei.4279" said:
> > > >
> > > > > Okay, I don't see that as a backhand. She says the genre is the fault point here but the partner says "perhaps it's just your game"? That's exactly right. SWTOR is the anti-thesis to her observation.
> > > > >
> > > > Yup. I keep seeing people try to bash Deroir and state how doing what he asks is impossible and he doesn't know what he's talking about. They specifically point to the genre and say it can't be done with MMOs....but, well SWTOR did it, so it's obviously not so impossible as they think it is. Now maybe there is something regarding the Living Story in particular that makes it not work? Who knows, but instead of biting the head off of player she could have just answered in a civil manner. Instead she was rude and dismissive. That kind of behavior is simply not acceptable. She is an Arenanet employee in a public setting talking to a customer. When interacting with customers some thought must be put into your responses.
> > >
> > > SW:TOR had a 200million dollar development budget (this number doesn't include marketing) just for the vanilla game, and has gone down in video game history as the single most costly video game ever produced. (The second most expensive game to produce is GTA V at 137 million)
> > >
> > >
> > > What SW:TOR did isn't really relevant for studios that have sane budgets. Price's original comment (before she exploded) was more or less on point with the limitations of game writing.
> >
> > They also made, like 8 branching stories with different scenarios, choices and branching dialogs. I'd assume GW2 making, like, 3 wouldn't break the bank (so to speak).
>
> It also took them over 6 years to make those stories, and that's with Bioware outsourcing the engine work.
>
> Do you want to wait a entire year between living world episodes?
>
Honestly, it depends on the quality of the product. Would I want to wait an entire year for GW2's living world episodes? No. Would I wait over a year for half of one of SWTOR's class scenarios? Of course!
-
> @"Crinn.7864" said:
> > @"xarallei.4279" said:
> >
> > > Okay, I don't see that as a backhand. She says the genre is the fault point here but the partner says "perhaps it's just your game"? That's exactly right. SWTOR is the anti-thesis to her observation.
> > >
> > Yup. I keep seeing people try to bash Deroir and state how doing what he asks is impossible and he doesn't know what he's talking about. They specifically point to the genre and say it can't be done with MMOs....but, well SWTOR did it, so it's obviously not so impossible as they think it is. Now maybe there is something regarding the Living Story in particular that makes it not work? Who knows, but instead of biting the head off of player she could have just answered in a civil manner. Instead she was rude and dismissive. That kind of behavior is simply not acceptable. She is an Arenanet employee in a public setting talking to a customer. When interacting with customers some thought must be put into your responses.
>
> SW:TOR had a 200million dollar development budget (this number doesn't include marketing) just for the vanilla game, and has gone down in video game history as the single most costly video game ever produced. (The second most expensive game to produce is GTA V at 137 million)
>
>
> What SW:TOR did isn't really relevant for studios that have sane budgets. Price's original comment (before she exploded) was more or less on point with the limitations of game writing.
They also made, like 8 branching stories with different scenarios, choices and branching dialogs. I'd assume GW2 making, like, 3 wouldn't break the bank (so to speak).
-
> @"mixxed.5862" said:
> I'm disgusted by this community's reaction to her tweet, calling for her to be fired and being genuinely happy about it afterwards. To me it's simply inconceivable how so many could overreact like that to blow this matter this massively out of proportion.
>
Not everyone. Some that did not condone her behavior but still wanted her to continue working on GW2 (to include myself) would have preferred to have her humbled in some way. Having her fired doesn't help me nor does it give me the opportunity to contest her views. Basically she's an ignorant person who will remain ignorant in her ignorant echo chamber.
> @"mixxed.5862" said:
> She obviously perceived herself as being treated in a sexist way and called it out. It doesn't matter whether this indeed was the case or not, because it is very understandable how she could arrive at that conclusion:
Obviously? I mean, I know how she perceived it but I debate extreme feminists and white knights frequently in my circles. How could any normal person see she was obviously being treated in a sexist way?
> She posts a long, well thought out comment explaining why it's state of the art in the MMORPG genre to present the player character the way they do. A hardcore fan chimes in to "politely" tell her he disagrees and suggests to implement branching story lines as if she was a complete amateur and never heard of it.
Because she made a broad assumption that was wrong. It happens. Also consider, the person she commented to likely consumed many times more hours of MMO content than she does (because apparently JP didn't know SWTOR existed).
> @"mixxed.5862" said:
> Imo her reaction was perfectly understandable - although it was unprofessional.
Unless you condone unprofessionalism, then it's only understandable that she received the consequences for it, yes?
[Question] Bikini Armour! when? :)
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this.
I was talking about your previous posts that wasn't the one quoted had political slants. The post I quoted didn't have much of an argument at all.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word.
Perhaps you don't understand the mechanics of GW2 cosmetics. Cosmetics aren't armor. Cosmetics are *SKINS* that you put on armor. Armor is merely the quantifiable object in a player's inventory that holds stat points. If the prospect of a skin that is designed to be open and expose the avatar's body is the problem, then perhaps I could leave you be, but it seems you're complaining about semantics.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
> The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous.
And this is the argument of realism. It doesn't work. What do you even gain by trying to prohibit a character from using a specific skin to fight in? It's extremely petty.
> @"kapri.5918" said:
>You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.
To sum up your argument: "You want to look like a half-naked bimbo on my screen? Well I want to punish you for it. Good day."
Bye Felicia.