/thread
Just another troony trying to justify their relentless need to subvert everything, to corrupt that which they cannot create. (read: how homosexuals reproduce by grooming and rape)
One is lamenting stinky American Black folk in media the other is crying about a cute anime girl with big breasts and exposed tummy. These are not the same.
Friendly reminder that it doesn't matter what female fighters in vidya look like since female fighters is unrealistic enough as it is so realism doesn't matter.
>So which one is it now? >left image: stop shoving in your politics >right image: stop shoving in your politics
They're the same image. Left is basically mocking people who want Tyrone Elves for political reasons and right is mocking people who can't keep their feminism under control and think half naked sexy pixels in the shape of women are somehow a genocide against womankind.
If you're talking about "muh realism" you're missing the point of both images and also because you don't give a frick about what the writer of LotR created, mainly because he wasn't black. If someone came up to you and asked you to make Black Panther a white dude, you'd shit your drawers and scream racism until you were hoarse because you do care about the artistic integrity of Black Panther because he's black but don't give a frick about the artistic integrity of LotR because the writer wasn't black and didn't put any black characters in.
The whole thread is just self serving circlejerk.
Also
>Friendly reminder that it doesn't matter what female fighters in vidya look like since female fighters is unrealistic enough as it is so realism doesn't matter.
Both of them make the same point, that it's more important for a work to be aesthetically cohesive and narratively interesting than be slavishly bound to what's physically realistic or conceptually possible. This is also a bait OP and not video games. Please improve yourself as a person.
>Both of them make the same point, that it's more important for a work to be aesthetically cohesive and narratively interesting than be slavishly bound to what's physically realistic or conceptually possible.
The latter, Charlottle, breaks the cohesion though nor does she make any narrative sense to begin with. No chick looking to get married is going to look like a prostitute.
Goldmary, Charlotte 2.0 does this better though she has way more narcissistic and selfish ideals.
except it's not, armor in Fire Emblem looks like armor, not like lingerie
it's breaking the setting
it's you who are selectively trying to ignore that the right is just as out of place in FE as the left is in LotR because you actually like the right
I can let slide dragons, elves, talking trees, and lady warriors in skimpy outfits in genre fantasy, but the 2021 BMW 5 Series 530i with optional heated seating still has to go. also the lady fighter in skimpy armor should be in something a lot pulpier than LotR
skimpy armor lady makes sense if it's in the same setting as loincloth barbarians
I think the point that was made is that the men in that game don't look like loincloth barbarians
In order for suspension of disbelief to work, you need to establish rules for your setting. We accept that Superman can fly because the narrative tells us that he can fly, because he's from Krypton. It's established from the start.
The issue is when you start breaking those rules at random, without any explanation. Dragons, elves, and talking trees are in-line with the setting's narrative, so the suspension of disbelief is maintained. But why is there suddenly a car in Middle Earth? Who made it? Why didn't they make any other kind of technology? Etc. When you suddenly break the narrative's established rules, you also break suspension of disbelief.
Whether or not boob armor breaks the suspension of disbelief depends on the rules of the narrative. Is combat realistic, gritty, and brutal? Then having boob armor work in combat would be bad writing. But is combat magical, cartoonish, and exaggerated? Then boob armor does not break the rules of the narrative.
In the entire history of women, they have never worn outfits that are practical. If women could be adventurers and bikini armor did exist, almost assuredly they would wear bikini armor.
The left post is arguing for internal consistency within a fictional setting. The right post is arguing that a fictional work doesn't need to strictly adhere to the rules of reality.
They aren't contradictory.
The armor is fine in Fire Emblem(?) because it suits the established setting regardless of how unrealistic that setting is. It would not be fine in LotR because it isn't consistent with the established setting.
not really, fire emblem generally doesn't have armor that outrageous
it does have skimpy clothes prior to this, but those are on characters like dancers who are explicitly unarmored
if a character in fire emblem is armored they show significant armor
When a character gets hit by a sword in Fire Emblem, then don't get realistically cleaved in half while blood spurts out, their hand weakly grasping at the blade in a vain attempt to undo the permanent damage.
The post chain in the OP is describing a complaint about the lack of realism in someone going to battle while dressed in a skimpy outfit, not a breaking of gameplay convention in which characters with higher defense stats are depicted as wearing heavier armor.
That's a separate problem that has absolutely no connection to the post on the left.
Actually I retract the second sentence of this post given that they are both ultimately demands for consistency within a ruleset.
They still have less to do with one another than the posts in the OP image though.
Neither is mutually exclusive so I’m not sure what your point is
/thread
Just another troony trying to justify their relentless need to subvert everything, to corrupt that which they cannot create. (read: how homosexuals reproduce by grooming and rape)
One is lamenting stinky American Black folk in media the other is crying about a cute anime girl with big breasts and exposed tummy. These are not the same.
Jerking off into her cleavage while she sleeps in camp for the fifth night in a row.
It's whichever one I feel like at any given time of my choosing and there's not a god damn thing you can do about it.
Friendly reminder that it doesn't matter what female fighters in vidya look like since female fighters is unrealistic enough as it is so realism doesn't matter.
>So which one is it now?
>left image: stop shoving in your politics
>right image: stop shoving in your politics
They're the same image. Left is basically mocking people who want Tyrone Elves for political reasons and right is mocking people who can't keep their feminism under control and think half naked sexy pixels in the shape of women are somehow a genocide against womankind.
If you're talking about "muh realism" you're missing the point of both images and also because you don't give a frick about what the writer of LotR created, mainly because he wasn't black. If someone came up to you and asked you to make Black Panther a white dude, you'd shit your drawers and scream racism until you were hoarse because you do care about the artistic integrity of Black Panther because he's black but don't give a frick about the artistic integrity of LotR because the writer wasn't black and didn't put any black characters in.
The whole thread is just self serving circlejerk.
Also
>Friendly reminder that it doesn't matter what female fighters in vidya look like since female fighters is unrealistic enough as it is so realism doesn't matter.
the left image fricking spells out the concept of internal consistency for brainlets and you still don't understand it?
Both of them make the same point, that it's more important for a work to be aesthetically cohesive and narratively interesting than be slavishly bound to what's physically realistic or conceptually possible. This is also a bait OP and not video games. Please improve yourself as a person.
>Both of them make the same point, that it's more important for a work to be aesthetically cohesive and narratively interesting than be slavishly bound to what's physically realistic or conceptually possible.
The latter, Charlottle, breaks the cohesion though nor does she make any narrative sense to begin with. No chick looking to get married is going to look like a prostitute.
Goldmary, Charlotte 2.0 does this better though she has way more narcissistic and selfish ideals.
except for the fact the armor in right is the same as the car in left
It would be more like arguing for the inclusion of a griffin. Clearly within the bounds of the universe but not there right now.
It's not, because the armor is consistent with the setting. You don't understand the point the image on the left is making because you're a golem.
except it's not, armor in Fire Emblem looks like armor, not like lingerie
it's breaking the setting
it's you who are selectively trying to ignore that the right is just as out of place in FE as the left is in LotR because you actually like the right
>except it's not, armor in Fire Emblem looks like armor, not like lingerie
I won't read all that stuff but I like the funny picture of the car edited into the movie lol, so goofy
I can let slide dragons, elves, talking trees, and lady warriors in skimpy outfits in genre fantasy, but the 2021 BMW 5 Series 530i with optional heated seating still has to go.
also the lady fighter in skimpy armor should be in something a lot pulpier than LotR
skimpy armor lady makes sense if it's in the same setting as loincloth barbarians
I think the point that was made is that the men in that game don't look like loincloth barbarians
Charlotte's design is good, actually
I hate both
What are you talking about? They don't contradict each other at all.
In order for suspension of disbelief to work, you need to establish rules for your setting. We accept that Superman can fly because the narrative tells us that he can fly, because he's from Krypton. It's established from the start.
The issue is when you start breaking those rules at random, without any explanation. Dragons, elves, and talking trees are in-line with the setting's narrative, so the suspension of disbelief is maintained. But why is there suddenly a car in Middle Earth? Who made it? Why didn't they make any other kind of technology? Etc. When you suddenly break the narrative's established rules, you also break suspension of disbelief.
Whether or not boob armor breaks the suspension of disbelief depends on the rules of the narrative. Is combat realistic, gritty, and brutal? Then having boob armor work in combat would be bad writing. But is combat magical, cartoonish, and exaggerated? Then boob armor does not break the rules of the narrative.
It's that simple.
In the entire history of women, they have never worn outfits that are practical. If women could be adventurers and bikini armor did exist, almost assuredly they would wear bikini armor.
I don't care but cute girls in plate is my fetish
It needs Frills and Laces. Ornate armour with lots of Frills and Laces for the legs.
I'll give you an upgrade. Form fitting female armor.
The left post is arguing for internal consistency within a fictional setting. The right post is arguing that a fictional work doesn't need to strictly adhere to the rules of reality.
They aren't contradictory.
The armor is fine in Fire Emblem(?) because it suits the established setting regardless of how unrealistic that setting is. It would not be fine in LotR because it isn't consistent with the established setting.
not really, fire emblem generally doesn't have armor that outrageous
it does have skimpy clothes prior to this, but those are on characters like dancers who are explicitly unarmored
if a character in fire emblem is armored they show significant armor
When a character gets hit by a sword in Fire Emblem, then don't get realistically cleaved in half while blood spurts out, their hand weakly grasping at the blade in a vain attempt to undo the permanent damage.
They go "oof" and an HP bar goes down.
They can wear whatever they want.
you have described 90% of video games
You're really close to connecting those dots, anon.
I see what you're saying but I still disagree with you
The post chain in the OP is describing a complaint about the lack of realism in someone going to battle while dressed in a skimpy outfit, not a breaking of gameplay convention in which characters with higher defense stats are depicted as wearing heavier armor.
That's a separate problem that has absolutely no connection to the post on the left.
except it does
the armor on the right is supposedly "armor" in a setting where armor does not look like that
the aesthetic breaks the setting
some armor looks like that in Fates
Actually I retract the second sentence of this post given that they are both ultimately demands for consistency within a ruleset.
They still have less to do with one another than the posts in the OP image though.
They are the same picture.
Both are right
The answer is balance