All dressed like Grandma's?

Discussion in 'Look and Feel' started by ARCHIVED-Banshee505, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. ARCHIVED-LordFyre Guest

    Lancestorm wrote:
    Nope.
    In the toolbar up top, there is something called "Member Listing"
    Looking up "Lancestorm" there gave the character names that you use to post with.
    Looking up that character with eq2players.com gave me class information.
  2. ARCHIVED-Lancestorm Guest

    LordFyre wrote:
    Ah very cool.....i see that you havent been hit the head to many times Slayer Ceorl Falconflight , Paragon of Truth to gather this information.

    Learn something new today.....
  3. ARCHIVED-LordFyre Guest

    Lancestorm wrote:
    Ah, that reminds me, I have to update my paperdoll! :)
  4. ARCHIVED-Nemisiis Guest

    Qandor wrote:
    I just had to quote this. Very accurate and funny (even if not meant to be). I love the part about children who have never seen a woman in a bathing suit (probably much more revealing than anything they will ever see in this game). I know it's shocking but I actually saw my mom in a bathing suit when I was little and I managed to turn out ok.
    The reality one is great too. I argue (playfully) about that one all the time with guildies. I wear armor with the "bare arm" look now as do a lot of people (male and female) that I have seen in game. They say it's not realistic because my arms wouldn't be protected. I say they are magical sleeves that you cannot see but still protect you. Then they say...ummm that's not realistic, magical sleeves bah....that's when I say basically what you say above. This game is all about magic. Healing magic, damage magic, porting magic, buffing magic....magic magic magic but it's not realistic to have magical sleeves? ROFL hehe we go back and forth about it
    As to the issue at hand, I have posted before that there is a middle ground. There are a wide variety of looks between the convent look and a pole dancer. The women blurting out "I don't want to look like a filthy hooker!" are kinda scaring me hehe Why does showing a little skin mean you are a hooker? They don't have sleeveless blouses in the summer? shorts? bathing suits? dresses with short sleeves? skirts that fall above (or just below) the knee? Something is all wrong here and it boggles my mind
    I'm a female IRL btw
    As an aside...there are lots of cool tattoos in the game. The only chars who can really show them off are monks and bruisers (without using the "bare arm" look). 2 classes out of 24? Something unfair about that. I imagine that at one point in time, people were intended to show their tattoos? What happened between then and now? /shrug
  5. ARCHIVED-DBozLizardman Guest

    TorturedOne21 wrote:
    QFE. I'm honestly tired of the overt sex-appeal approach. Yeah, I'm a guy, I like hot women, but I don't need to see them nearly naked all the time. Frankly I find fully-clothed (modesty is a virtue ...) more attractive - but that's another topic for another forum. I've always been more concerned with people for themselves than what they look like anyway (in game terms, you could be a pixelated flying pink elephant with a wooden leg for all I care, provided you don't insult me every 2 minutes or get me killed acting like an idiot for example). Maybe why I play as an Iksar, we're not exactly runway models.

    BTW just a small point in response to the response to my post heh, but I never did like the fact that miss Bayle looks like a Playboy model. Just that IMO a city leader should have more modesty than that when appearing in public. You don't see politicians and military leaders showing up to meetings and press conferences looking like that IRL, do you? Eh, maybe I'm just old-fashioned. I do believe the players should have choice though. If they want to show some skin, it's a free country, just keep it in the T rating (which isn't hard, unless the ESRB chooses to be perverse). I don't have to like it, but I can accept it on the grounds of free choice, since it doesn't adversely affect me in any way if someone chooses to go to battle in their underwear (ancient folk did it all the time heh). My female avatars (I split my char slots 50/50 on gender) shall remain fully clothed. Except for Ankhara, but then she's a w00r.
  6. ARCHIVED-Ahlana Guest

    If they add so called "Fluff" or "eyecandy" to the armor, such as some of the things pictured, I want the option to turn it off. I want the option that no matter what the person wants themselves to look like, I can say no and make them look like they do now on my own screen. Much like i have the choice to display them as Soga or not. It should also be statless appearance armor so the rest of us do not have to look like that if we so choose.
    I play the game for the way it looks currently and have no wish for cartoonish, skanky, and revealing armor (even if the current armor has little real praticality in battle it is still more realistic then what is being asked for.) I don't want eyecandy, I want warriors and I want someone watching my back in battle, not my (or their own) booties
    So if they give me the option to not look skanky myself and the option to turn off the feature on other players, I am all for it. They can have the look and feel they want and I can have the look and feel that I want. It is win/win
  7. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    Ahlana wrote:
    Thats a rather selfish view, everyone should be able to look how I want them to look or they can make themselves look how they want to look. In order to make this fair everyone would be able to change how everyone looks!
    If they ever did that then they would also have a feature to make everyone look skanky and slutty. So on your screen everyone looks fully colthed, on someone elses screen you look almost naked and you have NO control over it. How silly. Clearly this approch is not going to happen.

    The SOGA thing is unfortunate (remember you can set how both models looks actualy LOOK to everyone else) but the key in this type of game is personal choice, and that means some people will make choices that you don't like. If you don't like them that much you can run away and /ignore. Thats the only fair option in this market.
  8. ARCHIVED-Ahlana Guest

    AratornCalahn wrote:
    I don't see how it is "silly" as stated I can do that with Soga now. I can make them look as I want (by turning on or off the Soga models) AND if they choose Soga I can make them see me the way I wish to be seen.. (as I can setup Soga/Regular models the way I choose as well). It is not much different then what I requested in ways of armor. They can turn on the "fluff/eyecandy" armor but I can turn it off (hence not viewing it on my end) and then, like Soga, be able to select a way to look when they have it enabled on their side. Doesn't sound silly... sounds more like the norm so far :p
  9. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    Ahlana wrote:
    The point is, you would make others see you the way you wish to be seen but others cannot make you see the way they wish to be seen.
    Everyone can make everyone else look diffrent but not the other way around, clearly the oposite of how it should be (you dictate how you are seen, and no one else).

    What would even be the 'eye candy'? Monk outfits? Dresses? Anything that isn't a full peice of armour that covers every inch of skin? Anything with style or interesting design?



    Do you in real life go up to people and tell them to change their clothing because you don't like it?
  10. ARCHIVED-Beldin_ Guest

    Rikshanthas@Lucan DLere wrote:
    Yipp .. please take this as model for Antonia :
    [IMG]
  11. ARCHIVED-Qandor Guest

    Shalla@Valor wrote:
    I'm thinking that even that might be a little to risque for some of the folks here. Does she really need to be flaunting a full 3 inches of wrist as she does? Not to mention the plunging neckline - egads you can almost see her entire neck. This would never fly with the Taliban subscribers.
  12. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    Qandor wrote:
    Thats what happens when you turn off the "eye candy" option. Imagine your char looking like that on someone elses screen, I would be insulted, my morals would be so offended they would lower themselfs to get as far away from that as possible. I can understand people not wanting softcore **** in thier game or even 'suggestive' elements. But when the game was MARKETED by a sexy woman in a pretty nice outfit, and screenshots from E3 showing the Paladin AND the in game blue styleish outfit I really have to wonder whats going on in thier mind...

    (perhaps they think like ol' maggie there?)
  13. ARCHIVED-deKoven Guest

    Ahlana wrote:
    Precisely! And that is IT in a nutshell. You don't want it? Then don't have it; BUT, allow me my little idiosyncrasies, please. What is interesting is that there is, or was, a whole website on the "tricking out" of game toons for several games ( www.adultgamemods.com if it still works [It doesn't, must be gone.]). All the way from mild to full nude and everything in between. And by "full nude" I mean exactly that; anatomically as correct as the illustrator could make them. And here is the "saving grace"; those files only resided on the user's machine. Other users would see only the game as it was built.

    For me, being a guy and old enough to know better, it would be nice to have the "full fantasy" look of a Vallejo-like armor set. But then, I would be the only one looking at it. I THINK my mind is fully stable enough to be able to sort reality from fantasy.

    A goodly percentage of my toons are female although I'm (in RL, of course) fully male. At my age I just like to look at the candy in the store. I'm diabetic so I can't have any but I can dream a little, yes ???

  14. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    deKoven wrote:
    Very few multiplayer games that are either competative or progressive ever allowed you to change your look without other people seeing it, or chaing the others without you seeing it. Single player is diffrent.

    In competative games its more of a technical thing, exploits involving large pink boxes on someones screen obviously is not good. But something even as small as using a female char over a male char because its actualy smaller to look at than a male.

    Progressivly, you are compeating to go out and get drops, if you could make your self look awesome from the get go - whats the point in that part of the game? Look at Hellgate for a very recent example.

    EQ2 also has the MMO aspect, which on some level is trying to simulate a world. That world works better with good rules and consistent design (unfortunatly EQ2 has had neither but they are starting to make up for that).

    As for the argument: "You don't want it? Then don't have it; BUT, allow me my little idiosyncrasies, please."
    You want to see what you want. But you don't want to see what someone else wants you to see.
    Meaning I *should*, under, your ideal be allowed to tailor everyone in the world to the way I want to see them. But the one thing I CAN'T change, would be how I would look to others... That dons't make sense.


    No one is going to put **** in the game, the game already has very revealing outfits. Nothing can get worse. Why is *ANYONE* against more indavidual choice in the game?
  15. ARCHIVED-Ahlana Guest

    AratornCalahn wrote:
    I find it funny that you end with "Why is *Anyone* against more individual choice in the game?". But you state that people shouldn't have the choice to turn Fluff on and off on their side of the machine. This arguement is laughable at best and hypocratic at the very least.
    To each their own. What is wrong with people seeing the game the way they want and you seeing it the way you want. You shouldn't be able to force your wants on to others. It is just like Char models .. you can't force Sogas on anyone. It is no different. If they were to do it the compromise of being able to turn it on and off is alot better then "NO YOU MUST SEE ME THE WAY I WANT TO BE SEEN (even though you pay the same amount for the game I do and your opinion is on equal grounds of my own, it really doesn't matter so long as my beliefs are forced upon you)"
    At least my suggestion catered to both sides. If I were to look skanky/more fantasy base/whatever on your machine, meh thats life I can't see it. Just like I don't care if others few me in Soga or not. Yours is more blunt and one side tbh.
  16. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    Ahlana wrote:
    Indavidual choice, is diffrent from choices to change others.

    The point is that NO ONE should be able to "force thier wants on to others". That includes changing their skanky monk outfits and guild dresses and queens to dress like Thacher here.
  17. ARCHIVED-Sapphirius Guest

    I'm still curious to know what the disconnect is that causes people to equate stylish with skanky. The way I equate EQ2 fashion right now is a large cableknit sweater and a loose fitting pair of jeans and tennis shoes. Yeah, the outfit's practical and comfortable, but what if I want a little more style than a baggy sweater and a pair of jeans? What if I want to wear a tailored button-up blouse, slacks, and dress shoes? Those both cover exactly the same amount of skin, so what's the hang up?
    For that matter, what if I'd like to really dress up and put on a knee-length skirt suit? Heavens forbid, I have shown the shins and calves of my legs! I'm a skank! /sarcasm off
    The point being that looking stylish does not always mean looking like a streetwalker. How is this worse than that?
  18. ARCHIVED-AratornCalahn Guest

    Sapphirius wrote:
    Its probably similar to the way everyone seems to think "computer games are for children" even the ones with "not for children" on them...

    (and striped suits = yuck, lol)
  19. ARCHIVED-Ahlana Guest

    Sapphirius wrote:
    The arguement really isn't about this kind of style. No one is saying OMG armor can't look better at all. EQ1 had flames and adournments on Dark Elf Female Plate (I liked this alot) and EQ2 is plain, i wouldn't mind a style change. I don't want bare shoulders though. I don't want my characters cleveage hanging out. And that is mainly what the debate is over, not style.
    I haven't read one that said omg there can be no style. But there is however the extreme of those who literally (as stated in this thread) that want chain thongs. Others still that want to force this change onto the screens of those that would rather not see it. And those that would rather bank on no change at all than to see what developers could come up with.
    Personally I stand that more detail could go into the current armor style. But an overhaul that is more than cosmetic and HAS to be seen is something I don't want to see happen. It would be like forcing Sogas on all or Regulars on all. The option exist to have it your way. I would like that option to carry to clothes. Style :thumbs up: my flesh hanging out all over :thumbs down:
  20. ARCHIVED-Rainy Guest

    actually, with RoK, there will be no soga or regular models. thier merging them together into a single one. supposedly it will have a more 'regular' proportion look, but it's going to have more 'soga' type hairstyles/facial customization.

    personally, I have loathed regular models before they came up with soga. I hated that my elf looked like a startrek fanboy with vulcan ears glued to his head, when an elf is supposed to have an almost supermodelish look to them. and Soga come FAR closer to that.

    Ogres had olive skin. the lore clearly states it. soga ogres have green tinted skin. again, closer to what they are supposed to look like.


    but that is neither here nor there.

    for the most part, the only classes anyone seems to really care about are 4. the Guard, Paladin, SK, and Zerker. there is absolutely no other basis you can throw our for the others as far as 'needing' full coverage.

    but, lets take a look at that.

    A Berserker, by every definition, doesn't care about armor. in fact, the 'ideal' berserker look is Conan. he's a berserk, bloodthirsty killer that just wades into his enemies hacking and slashing. normally if they wear armor, it's chain and light, or they were form fitting leather at best.

    the outfit of Achilles from the movie Troy is more akin to a beserker outfit than a full plate ensemble.

    Paladins, however, didn't always wear 'full plate' either. plate legs, plate arms...adn then chainmail, covered over the chest area with a heavy cloth talbard, usually depicting a symbol of their faith. the same would work for a Shadowknight. and I'm sorry, but I don't see how wearing a breasplate slot that showed a little cleavage in this manner would be 'skanky'.

    now the Guardian, this guy should by the one entirely from neck to toe in plate armor. but even these guys should get a cosmetic overhaul so they don't look like walking trashcans.

    the entire rest of our cast of characters....there's not one reason, at all, that they can't have more revealing outfits as both armor and 'fluff'. while I can see not wanting 'bare shoulders' as a tanker, there's no reason not to allow it as a mage, scout, or healer. in fact, I would argue that the Illusionist and the Coercer SHOULD be wearing 'skanky' outfits as women, because thier entire profession is about mentally luring and controlling others, usually men.

    I want to see a female beserker wearing a chain and leather haltertop with chain and leather loincloth. and on the same token, I want to see a male beserker wearing a leather and chain loincloth and maybe a metal halflplte arm peice graphic as his torso.

    but really, I want to know what the 'skanky' line is. apparently alot of people seem to think this line is drawn at the female formal ensemble outfit. for those of us that played Eq1, that outfit isn't worse than the DE female 'naked' outfit, and certainly better than the wood elf thong look when they died.

    there were plenty of outfits in EQ1 that exposed cleavage, that showed skin, and no one seemed to complain about them. the Oracle robe for example. hell anything a female barb shaman could wear. half elf leather outfits. anyone remember the form fitting black gnomeskin outfits? Vah shir 'death' clothes? the women wore a halter top and skintight calf length pants.

    if getting some creative looks, some skin showing, and some cleavage looks means risking the off chance that some dev will put in a chain thong, I'm willing to take the risk. provided that the same outfit on a male character does teh same thing.

    I will concede the crap about my male elf wearing outfit A is in full plate, but a female elf in outfit A is in a metal thong.