Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Caz]

Bodybuilders work out to gain muscle mass, making themselves look bigger, burlier and more sexually appealing by causing their muscles to fill with fluid. Working out muscle density means focusing on increasing the quantity of muscle fibres to make hard, denser muscles. That'll make you stronger than a bodybuilder but you won't look as burly, which is the point Urist Uristurister is making.

I was just being pedantic. You can't really make muscle more 'dense' but you can increase the density of myofibrils in the muscle tissue. In anyone who does weight training I think the muscle would actually be less dense due to water retention within the muscle, but I don't have any citations for that.

[wierd]

You want to see what female soldiers look like?

No. And neither does the average gamer.

When there are real examples available, why look for stupid fictional ones?

The whole point of gaming and movies and fiction in general is to engage in fantasy. If you want real life, go outside.

If you want "realistic" combat simulation, why limit yourself to realistic portrayals of fighters? Why not simulate PTSD? What about pain? We could insert pain inducers in our haptic feedback controls. Instead of shaking, the controllers will inject you with something that makes you suffer and paralyzes your limbs. And let's do away with generic hit point systems, and just have everyone die in one hit. Or better yet, simulate amputation so when you get your legs blown off you get to sit around for an hour waiting and hoping for a medic to show up while you slowly and painfully bleed to death.

That would be so awesome, right? Realistic gameplay yay!

Oh, wait. That would be horrible and not fun at all.

Why exactly are we complaining about idealistic portrayals of people in our games?

because catering to unrealistic/impossible fantasy imagery is the crux of the argument?

You know, that impossibe or unrealistic depictions create unhealthy senses of body u
image or social importance, and that some people's fantasies that they want to sate are downright whack?

Like "yes daddy!" samus?

[Loud Whispers]

To rephrase my view: warriors can of course be very burly, but they do not have to be and are not usually in situations where food is scarce, like many war zones in history. Steppe nomads like the Scythians had nowhere near the access to food that modern UK soldiers have, so would not have been as big.

Surely though warriors are the ones amongst whom burliness is of most import? If you're a soldier, that doesn't matter as much; just look at short Romans vs tall Celts for example.

That would be so awesome, right? Realistic gameplay yay!
Oh, wait. That would be horrible and not fun at all.

*That would be fucking awesome. There is some great joy in immersiveness and realism, and I despise regen health. I would argue though that the things you mention are more mechanics of the gameplay, and not the gameplay itself. I do concur with the sentiment; gritty realism should be a genre, not a limitation.*

[Urist Tilaturist]

No. And neither does the average gamer.

The whole point of gaming and movies and fiction in general is to engage in fantasy. If you want real life, go outside.

If you want "realistic" combat simulation, why limit yourself to realistic portrayals of fighters? Why not simulate PTSD? What about pain? We could insert pain inducers in our haptic feedback controls. Instead of shaking, the controllers will inject you with something that makes you suffer and paralyzes your limbs. And let's do away with generic hit point systems, and just have everyone die in one hit. Or better yet, simulate amputation so when you get your legs blown off you get to sit around for an hour waiting and hoping for a medic to show up while you slowly and painfully bleed to death.

That would be so awesome, right? Realistic gameplay yay!

Oh, wait. That would be horrible and not fun at all.

Why exactly are we complaining about idealistic portrayals of people in our games?

Actually, no, I can't go outside and see Syria and Iraq - not easily and safely, anyway. The whole of reality is not available for us to see just by going outside. Can we see what's on the other side of the galaxy? Not right now, only what happened millions of years ago.

Why would the average gamer not want to see a woman soldier as she really is? Please explain more.

Real soldiers do not "die in one hit" from everything either. There are such things as "body armour" and "first aid". Before you rant about excessive realism, please learn what realism actually is.

The best thing about simulation is that it allows the person engaged to experience things without deadly real world consequences. Once the player has bled to death in the game, he is still alive in the real world. Even if pain or paralysis is synthesised in some way - not by injecting the person with drugs, of course - as soon as he leaves the simulation, it's all gone.

A simulation like this would be likely the best ever made - putting chicken hawks off war and teaching everyone of its horrors in a way that simply hearing accounts could never achieve. It would be one of the most significant works of art in human history. And I would donate hundreds of pounds to help create it.

[Caz]

Surely though warriors are the ones amongst whom burliness is of most import? If you're a soldier, that doesn't matter as much; just look at short Romans vs tall Celts for example.

Not really. What was more important for soldiers was to be able to cross huge distances without collapsing. In that, extra weight can be a hindrance. It's also hard to maintain such muscles when you're on a long campaign eating whatever gets through the supply line. They're not going to be wrestling each other and probably have pointy/stabby things to kill each other with. Doesn't require much strength to stab someone, but the speed to avoid being stabbed might be important.

[Loud Whispers]

Surely though warriors are the ones amongst whom burliness is of most import? If you're a soldier, that doesn't matter as much; just look at short Romans vs tall Celts for example.

Not really. What was more important for soldiers was to be able to cross huge distances without collapsing. In that, extra weight can be a hindrance. It's also hard to maintain such muscles when you're on a long campaign eating whatever gets through the supply line. They're not going to be wrestling each other and probably have pointy/stabby things to kill each other with. Doesn't require much strength to stab someone, but the speed to avoid being stabbed might be important.

Does warrior mean soldier to you?

[Fniff]

It's easy to get them mixed up. As far as I know, warrior and soldier are two models of warfare: warriors focus on individualism and soldiers focus no collectivism. It seems that the latter is the best model, or at least efficient.

[Caz]

It's easy to get them mixed up. As far as I know, warrior and soldier are two models of warfare: warriors focus on individualism and soldiers focus no collectivism. It seems that the latter is the best model, or at least efficient.

Depends on the situation, I guess. If warriors are taking part in individual combat it stands to reason that they're doing it to achieve some sort of dominance within their social group, which would make lethal combat less of a thing except for the occasional time you're defending the tribe, though that situation would cross over into soldier territory imo.

In non-lethal combat strength is much more useful, I'll agree with that.

[Fniff]

I think killcount is more of a thing for warriors then soldiers. The best achievement you can get as a soldier is not dying, everything else is a nice bonus.

[Loud Whispers]

It's easy to get them mixed up. As far as I know, warrior and soldier are two models of warfare: warriors focus on individualism and soldiers focus no collectivism. It seems that the latter is the best model, or at least efficient.

Pretty much. It's the difference between the heroic age where every skilled fighter was carving their name in history through individual heroism and the bronze age where commanders would punish a hoplite who broke ranks to try and gain individual honour because they were being a fuckwit risking the victory of the entire army. Or the Roman/Celts example, where one side was doing it as their job and the other doing it as a way of life; discipline > skill.

I think killcount is more of a thing for warriors then soldiers. The best achievement you can get as a soldier is not dying, everything else is a nice bonus.

Best achievement for a soldier is promotion!

[Fniff]

I think killcount is more of a thing for warriors then soldiers. The best achievement you can get as a soldier is not dying, everything else is a nice bonus.

Best achievement for a soldier is promotion!

But not a posthumous one.

[Loud Whispers]

I think killcount is more of a thing for warriors then soldiers. The best achievement you can get as a soldier is not dying, everything else is a nice bonus.

Best achievement for a soldier is promotion!

But not a posthumous one.

That's what medals are for

[scrdest]

Actually, the difference between soldiers and warriors is far simpler and grounded in pragmatic concerns: a soldier is a *specific* kind of warrior, namely one whose services are rewarded with wages ('sold/soud', hence 'SOLDier'). Essentially what you'd call a mercenary, except tied to a specific employer instead of an independent, hirable-by-anyone type.

Whereas a warrior in, say, early medieval times was either rewarded with lands - in the case of nobility - or not-being-stabbed-to-death-by-warriors/having to pay up in case of conscripts.

[Loud Whispers]

A warrior's a fighter and a soldier's a member of an army.

[Caz]

A warrior's a fighter and a soldier's a member of an army.

Soldiers are warriors, warriors are fighters.

Edit: but not every warrior is a soldier.