I really don't mind. The thing with sexy Armour is it becomes part of the character, the character is open about their sexuality and doesn't mind expressing it. An example is Bayonetta but when this doesn't fit the character, then it is just bad character design and it makes the game worse but for the most part I can deal with it.
Poll: Do you hate sexy armor on female characters?
- Thread starter Riki Darnell
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't mind it as long as it makes sense. It does not make sense to wear a chainmail bikini. It would make sense to wear form-fitting chainmail armor. One is useless and ridiculous,the other could realistically be there. As long as the outfit is practical and would actually be used, I don't mind.
Im cool with armor that has a more feminin appearance when worn by female characters, but I dont care much for the bikini style.
Pretty much sums up my opinions. Also on that note, if it is a serious game and you want me to take the game seriously and I play as a female, stop making her boobs giant watermelons. I'd like to be able to create a female in a game that looks more like me (outside of the fallout games). Athletic type of body with decent sized breasts that aren't hanging out and armour that is functional. Not just aesthetically pleasing. I don't mind if the armour is form fitting because that would make some bit of sense. Chain mail bikinis make none at all other than as fan service to boys who can't get laid or just want to idolise women and ogle em.Zhukov said:
i dont hate it but it does annoy me, especially when its out of context or when the women in almost no armour have the same resilience as the men covered head to toe. logically fully covered women would act like Space Marine terminators
I generally agree with this. I also find it interesting how the poll has about the same number of people in each category (with a slight bunching in the middle).Seventh Actuality said:
As for a full account of my opinion: I don't mind [sexy]Armor on men or women, but I don't like it when things get ludicrous for either gender. There should be something of a balance, IMHO.
[two cents, thrown]
only in proper games.
I'm absolutely fine with revealing armour as long as the game isn't too serious with itself (such as bayonetta, no more heros, etc.)
however other more serious games should have some decency and coverup
(such as Mass Efect, resident evil.)
me and my friends however have a running joke of sheva's red riding hood costume as "little red riding ho'" so it's all good.
I'm absolutely fine with revealing armour as long as the game isn't too serious with itself (such as bayonetta, no more heros, etc.)
however other more serious games should have some decency and coverup
(such as Mass Efect, resident evil.)
me and my friends however have a running joke of sheva's red riding hood costume as "little red riding ho'" so it's all good.
Zhukov said:
Pretty much this.
OT: I don't care generally speaking. Usually its good for a laugh when you're in a fight with this super deadly boss and they're standing there in a thong and pushup bra. Always makes me smile
Realistically, it's fucking useless and sexist. In games, it's just sexist. I don't really care if game devs wanna sex up their games with skimpy armor that seems to cover nothing except their T&A, but I don't particularly advocate for it either. But I do question the functionality of such exposing armor. But it is sexy.... *Snaps out of it* I-i mean, um, uh.. It's bad.
i ignored pretty mush everything but the original post and just want to say that there is a diffrence in "Sexy" and "slutty"
after that its only a matter of oppinion
and thats why some ppl have problems with that.
after that its only a matter of oppinion
and thats why some ppl have problems with that.
Basically, I don't like the revealing crap. Armor is armor. It's intention is to protect the body from harm. Having skin showing is essentially like saying "aim here!"
Form fitting is ok, though, as long as it still looks practical. Miranda Lawson's outfit, for example, always looked like it was giving her a wedgie.
Of course this only applies if the game wan't me to take it seriously. If the game is intentionally over the top and stylized, then I don't really have a problem with it.
Form fitting is ok, though, as long as it still looks practical. Miranda Lawson's outfit, for example, always looked like it was giving her a wedgie.
Of course this only applies if the game wan't me to take it seriously. If the game is intentionally over the top and stylized, then I don't really have a problem with it.
I don't mind it, But I agree it's unrealistic. The whole chainmail bikini thing is so stupid. It doesn't make sense.
Still looks good though.
What? I'm still male.
Still looks good though.
What? I'm still male.
As long as the sexy armor doesn't impede a character being a good character. If the entire personality of the character is "Is excesively sexy", it's bad. If the character gets characterization beyond that (For example, Jack or Samara from ME2), I don't give a damn about the armor.
Basically, as long as the armor helps protect an actual character and not just a sexy hunk-o-meat.
Basically, as long as the armor helps protect an actual character and not just a sexy hunk-o-meat.
As a general rule, the answer is yes. But that general rule has an important caveat. If the game attempts to apply realistic armor to males (i.e. I think the same suit of armor, when worn on a male, would provide reasonable protection to vital organs in combat, or at least as much as could be expected given the type of material), but it gives females a skimpy version without explanation I tend to get annoyed.
Skyrim, for example, does it fairly well. The various light armor types tend to be variably revealing. The hide armor for example can be little more than a bikini but the same armor on a male is even less protective. That the armor is only slightly better than being naked helps because that is precisely the amount of protection I'd expect such a thing to provide: a bit better than nothing at all. By contrast, the heavy armors, though they tend to conform to the curves of the female form a bit more than I'd think reasonable to expect the blacksmiths of the era to mass produce, provides identical levels of coverage and protection. The gaps in armor on a female version of Iron armor are still there on the male version.
By contrast, World of Warcraft does it the wrong way. A suit of armor meant for a male tends to be bulky and silly in it's own way but the same piece worn on a female tends to be arbitrarily revealing. In a common example, a long robe for one might be a short skirt and halter top for the other.
I suppose what bugs me then is consistency. If two identical objects provide identical protection, I would expect identical coverage. The best constructed impenetrable boob shields in the world are of little use if you aren't hit in the 5% of your anatomy being protected.
Skyrim, for example, does it fairly well. The various light armor types tend to be variably revealing. The hide armor for example can be little more than a bikini but the same armor on a male is even less protective. That the armor is only slightly better than being naked helps because that is precisely the amount of protection I'd expect such a thing to provide: a bit better than nothing at all. By contrast, the heavy armors, though they tend to conform to the curves of the female form a bit more than I'd think reasonable to expect the blacksmiths of the era to mass produce, provides identical levels of coverage and protection. The gaps in armor on a female version of Iron armor are still there on the male version.
By contrast, World of Warcraft does it the wrong way. A suit of armor meant for a male tends to be bulky and silly in it's own way but the same piece worn on a female tends to be arbitrarily revealing. In a common example, a long robe for one might be a short skirt and halter top for the other.
I suppose what bugs me then is consistency. If two identical objects provide identical protection, I would expect identical coverage. The best constructed impenetrable boob shields in the world are of little use if you aren't hit in the 5% of your anatomy being protected.
Female gamer feminist here to say... eh, it doesn't bother me most of the time. Actually, what I hate is huge male armor.Riki Darnell said:
If you look at real life plate armor, it's actually very form-fitting. The idea was for it to move as little as possible, to avoid rubbing or leaving openings. Other than bikini armor (which is silly), snug, close fitting armor for females is actually MORE realistic than the huge tin-cans that men seem to be strapping on.
So basically - MEN should be wearing tight, form fitting armor too. Just no bikini armor - that's just silly.
Unless it's a silly game, in which case I want to see men wearing Codpieces and getting huge armor bonuses.
- It fits the armor class. No plate bikinis, chainmail shouldn't be too immodest, leather and cloth can wear whatever the hell they want.
- Bikinis are about the only thing I have a problem with. Form-fitting or visible skin is fine. In fact, plate should be form fitting or it's damn uncomfortable, it's suppose to fit you like a glove otherwise it's more painful then wearing a tin can.
- Bikinis are about the only thing I have a problem with. Form-fitting or visible skin is fine. In fact, plate should be form fitting or it's damn uncomfortable, it's suppose to fit you like a glove otherwise it's more painful then wearing a tin can.
I don't hate it per se, but I do find it kinda annoying at times. Thankfully, for some reason, the games I seem to play don't really do this crap anymore. The only times I see very skimpy female outfits for games actually tend to be the work of modders. I'm looking at you Fallout and TES modders. >_>