Sexy fantasy armor...

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I doubt they would. The intimidation factor offers little advantage over the risk.

Don't underestimate psychologic effects. If your hussars are already a feared force, and the enemy soldiers hear the ominous humming getting louder and louder... adding to the fact that being at the wrong end of a cavalry charge is generally a pretty uncomfortable experience in itself... it could be worth it.

Psychological warfare is well known throughout the world history of warfare. Many tribes dressed as animals and beasts to frighten and intimidate their enemies. Tribal outfits like this for example:

http://www.cozumelhomes.com/pix/MayanCostume.jpg

Many dressed as birds and beasts for battle to scare the enemy, although many now would not think this to be practical battle gear, it proved effective for making opponents fear and flee instead of fight.

 

[Hagi]

Way I see it it all comes down to consistency.

The silliness of a lot of female fantasy armor lies not in the armor itself, it lies in the contrast between that armor and the rest of the fictional world depicted.

A medieval fantasy world with towering castles, knights in shining armor and women in tight leather fetish outfits is, to me, about as silly as a medieval fantasy world with towering castles, knights in shining armor and Space Marines armed with water pistols.

 

[CloudAtlas]

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

If you are a soldier or warrior of some kind, or even just an adventurer à la Lara Croft, covering up has much to do with practicality. Keeping the sun out or the warmth in are just one aspect. You typically have to engage in many physical activities that involve your body moving over rough, edgy, sharp or whatever surfaces, where you would very much want to have a layer of protection between your skin and said surfaces. Just try crawling through thorny undergrowth or slide down a pile of dirt and you will realize that. Clothing also provides some protection against all that stuff flying around on battlegrounds, dirt, rocks, debris, whatever. Not bullets or grenade shrapnels, obviously, but plenty of the other stuff.

And all that is still without adding any type or armor. Which is often part of the picture, in the virtual worlds in consideration, aggravating the not-covering-up-the-most-vital-body-parts issue.

And yea I'd consider practically nude men, like the one in your picture, as sexualized depiction just as much. I'm not sure how you can look at a movie like 300 (which may have inspired this picture) and say, yea, nothing sexualized about that, no gay aesthetic or eye candy for the female audience at all.

 

[Zhukov]

I am a female who very much enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and kick boxing...

And do you wear high heels while you hike, climb and box? Do you hike in winter while wearing a miniskirt?

Somehow I doubt it.

What would your reaction be to a character who wore heels and a miniskirt while hiking on a frosty morning? Would you be thinking "WTF?" At all? Would you be at all inclined to point out the absurdity of their attire in those circumstances?

If so, you know how I feel about chainmail bikinis and boob plates and so on.

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

What if you're trying to block edged weapons?

We are talking about armour here, after all.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

If you are a soldier or warrior of some kind, or even just an adventurer à la Lara Croft, covering up has much to do with practicality. Keeping the sun out or the warmth in are just one aspect. You typically have to engage in many physical activities that involve your body moving over rough, edgy, sharp or whatever surfaces, where you would very much want to have a layer of protection between your skin and said surfaces. Just try crawling through thorny undergrowth or slide down a pile of dirt and you will realize that. Clothing also provides some protection against all that stuff flying around on battlegrounds, dirt, rocks, debris, whatever. Not bullets or grenade shrapnels, obviously, but plenty of the other stuff.

And all that is still without adding any type or armor. Which is often part of the picture, in the virtual worlds in consideration, aggravating the not-covering-up-the-most-vital-body-parts issue.

And yea I'd consider practically nude men, like the one in your picture, as sexualized depiction just as much. I'm not sure how you can look at a movie like 300 (which may have inspired this picture) and say, yea, nothing sexualized about that, no gay aesthetic or eye candy for the female audience at all.

Of course as I stated in my first post, it has everything to do with setting. In historical settings, you go for reality, and try to make the attire as realistic as possible but in a fantasy setting if they are going to have ridiculous swords, lightning whips, magic spells and enchanted armor, whether or not they are going to get a sunburn or scratched by thorny bushes becomes insignificant.

I do not see nude bodies as "Sexualized", I see body language and behavior as sexual, not just a body. I did not see anything sexual about 300 besides, the actual sex scenes. I see those as completely separate, but then again, I am perfectly comfortable at nude beaches as well without seeing that as sexual either. I see nudity and sex as completely separate.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

This reminds me when I commented on the Kill la Kill stuff before it aired... oh boy, pages and pages on the issue, actually more about what defines arnour really. But there are literally tonnes of these threads so I shall sum up what I've found out thus far:

#1. Sexy clothing/armor isn't pratcical and paints unrealsitic standards/expectations for women, even if it is subvertive (i.e. Bayonetta is making fun of it; "but there is still somebody out there jacking off to it").
#2. The treatment is often one sided (men get practical gear, women do not).
#3. Whilst its okay to have the odd titilation, this main issue is that its EVERYWHERE, and that's why people take issue with it.
#4. For those that love their realism and functionality, sexy armor defies their logic and jettisons them out of the experiance, preventing them from "immersing" themselves in the work.
#5. Women probably dont like having to play characters designed to appeal to male fantasy's thus locking them out of the experiance and showing that this is only mean't for boys.
#6. Everybody has their own taste in sexuality. Some are overtly reserved with skin being a big no no and any flirtaciousness or sexual expression is a sign we are rejoining our ancestors in the trees. Whilst others can barely give two fucks if cocks and tits are out and just call it a Sunday morning.

Blah, blah, blah. Herpy, derpy, do.

I personally love some titlation and womanly bodies. In fact if there is too many men to women in any given body of work I tend to be put off by it (Call of Duty, other dude-bro games where 90% of the cast is male, borrring, sausage fest).

But at the end of the day if the character JUST looks sexy and isn't interesting as a character, then the character is just shit. Practical attire or not. If the character doesn't have any character, then they arn't worth mentioning in my books.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am a female who very much enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and kick boxing...

And do you wear high heels while you hike, climb and box? Do you hike in winter while wearing a miniskirt?

Somehow I doubt it.

What would your reaction be to a character who wore heels and a miniskirt while hiking on a frosty morning? Would you be thinking "WTF?" At all? Would you be at all inclined to point out the absurdity of their attire in those circumstances?

If so, you know how I feel about chainmail bikinis and boob plates and so on.

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

What if you're trying to block edged weapons?

We are talking about armour here, after all.

That is the difference between reality and fantasy. I would no more hike in heels than I would use a magic spell and a giant sword. That is the point of fiction vs non fiction. I actually do hike in mini skirts, or skorts to be precise.
like these but in colors:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boastusa.com%2Fproduct%2Fwomens-tennis-skirt-2%2F&h=0&w=0&tbnid=UemfT1k_F1CByM&zoom=1&tbnh=225&tbnw=225&docid=nCYEfEX2Fw_LoM&tbm=isch&ei=t0GUU-yIO6-xsASdkIA4&ved=0CAgQsCUoAg

I grew to love skorts from tennis and Cheer in school and they are very comfortable. You can hike fine in them. If it is a fantasy game with magic, you can very well block edges with enchantments tyvm.

 

[kommando367]

In defense of skimpy gear in fantasy settings (and some sci-fi with giant mecha), most of the larger fantasy monsters could easily one-shot someone in full plate armor under realistic circumstances. When fighting those monsters (20' tall cyclopes, 50' long dragons etc...) physical defense would mean nothing and mobility would mean everything. So realistically, it would be better to fight them buck naked. Sometimes, even human-sized or slightly larger enemies have the potential to 1 shot someone wearing full armor.

Look at Dark Souls 2, that game has a mechanic where less armor increases roll distance and movement speed. As a result, a ton of people prefer to fight large portions of the game with their characters in their skivvies.

 

[Shinkicker444]

[spoiler = "large image"]

[/spoiler]

Smexy, classy, practical armor, and a total BAMF. No reason for it to look like it's worn by a stripper, I can get the appeal though but their is no real need for it. I often find such excessively "titillating" armor to be detracting from the game or whatever.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Smexy, classy, practical armor, and a total BAMF. No reason for it to look like it's worn by a stripper, I can get the appeal though but their is no real need for it. I often find such excessively "titillating" armor to be detracting from the game or whatever.

LOL! There is not much practical, classy or smexy about that armor. Nothing protecting her from getting her arms chopped off and the crap at the bottom would force her torso to get twisted and make her extremely easy to take down No head protection either. Having personal taste is fine, but that does not suddenly make it practical. You like less skin, Some like more. That has nothing to do with being practical.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Of course as I stated in my first post, it has everything to do with setting. In historical settings, you go for reality, and try to make the attire as realistic as possible but in a fantasy setting if they are going to have ridiculous swords, lightning whips, magic spells and enchanted armor, whether or not they are going to get a sunburn or scratched by thorny bushes becomes insignificant.

Fantasy, too, is generally grounded in reality, to varying degrees. And you will find that the more grounded the setting generally is, the louder the complaints about skimpy, impractical armors tend to be. And many fantasy worlds are actually pretty grounded in reality.

Also, ever heard of "internal consistency"?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

In defense of skimpy gear in fantasy settings (and some sci-fi with giant mecha), most of the larger fantasy monsters could easily one-shot someone in full plate armor under realistic circumstances. When fighting those monsters (20' tall cyclopes, 50' long dragons etc...) physical defense would mean nothing and mobility would mean everything. So realistically, it would be better to fight them buck naked.

Agreed. You could be naked and be just as defensive as a guy in a tank going up against the monsters you are expected to fight. I see the issue of trying to claim " practicality" in covering the womenz in a fantasy game just as an extension of the shaming of women in reality that already exists. It is no different than trying to throw burkas on everyone and calling it a day. Just now they are doing it in the fantasy realm as well.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Of course as I stated in my first post, it has everything to do with setting. In historical settings, you go for reality, and try to make the attire as realistic as possible but in a fantasy setting if they are going to have ridiculous swords, lightning whips, magic spells and enchanted armor, whether or not they are going to get a sunburn or scratched by thorny bushes becomes insignificant.

Fantasy, too, is generally grounded in reality, to varying degrees. And you will find that the more grounded the setting generally is, the louder the complaints about skimpy, impractical armors tend to be. And many fantasy worlds are actually pretty grounded in reality.

Also, ever heard of "internal consistency"?

If there are elves and magic, there is no "reality". However, If it is an " alternate future" such as " what if Germany won ww2" or such that I would think is different. It is when there are wizards, magic swords, and elves fighting 50 ft demons running around and they are screaming "that armor isn't practical" I can't help but think they have issues.

 

[Shinkicker444]

Spoiler

Smexy, classy, practical armor, and a total BAMF. No reason for it to look like it's worn by a stripper, I can get the appeal though but their is no real need for it. I often find such excessively "titillating" armor to be detracting from the game or whatever.

LOL! There is not much practical, classy or smexy about that armor. Nothing protecting her from getting her arms chopped off and the crap at the bottom would force her torso to get twisted and make her extremely easy to take down No head protection either. Having personal taste is fine, but that does not suddenly make it practical. You like less skin, Some like more. That has nothing to do with being practical.

Compared to most smexy armor, its practically tank armor. Besides, she moves around in it without a single problem.

 

[EternallyBored]

Of course as I stated in my first post, it has everything to do with setting. In historical settings, you go for reality, and try to make the attire as realistic as possible but in a fantasy setting if they are going to have ridiculous swords, lightning whips, magic spells and enchanted armor, whether or not they are going to get a sunburn or scratched by thorny bushes becomes insignificant.

Fantasy, too, is generally grounded in reality, to varying degrees. And you will find that the more grounded the setting generally is, the louder the complaints about skimpy, impractical armors tend to be. And many fantasy worlds are actually pretty heavily grounded in reality.

Hell, the granddaddy of the modern fantasy genre, Lord of the Rings, was still pretty grounded in realistic elements, even magic itself was something that was rare and many humans in middle earth would go their whole lives without ever seeing an elf, dwarf, or wizard in any way, shape, or form. Magic was pretty much reserved for legendary artifacts and the divine, with magic itself fading away in favor of the mundane and "realistic" by the time the trilogy takes place.

The "it's fantasy" argument only really works within the rules established by a particular work, fantasy hinges on having at least an understandable foundation to build off of, if your fantasy work establishes that swords and armor work roughly like real life, then throwing curve balls out of left field tends to harm the readers immersion and suspension of disbelief. You can certainly establish a fantastic setting that justifies your skimpy armor (although it doesn't really help with the Doylist perspective that asks why the author is setting up their universe in this manner), but if you've not even made the effort to do that, then people are going to start to question why your female characters all have strategically placed boob windows in their battle armor.

 

[Zhukov]

I am a female who very much enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and kick boxing...

And do you wear high heels while you hike, climb and box? Do you hike in winter while wearing a miniskirt?

Somehow I doubt it.

What would your reaction be to a character who wore heels and a miniskirt while hiking on a frosty morning? Would you be thinking "WTF?" At all? Would you be at all inclined to point out the absurdity of their attire in those circumstances?

If so, you know how I feel about chainmail bikinis and boob plates and so on.

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

What if you're trying to block edged weapons?

We are talking about armour here, after all.

That is the difference between reality and fantasy. I would no more hike in heels than I would use a magic spell and a giant sword. That is the point of fiction vs non fiction. I actually do hike in mini skirts, or skorts to be precise.
like these but in colors:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boastusa.com%2Fproduct%2Fwomens-tennis-skirt-2%2F&h=0&w=0&tbnid=UemfT1k_F1CByM&zoom=1&tbnh=225&tbnw=225&docid=nCYEfEX2Fw_LoM&tbm=isch&ei=t0GUU-yIO6-xsASdkIA4&ved=0CAgQsCUoAg

I grew to love skorts from tennis and Cheer in school and they are very comfortable. You can hike fine in them. If it is a fantasy game with magic, you can very well block edges with enchantments tyvm.

Like I said earlier, some of us like our fiction to be a bit more grounded.

"Fiction" and "fantasy" do not automatically involve magic spells or sword-stopping enchantments. (And even if it does, generally not every character will have them.)

As for hiking in miniskirts ("Skorts"? I seem to have learned a new word in this exchange.) that's why I specified in winter.

Lastly, you seem to be making this reality-fantasy distinction only when it suits you. First you're comparing wanting sensible armour with trying to stick real women in burkhas. But when I compare fighting in sexy armour to hiking in heels, suddenly it's the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

[Azahul]

If there are elves and magic, there is no "reality". However, If it is an " alternate future" such as " what if Germany won ww2" or such that I would think is different. It is when there are wizards, magic swords, and elves fighting 50 ft demons running around and they are screaming "that armor isn't practical" I can't help but think they have issues.

Why, exactly? I mean, unless we are assuming that universe doesn't work according to the same physics, then for the most part being smacked with a sword or club is still just as much of a danger and the same armour works just as well. Well, maybe not against the 50 foot demon, where cloth is probably the better option because you're dead whether you get hit or not.

The Witcher series is my favourite example of this. Most of the soldiers in the game wear fairly heavy armour, all modelled on real medieval armour because they're mostly involved in real medieval conflicts. The Witchers also wear real armour, just cloth and leather versions because they rely on speed against a lot of their opponents. While women don't fight very often in the Witcher games, my point is more that the presence of magic and monsters in their world doesn't mean that everything we know about armour making should be tossed out the window because, hey, one thing changed, why not everything?

 

[mecegirl]

While it can be made to be more stylish, practically is often not conventionally sexy. It is even more rare for something to be practical and show a lot of skin. But during times that it could be argued to be more practical to show skin, there are still random instances of differences between male and female gear. I say random because it pops up at the silliest of times. Like the difference between female Olympic beach volleyball gear and male Olympic beach volleyball gear.

Spoiler

Nothing is wrong with either outfit, but you'd think that there would be some consistency by now. There is with most other sports. You don't see male track and field athletes and swimmers afraid to show skin. (And if you ask me male tennis players should rock kilts more often)

And while this is not about armor, you hear all sorts of excuses for why less fabric is better for superheroines. And about how more fabric would restrict their movement. But no one cares about the movement of superheros? Or even that less fabric would allow Superman to absorb more sun the same way that it "helps" Supergirl, Powergirl, and Starfire? The Flash at least would benift from less. Just looking at the costume they made up for the upcoming TV show..I'm no pro runner but it looks uncomfortable as heck to run in.

Spoiler

But to the actual topic of this thread. I prefer my fantasy (and sci fi) characters to be armored up. Nothing wrong with Conan the Barbarian and Red Sonia but it's just not to my taste. Well designed armor is wonderful to look at. And while it's not conventionally sexy, I think the ladies look rather dashing.

Spoiler

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am a female who very much enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and kick boxing...

And do you wear high heels while you hike, climb and box? Do you hike in winter while wearing a miniskirt?

Somehow I doubt it.

What would your reaction be to a character who wore heels and a miniskirt while hiking on a frosty morning? Would you be thinking "WTF?" At all? Would you be at all inclined to point out the absurdity of their attire in those circumstances?

If so, you know how I feel about chainmail bikinis and boob plates and so on.

"Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.

What if you're trying to block edged weapons?

We are talking about armour here, after all.

That is the difference between reality and fantasy. I would no more hike in heels than I would use a magic spell and a giant sword. That is the point of fiction vs non fiction. I actually do hike in mini skirts, or skorts to be precise.
like these but in colors:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boastusa.com%2Fproduct%2Fwomens-tennis-skirt-2%2F&h=0&w=0&tbnid=UemfT1k_F1CByM&zoom=1&tbnh=225&tbnw=225&docid=nCYEfEX2Fw_LoM&tbm=isch&ei=t0GUU-yIO6-xsASdkIA4&ved=0CAgQsCUoAg

I grew to love skorts from tennis and Cheer in school and they are very comfortable. You can hike fine in them. If it is a fantasy game with magic, you can very well block edges with enchantments tyvm.

Like I said earlier, some of us like our fiction to be a bit more grounded.

"Fiction" and "fantasy" do not automatically involve magic spells or sword-stopping enchantments. (And even if it does, generally not every character will have them.)

As for hiking in miniskirts ("Skorts"? I seem to have learned a new word in this exchange.) that's why I specified in winter.

Lastly, you seem to be making this reality-fantasy distinction only when it suits you. First you're comparing wanting sensible armour with trying to stick real women in burkhas. But when I compare fighting in sexy armour to hiking in heels, suddenly it's the difference between fantasy and reality.

You do wear skorts in winter here. But then again you can go jet skiing on Christmas here in Texas. What you wear/ do not wear in winter depends on where you live. LOL
The reality is currently in the world we live in there is widespread shaming of women and intolerance of the female form. There is not widespread telling women to hike in heels, that is the difference here. Women in reality ARE being bullied to hide their bodies. Even in many games that has male gladiators topless they cover the woman's breasts. If you want it grounded, why not have more female topless warriors the same as the male? How exactly do you choose what is and is not grounded in " fantasy"? There can be a giant demon, but no topless women gladiators?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If there are elves and magic, there is no "reality". However, If it is an " alternate future" such as " what if Germany won ww2" or such that I would think is different. It is when there are wizards, magic swords, and elves fighting 50 ft demons running around and they are screaming "that armor isn't practical" I can't help but think they have issues.

Why, exactly? I mean, unless we are assuming that universe doesn't work according to the same physics, then for the most part being smacked with a sword or club is still just as much of a danger and the same armour works just as well. Well, maybe not against the 50 foot demon, where cloth is probably the better option because you're dead whether you get hit or not.

The Witcher series is my favourite example of this. Most of the soldiers in the game wear fairly heavy armour, all modelled on real medieval armour because they're mostly involved in real medieval conflicts. The Witchers also wear real armour, just cloth and leather versions because they rely on speed against a lot of their opponents. While women don't fight very often in the Witcher games, my point is more that the presence of magic and monsters in their world doesn't mean that everything we know about armour making should be tossed out the window because, hey, one thing changed, why not everything?

If heavy armor isn't going to make them extremely slow and in-agile, and terribly susceptible to fire and electricity, why would wearing nothing more than a magic defense amulet make them not as protected as an unenchanted heavy armor? Most of the problems with this reasoning in games is what people think they know about armor in these games has nothing to do with the reality of actually wearing armor in reality. Seeing a character swim in heavy armor in a game has me rolling on the floor laughing at the absurdity of it.