Sexy fantasy armor...

[[Kira Must Die]]

I'm fine with either, as long as there's a character under that armor.

Well, I guess it depends on the type of fighter they are. If they're going for speed and mobility, I guess a revealing outfit is technically easier for a woman to move around in than tank-like armor.

But by the end of the day, it is fantasy. Of course the audience you're catering to has to believe the world you create, but you don't exactly have to limit yourself to the rules of reality when it comes to fantasy. I mean, that's pretty much the definition of the word.

 

[Dandark]

Im usually happy to meet them halfway. I prefer more realistic and practical armour but I don't mind a bit of boob plate if it still at least looks like armour.

It's only when it gets too silly that I find myself getting bugged by it, either due to having large exposed parts of the body or when the boob plate is huge.

 

[Eddie the head]

Yes, murdering people with swords, clubs, axes, bows and magic is absolutely fine and rational... but put on some sexy clothes and then, total pervert.

People seem to tie themselves is such bizarre logical knots over these naval gazing issues.

Well, I think getting sexual gratification from killing people would be creepy with or without the sexy clothing. The sexy clothing just adds another aspect to it.

Who the fuck are talking about? Because it's not Dead Raen. He never said he got "sexual gratification" form killing people in this thread. You're straight up attacking a straw-man right now.

Eh, people playing homicidal murders in video games is nothing new. People have enjoyed watching people beating the crap out of each other for a very long time.


Getting sexual gratification from people doing it? Not so much.

What reason do you have to add sexual clothing to murdering people, other than to make it more sexual?

Because they might not see the two things as linked. This is a text book argument from incredulity. Your inability to imagine why someone would use a sexual clothing mod other then "sexual gratification form killing" doesn't mean it's the only reason someone would use one.

 

[Something Amyss]

but I don't believe its worth drumming up so much controversy over, like with Dragon's Crown.

What was the controversy? A couple of magazines gave them middling-to-good reviews, justified only in part by saying the girls were offputting.

A tantrum followed, yes. Was that the controversy? Because that would belie the rest of your post. But seriously, this wasn't a huge thing otherwise. Do I think it's dumb, yeah? I think the characters are kind of gross, actually (and both the men and women, before anyone starts in). But for the most part, I can't be arsed other than saying "yeah, it was dumb."

Is this all it takes to make something controversial? A few people saying less than perfect things about a video game? One guy calling it juvenile and two reviews that simply mentioned it with well-argued scores?

As for "revealing clothing", As a female player, I see those howling about covering up teh womenz as no different than those trying to force women to wear burkas in real life.

I can't really see how not wanting every single woman in gaming to be a sex object is the same as a culture that will literally kill women for exposing their faces and blames (and punishes) women for "making men think impure thoughts." Can you elaborate, please?

Also...are they just for show? Are her breasts actually in those? How does she get her breasts in, is she wearing that like a bra with nothing underneath?

Maybe they use Linkara's "boob sock" underneath?

Aaaaaactually, that's nowhere close to practical.

Plate armour was not designed to just put metal between your flesh and the sharp things. That's helpful, but there's more to it than that.

It was shaped in such a way as to deflect blades and points, to make them turn off to the side rather than taking the full impact.

In terms of modern armour, there's still that practicality issue, too. I've found a couple of companies offering "form-fitting" armour (which still doesn't have the full contour), and I sort of wonder if there's any efficacy there. They say it doesn't compromise protection and maybe it doesn't, though it's a different era. Still, most female combat armour has been modified for changes internally rather than to give women a form-fitting, boob shape.

That being said, there's a reason most women have historically worn the same armour as the guys: sexism. I mean, practicality. You're dead on about the dangers of boob plate.

I don't know why people bring up practicality, though. It's not like armour in games is realistic to begin with. I think this complaint is a non-starter from both sides of the aisle.

 

[The Lunatic]

Because they might not see the two things as linked. This is a text book argument from incredulity. Your inability to imagine why someone would use a sexual clothing mod other then "sexual gratification form killing" doesn't mean it's the only reason someone would do it.

Thus why I'm asking this person to tell me what it is.

Your response is "I can't tell you, but, oh, I'm sure there is one!"

Please, by all means, tell me.

 

[mecegirl]

I show plenty of consideration, probably more than I should. I do not need to show a burka consideration when I am defending my friend from being forced to wear one. Only those who are forced to wear one are allowed to speak out against being forced to conform to others beliefs? I disagree. Just as others do not need to be tied to a chair and forced to read the bible are allowed to defend me against such things. ANYONE can speak out against what they did to us. The more the better. The only way we stop being bullied into conforming to what others believe is for more to stand against these things until they are gone. If people in the west were more tolerant of female nudity they would not feel the need to cover both our breasts and our vagina's, on men they only cover their penis. They cover more of a woman's body than a mans. A man can wear only a loin cloth but when a woman does they throw out a nudity and age warning. How would nudity be shitty story telling? Those are completely separate issues. Nudity does not effect story telling, that seems silly to think that it would. There is far more to identity than clothing. If they need clothing that much to tell the story it wasn't a very good story to begin with.

No one is arguing for simply covering some one up. No one is slut shaming. And that is why your burka comparison does not work and is inconsiderate. By all means fight the good fight but fight an actual fight. Stop tilting at windmills and putting words in peoples mouths. NO ONE HERE is arguing for what you are arguing against. No one is saying that it is okay for a male character to be in a loin cloth but not okay for a female character to be in a loin cloth. And you have yet to show proof that anyone is arguing such a thing. I will ask you again. Quote where someone has done that. Again and again people have said that if wearing less armor fits the setting that they are ok with it.

It is shitty story telling because as I said we wear clothing for more than just covering nudity. It is also shitty chracter design.

Every culture dresses a bit differently than others. And it is a refection of both their beliefs and the climate that they live in. So why is everyone naked? What does that say about their culture? What does that say about the methods that they use to fight and the weapons that they expect to defend against? Naked will work for some warriors but it will not work for all warriors. When you look at the history of warfare you will see that different types of armor were created to contend with different situations. All anyone is saying is that if the story takes place in a culture that has developed a certain type of armor then all warriors should wear that armor. Why would they not? Would you expect a female samurai to wear something different than a male one? So you think she would give a shit about slut shaming in the middle of a battle? Or will she wear armor that will protect her? She can be naked off the battle field all she wants, but she'd be at a disadvantage if naked on it. And any chracter designer that would give her obvious gaps in her armor just to show her body is doing a shitty job. Both as a costume designer, and a story teller, because no sane person within her culture would go into battle dressed in such a way. I repeat. WITHIN HER CULTURE.

Naked will not work for a member of a S.W.A.T team for instance. Nor would exposed breasts(male or female) or an exposed midsection(male or female). There are too many bullets flying around to forgo at least some padding. And that's what bullet proof vests and the like were made for. Yes, they cover up the body. But how is that a bad thing?

 

[BSebor3]

I was under the impression Romans, Greeks, Celts and Gauls were a part of medieval Europe. How is practical to ignore how many actually fought in medieval Europe?

No, they were not. They belong to the classic era, not the middle age.

Also, 300 is not a historically accurate movie. Legionaires and Hoplites didn't fight naked either. And for that matter, neither did all the Celts or Gauls. And however liberal Greek or Roman societies might have been in general matters little for what's going on on the battlefield.

Considering the roman empire didn't fall before 1453 I'd dare say the romans belonged to the middle ages too.

It was not known as the Roman Empire anymore though, but as the Eastern Roman Empire and, later, the Byzantine Empire.

False. 'Byzantine empire' is a post-fall invention. It was still the roman empire as well as the administrations, which were just two parts of the same nation I should add as the romans liked it that way, were reunited anyway after the western territories fell in the 400s. That the catholics used a forgery to try and claim otherwise is completely irrelevant.

Actually the debate is less about what the Catholics say and more about how the Byzantines were culturally Greek (speaking the Greek language), had a different style of architecture, and were governed by different laws (which allowed for them to have an Empress who was in charge, unlike the original Roman Empire).

It was called the Greek Empire by Europeans at the time due to it being Greek.

The Roman culture as we imagine it had once existed but was gone around the 2nd century (even before the Western Roman Empire fell).

There have been multiple nations that claimed to be a successor of the Roman Empire: the Byzantine, the Bulgarians (who called their nation the Kingdom of Bulgaria and Romania), the Serbians (who called their nation the Kingdom of Serbia and Romania), Ottomans (who were originally called the Sultanate of Rum), the Russian Empire (who claimed this due to a marriage of a Byzantine woman of the ruling dynasty there with a Russian noble), and Mussolini's Italy (which claimed to be recreating the glory of the Roman Empire).

I do not consider any of these (or the Roman Empire after about 300 CE) to be Roman.

 

[Sectan]

I personally like practical armor on my female characters...most of the time. Among all the calls of "BUT MAH REALISM AND PRACTICALITY" at the end of the day (In my case) it's a game. I don't mind the occasional boob plate in a game, but what we really need is choice for both male and female players/characters. Let someone choose to walk around in boob plate or as armored and practical as they please. Let the male characters walk around in boob plate if they want!

I'm not going to make the choice for someone else and tell them their fantasy character isn't practical enough in a game.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like sexy fantasy armor. I also like women in sexy fantasy armor. I put sexy fantasy armor mods in my Skyrim to shake things up and make it less boring.

There is nothing wrong with the above three sentences.

Personally, I find the third one to be troubling. Can you explain what's "boring" about not having sexy armour?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

But, really, what gets me the most is Jack Bauer.

He's like 50 and always looks constipated whilst wearing a dark shirt and jeans.

Don't you remember the episode where Jack Bauer ran around in massively bulging Speedos all oiled up making hip thrusting motions at the camera in every scene?

No? Maybe that was just a dream I had...

Nevermind.

 

[Arkynomicon]

90% of all armour in fantasy video games would not work very well in real life. This goes for both genders.

 

[CloudAtlas]

That is what I have difficulty understanding, I see most people arguing against unrealistic armor in a fantasy setting where they have unrealistic things, and then showing historically inaccurate armor, and using characters that could not possibly move like that in that armor as being more "realistic and practical" in both fantasy and historical games. If the primary complaint is "more skin showing" or the outfit " looks slutty" and the alternative they offer is also impractical it is " slut shaming" rather than "breaking immersion".

Maybe it would be useful for you to think of it in terms of internal consistency instead of "realism".

In most fantasy worlds, the majority of the fighting is still with other humans (or humanoid races) armed with swords, spears, bows, clubs and what not, and with animals and lesser beasts. And in such situations, wearing regular armor is actually useful. I mean, if heavy armor wasn't useful, why would so many male warriors wear heavy armor? And in such a setting, it is just weird (to many) when the female warriors all wear chainmail bikinis, armors with stupid cleavage windows and the like. The armors don't necessesarily have to be "real", as in "that is what soldiers wore during some period in the real world", but they should make some sense within the context of this fictional world.

You can come up with many good reasons why nobody is wearing metal armor in your fictional medieval-ish world. But you'll always have a hard time explaining why one half of your fighters wears them, while the other one, the female half, performing the exact same roles, is half naked.

Yea sure many examples cited here as "practical armor" are in fact not all that practical. But at least they're MORE practical than what our female heroines have to wear in other instances.

How 'realistic' exactly an armor has to be in order to make someone happy, to not hurt her suspension of disbelief, that largely depends on the person herself, on her personal preferences, of course, but also on the nature of the fictional world itself. Sure, in some bonkers anime where nothing makes sense anyway, to complain about some armor not being "realistic" there is strange. It's all stupid anyway. But in a world like Middle-Earth, Skyrim, or whatever, a world that very much tries to give you an 'authentic' feeling, chainmail bikinis just don't fit.

And your name doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to be able to guess why designers so readily and needlessly violate internal consistency in this specific instance.

 

[Eddie the head]

Because they might not see the two things as linked. This is a text book argument from incredulity. Your inability to imagine why someone would use a sexual clothing mod other then "sexual gratification form killing" doesn't mean it's the only reason someone would do it.

Thus why I'm asking this person to tell me what it is.

Your response is "I can't tell you, but, oh, I'm sure there is one!"

Please, by all means, tell me.

Ok fist no you weren't. I can't speak to your intentions, but your vernacular was in the rhetorical realm.

Second my inability to imagine an answer would be just as irrelevant. And just because I might not have an answer doesn't' mean that yours is in any way good.

Third there is the simplest answer.(Witch I did say already.) That he just likes to look at woman in skimpy clothing, and there is nothing more to it. That one is a null hypothesis I'm not assuming any links. Until you can show a link in his psyche between the killing and sexual gratification then your position is irrational.

 

[Something Amyss]

Naked will not work for a member of a S.W.A.T team for instance. Nor would exposed breasts(male or female) or an exposed midsection(male or female). There are too many bullets flying around to forgo at least some padding. And that's what bullet proof vests and the like were made for. Yes, they cover up the body. But how is that a bad thing?

It's amusing to picture a woman being asked to wear a bullet proof vet and her responding that it's no better than trying to put her in a Burka, though.

I wanted to make a point, but when looking at the rest of what you said, I thought I'd make a second one, as well. The whole "some groups go topless" thing is definitely true. Even in the Northeast of what's now the US it wasn't uncommon for women of indigenous tribes to go topless: in appropriate weather. I mean, yeah, this goes to what you said about women and climate: just because women weren't ashamed of their breasts doesn't mean they went around in the middle of a Noreaster completely naked.

But more to my original point, based on this.

What bugs me about the "putting women in burkas" thing is that I don't otherwise disagree with her whole premise. I'm fine with the idea of socketed armour where you can put the best mods on any armour you damn well please. The problem comes in with this repeated insistence that I'm somehow oppressing women (and on par with a rather misogynistic culture) because I want my characters to wear sensible clothes. Which sort of undermines the choice afforded by armour sockets/slots in the first place. Not to mention, that's its own brand of shaming.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

What if I find practicality sexy? Huh? What then?

Doublets and correctly shaped cuirasses totally turn me on.

Nothing makes me harder than full Havel's cosplay. [small][small][small][small][small][small]hard as a rock you might say[/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small]

OT: Is sexy impractical armour worth all the hubbub it gets? In most cases no. When it comes to things like Kill la Kill, Dragon's Crown etc, there's nothing wrong with it, it fits the theme and the vibe those games give off. When it comes to things like the new Samus concept art, (haven't heard from that in a while actually) it does come off as sexist. Why? Because a great character with tons of history and depth was suddenly sexualized for the soul reason of appealing to the sexual preferences of a demographic someone thought might make them more money.

 

[The Lunatic]

Ok fist no you weren't. I can't speak to your intentions, but your vernacular was in the rhetorical realm.

Second my inability to imagine an answer would be just as irrelevant. And just because I might not have an answer doesn't' mean that yours is in any way good.

Third there is the simplest answer.(Witch I did say already.) That he just likes to look at woman in skimpy clothing, and there is nothing more to it. That one is a null hypothesis I'm not assuming any links. Until you can show a link in his psyche between the killing and sexual gratification then your position is irrational.

So, you're saying that my hypothesis has no more possibility than yours does.

Okay, well, given in the post after that, he literally talks about dressing sexy whilst "Doing your job".

I'm gonna put 2 and 2 together over here...

 

[elvor0]

I wasn't considering 300 as accurate, if you look at the link below the gladiator in my post with the picture, the topless female gladiator statue was accurate. When I am referring to " Medieval" I am referring to common themes in games such as " King Arthur and knights of the round table" and Merlin the wizard stories which much fantasy games are based on, during which time many Celts and Gauls fought topless and naked.

You would avoid confusion if you used the term "medieval" correctly. And in the Arthus saga too... which is just, well, a saga, not necessarily a description of events that actually happend at a specific point in history... you don't have all men fighting in platemail and all women fighting in chainmail bikini.

Which is the point here.

What you keep bringing up however - the fact that there were some peoples for which it might have been not unusual to fight naked - is not.

If there was a game playing in the classic period, featuring Romans and Celts, or some other culture, and showing neither of them displaying, well, very Christian or Islamic attitudes towards covering up their private parts, and do that more-or-less authentically and for both genders, and not just use the setting as excuse to show some titties, then that would be totally fine by most people you're arguing with here I guess, me included. The majority of complaints would certainly come from a vastly different direction - prude conservatives.

That is what I have difficulty understanding, I see most people arguing against unrealistic armor in a fantasy setting where they have unrealistic things, and then showing historically inaccurate armor, and using characters that could not possibly move like that in that armor as being more "realistic and practical" in both fantasy and historical games. If the primary complaint is "more skin showing" or the outfit " looks slutty" and the alternative they offer is also impractical it is " slut shaming" rather than "breaking immersion".

It's not slut shaming. At all. That's a completely different argument to the one everyone else is having. The people linking those armors are likely unaware of the im-practicality of those armors, or haven't had it pointed out. I once used Samus' armor as a showcase "practicality" to which someone royally handed my arse to me about the various impracticallity of Samus armor. Colour me corrected. How "realistic" something is however, shouldn't throw internal consistancy out of the window.

The enemy could be happy go lucky teddy bears that shoot death inducing rainbows out of their arses, but if within the setting it has been established that the Humans in the setting are exactly the same as regular humans, and the men wear traditional(that is to say full plate) armors, the same laws of biology would be applied to both genders. So why do the women in this setting all run around in plate lingere that offers no protection? Humans are not capable of surviving disembowlment are they? People are not slut shaming, that's an incredibly obtuse argument that you're only having with yourself. Nor are people here advocating the use of Burka, burka like clothing, or the covering up of women because its sinful.

Basically take this set of armor,(regardless of whether or not you think it looks good or its actuall impact on mobility) it is the same armor, but for the Men it's full chest armor, for Women, it's a sports bra. That's inconsistant, they're both supposed to be full plate, yet the women get saddled with an exposed midriff and a boob plate, despite its obvious dangers. Why?

Spoiler

This is completely independant of the fact that mages can throw fireballs and people rock up to kill dragons every week, people in this universe still fight with swords, not everyone can cast magic. If both of them had exposed stomachs, it would be fair. It'd still be stupid, but at least the genders are treated equally.

People like myself, do not like plate mail lingere because it breaks immersion for the reasons mentioned above, and by many other people. Not because we want to bully women into wearing Burkas.

And yet, you're stating that by us arguing for gender EQUALITY, we're actually arguing for highly damning, sexist and mysoginist views. Which makes no sense.

"I think men and women should both wear the same sort of armor so they have equal protection" does not equal "I want women to be controlled, bullied and shamed for showing skin." That's an insane strawman and putting words completely unrelated to what they said in peoples mouths.

 

[Hagi]

You really have trouble grasping this? How people might enjoy sex and violence but not sexual violence?

It's the difference between eating a steak while having a beer and taking a blender and mixing your steak through your beer.

 

[The Lunatic]

You really have trouble grasping this? How people might enjoy sex and violence but not sexual violence?

It's the difference between eating a steak while having a beer and taking a blender and mixing your steak through your beer.

Yeah, but, it's at the same time. So, it's literally chewing steak whilst your mouth is full of beer.

Which sounds pretty awful.

 

[Hagi]

You really have trouble grasping this? How people might enjoy sex and violence but not sexual violence?

It's the difference between eating a steak while having a beer and taking a blender and mixing your steak through your beer.

Yeah, but, it's at the same time. So, it's literally chewing steak whilst your mouth is full of beer.

Which sounds pretty awful.

You're assuming both the violence and sex are being consumed at the same time.

They're not. They're simply both present and ready to be consumed.

Just because I'm holding a beer in my left hand and a steak in my right doesn't mean I'm doing what you're saying.

I mean by your logic I have a deeply held association between violence and gorgeous sunsets because both of those are present on my screen at the same time frequently in my modded Skyrim.

Just because two things are both there at the same time and even getting mixed (the beer and steak do mix in your stomach) doesn't imply that's their purpose for being there nor any association between them.