Your opinion: How much has female characters in games changed (or not changed) in the past 2 years?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The purpose of armor is to take the kinetic impact of a weapon blow and/or bullet and distribute it as evenly as possible across your body so instead of piercing you it would simply give you a push. Therefore the most effective and thus "plausible" armor is one that fits your physionomy the best. As in, skintight armor would be ideally effective. Thus the "Breasted breastplate" is actually practical armor. Now there is other concerns with it, such as when it comes to swordplay a way to slide the enemy blow away is often more useful than a way to distribute the force, hence the corner-less design being popular. Theres also the fact that in medieval times it was much simpler, and thus cheaper, just to create a plank-style armor despite it not being the best possible one. Most soldiers could not afford armor, let alone good armor.

Ohhh, ohhhh, ohhhhhh, I smell someone talking directly out of their arse and being hilariously wrong about one of my pet subjects! Let me get in on this pile-on!

To be fair, you're actually not entirely wrong about the force distribution thing. Having a plate of metal (or ceramic in some modern armour) between you and a sharp thing turns a cut or penetrating stab into blunt force. That blunt force will still be transmitted to your body though. A layer of robust non-rigid padding (think of punching a mattress) will harmlessly distribute blunt force, but will be vulnerable to being cut or penetrated by sharp weapons. Hence why armour of old often incorporated both, with plates or chainmail on top of a padded gambeson or equivalent (also because metal on skin would be supremely uncomfortable).

However, saying that skintight armour would be "ideally effective" is complete bullshit and doesn't logically follow on from your previous point. See, another aspect of properly designed armour is deflection. For example, a good breastplate will stick out in a crease running from neck to waist. Thus incoming blows strike at an angle and some of the force is redirected out to the sides rather than straight into the wearer's chest. It's not skintight because being skintight in shape would not have that effect. Natural and unavoidable weak spots are those parts of the body which create natural "valleys" such as the armpits and where neck meets shoulder.

A "breasted breastplate" is just about the worst possible shape for a breastplate. You're creating unnecessary weak points all around the boobs and a massive one right in the middle of the cleavage, right over the fucking heart. Worse still, the shape will guide any blows that land nearby straight into that weak spot. It's a big, stupid invitation to get stabbed directly in a vital organ that will even collect extra blows that weren't going to land there.

Sort of? I mean the battle armour we used to wear was bulky as fuck (though we wore other stuff depending on operations and the necessities of the field... LRR for example). It was contoured enough to provide mobility, but insulated enough that you don't basically allow total insulation of power over a small area. Skin tight armour is retarded and about the only time it would be useful is against persistent friction ala a motorcycle jacket and using a high tensile strength material like corduro nylon or leather (because you fon't want that armour riding up your back or legs while facing consistent abrasive resistance). Even then you have kevlar inserts. I have 16 in. shoulder width... but even with my fitted Dririder kit I look 18+ in. wide.

Still wear less armour than all you grid iron pussies. Git gud.

Even then an accident at high speed bitumen or cement roads will eat straight through it after about 1.8 seconds... and hopefully you don't just *stop* even if it does. It's not bouncing or sliding that will kill you, it's the sudden stop.

So no... there's fuck all excuse for skin tight armour. The only real condition is mobility and weight. You see this with even modern armour technologies. Putting as much insulation between you and the bullet or the environment is beneficial. For example, looking at construction safety helmets (where things are designed to protevt against heavy things falling on your head) there is an internal 'cushion' like effect to help insulate the blow. The helmet should fit well, but you shouldn't feel the crown of your head hard against the shell of the helmet.

There is a reason why peasant armies had clubs and maces... beating them against the helmets of armoured people. This is principally why helmets often had a weird conical-esque shape to help divert the blow away from transferring all those newtons into your skull. Sure it will bash off your helmet and give you a concussion, but better that than dead.

Ditto motorcycle helmets have a insulative polystyrene foam inlay that is designed to crush up, and break apart.

If you didn't have it the force of your head hitting the ground would transfer directly through the helmet with little to no increase in energy diffusion into the fibreglass shell. In a bad motorcycle accident the fibreglass shell had utterly shattered and splintered, and the foam was near disintegrated and blown apart ... I had massive head trauma, but without all of that pulverizing, insulating material my skull would have likely fared no better. If my head was hard up against the fibreglass they may have beeded a bucket rather than a brace and bed. Motorcycle helmets are bulky for a reason.

Oddly enough D&D ... the game that gave us the hilariously bad chain mail bikini... has the best idea of armour. Wear as much as possible as you can carry and won't hurt your dex, wear as much that you can still move about as quick as the dwarf, wear as much but won't drown trying to cross a placid fjord on foot.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

A bigger pool, more diversity within that pool more choice for the consumer. This can only be a positive thing.

Unless you are into sexual designs, well then there is always Japan but they never gave two shits about Anita anyways.

What about people who don't like such designs? I would probably play Hitman if not for the obligatory fetish club levels they seem to have in every game. Also, your arguments imply that all game designers are forced to de-sexualize their characters, as opposed to less sexualized female characters being greenlit more often. A fair few games from 2013 spring to mind in this regard. Elizabeth was forced off the cover of Bioshock infinite, Naughty Dog had to go against the wishes of the publisher to keep Elly on the front cover of The Last Of Us and The team who made Remember Me had to do the same to even keep Nilin as a woman when Capcom wanted them to make the main character a man

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

The purpose of armor is to take the kinetic impact of a weapon blow and/or bullet and distribute it as evenly as possible across your body so instead of piercing you it would simply give you a push. Therefore the most effective and thus "plausible" armor is one that fits your physionomy the best. As in, skintight armor would be ideally effective. Thus the "Breasted breastplate" is actually practical armor. Now there is other concerns with it, such as when it comes to swordplay a way to slide the enemy blow away is often more useful than a way to distribute the force, hence the corner-less design being popular. Theres also the fact that in medieval times it was much simpler, and thus cheaper, just to create a plank-style armor despite it not being the best possible one. Most soldiers could not afford armor, let alone good armor.

Not bad, you make a good case for breasted breastplates.

Now, got one for ribbons and chainmail thongs?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Ah, this discussion again. Everyone griping over the existence of the chainmail bikini in media, but rather than demanding male characters get EQUALLY skimpy armor, they want the removal of the bikini.

And people wonder why I think they have some severe hang ups.

And the realism argument is back too! You know, if it's REALLY realism you want, you'd be arguing for the removal of female warriors entirely right? I mean, yeah you've got the good Miss of Arc and Tomoe Gozen, but by and large women were away from the fighting unless it got to the villages. (Those breastplates with breasts? Most of them are purely decorative.) I know, women are entering combat roles now, but that's a VERY recent thing. So unless you're arguing for more female representation in things like Modern Millitary Shooters, you're kind of shooting yourselves in the foot.

A bigger pool, more diversity within that pool more choice for the consumer. This can only be a positive thing.

Unless you are into sexual designs, well then there is always Japan but they never gave two shits about Anita anyways.

What about people who don't like such designs? I would probably play Hitman if not for the obligatory fetish club levels they seem to have in every game.

Those are some PROFOUNDLY screwed up priorities you have there. You'd play a game where the objective is to murder people in a variety of horrible ways ranging from gunshots, poisons, garrote wire, and even garbage crusher on a truck, if it wasn't for the fetish club stages?

Also, what about the people who like those designs? Particularly the women? Yes, there ARE women out there who LIKE to play as a smoking hot badass warrior queen. Do they not get a say? Heck, just look at The Sims' modding community! That fanbase is primarily women, and mods for sexy outfits come out so often you could set your watch to it!

A bigger pool, more diversity within that pool more choice for the consumer. This can only be a positive thing.

Unless you are into sexual designs, well then there is always Japan but they never gave two shits about Anita anyways.

I hear there's this thing called the Internet where porn is free.

Ah, the greatest non answer this discussion has ever had.

First off, congratulations for the lingerie and bikini industries being completely wasted on you. I mean that sincerely.

Secondly, the internet doesn't always have the porn a person wants, especially if it's for tv shows and games and the like. There, you're limited primarily by what ends up getting drawn and that's usually a mixed bag at BEST. Despite Rule 34, a lot of series don't tend to get a lot of attention from artists (Such as Alpha Protocol which has about 33 pictures on Rule 34, and a good chunk of them are yaoi pics.) and a lot of them are NOT going to be good.

 

[CaitSeith]

Ah, this discussion again. Everyone griping over the existence of the chainmail bikini in media, but rather than demanding male characters get EQUALLY skimpy armor, they want the removal of the bikini.

They already have. It doesn't suit them too well...

In a more serious note, I'm not surprised that the conversation derailed from describing the changes from each one perspective, to going back and forth on why this and that are stupid or justified. But the dogpiling still saddens me.

What about you? Have you noticed any noticeable changes on female character representation on the games you have played this past two years? Or it's still the same?

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Metallix has a point. Most of us dont need the realism card played. Its ok for developers to just appeal to the lowest common denominator wgen it comes to character design or admit they like sexually arousing characters even despite the moanings of people like Patrick Keplek and most of the mainstream press which have severe guilt over looking at too many sexually attractive designs. But dont let the fans suffer on the whims of the few who doesnt buy the game.

 

[jademunky]

Metallix has a point. Most of us dont need the realism card played. Its ok for developers to just appeal to the lowest common denominator wgen it comes to character design or admit they like sexually arousing characters even despite the moanings of people like Patrick Keplek and most of the mainstream press which have severe guilt over looking at too many sexually attractive designs. But dont let the fans suffer on the whims of the few who doesnt buy the game.

But those of us that cringe at oversexualized designs are also the fans. I'm not some terrified clueless parent crying about "murder simulators," I just genuinely dislike when a game's female characters get fanservicized to a creepy degree. Its detrimental to the character, immersion-breaking and constantly reminds me that this she was not designed with her personality and story arc as a priority.

 

[Zhukov]

Ah, this discussion again. Everyone griping over the existence of the chainmail bikini in media, but rather than demanding male characters get EQUALLY skimpy armor, they want the removal of the bikini.

Why would I want the male characters to look like idiots too?

All those poor barbarian dudes stomping around shirtless in the snow, apparently unaware that that their nipples are about to freeze and drop off.

And the realism argument is back too!

Not quite. I don't demand realistic armour designs. For example I don't actually mind "breasted breastplates" in games, at least they're not ye olde chainmail bikinis.

However, I will jump directly down the throat of anyone who tries to use the realism argument to justify impractical armour designs.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Ah, this discussion again. Everyone griping over the existence of the chainmail bikini in media, but rather than demanding male characters get EQUALLY skimpy armor, they want the removal of the bikini.

And people wonder why I think they have some severe hang ups.

And the realism argument is back too! You know, if it's REALLY realism you want, you'd be arguing for the removal of female warriors entirely right? I mean, yeah you've got the good Miss of Arc and Tomoe Gozen, but by and large women were away from the fighting unless it got to the villages. (Those breastplates with breasts? Most of them are purely decorative.) I know, women are entering combat roles now, but that's a VERY recent thing. So unless you're arguing for more female representation in things like Modern Millitary Shooters, you're kind of shooting yourselves in the foot.

A bigger pool, more diversity within that pool more choice for the consumer. This can only be a positive thing.

Unless you are into sexual designs, well then there is always Japan but they never gave two shits about Anita anyways.

What about people who don't like such designs? I would probably play Hitman if not for the obligatory fetish club levels they seem to have in every game.

Those are some PROFOUNDLY screwed up priorities you have there. You'd play a game where the objective is to murder people in a variety of horrible ways ranging from gunshots, poisons, garrote wire, and even garbage crusher on a truck, if it wasn't for the fetish club stages?

Also, what about the people who like those designs? Particularly the women? Yes, there ARE women out there who LIKE to play as a smoking hot badass warrior queen. Do they not get a say? Heck, just look at The Sims' modding community! That fanbase is primarily women, and mods for sexy outfits come out so often you could set your watch to it!

A bigger pool, more diversity within that pool more choice for the consumer. This can only be a positive thing.

Unless you are into sexual designs, well then there is always Japan but they never gave two shits about Anita anyways.

I hear there's this thing called the Internet where porn is free.

Ah, the greatest non answer this discussion has ever had.

First off, congratulations for the lingerie and bikini industries being completely wasted on you. I mean that sincerely.

Secondly, the internet doesn't always have the porn a person wants, especially if it's for tv shows and games and the like. There, you're limited primarily by what ends up getting drawn and that's usually a mixed bag at BEST. Despite Rule 34, a lot of series don't tend to get a lot of attention from artists (Such as Alpha Protocol which has about 33 pictures on Rule 34, and a good chunk of them are yaoi pics.) and a lot of them are NOT going to be good.

The people who like sexualized designs were already well spoken for, however considering how the recent changes in regards to female characters and sexualization were by popular demand, i would say it's reasonable to say that there are also a lot of people who dislike them. And don't you start with personal attacks on my taste. Some people are more disturbed by violence than sex, others are the other way around. I won't judge your porn taste, so quit trying to be all Holier than thou with my taste in games

 

[Parrikle]

Metallix has a point. Most of us dont need the realism card played. Its ok for developers to just appeal to the lowest common denominator wgen it comes to character design or admit they like sexually arousing characters even despite the moanings of people like Patrick Keplek and most of the mainstream press which have severe guilt over looking at too many sexually attractive designs. But dont let the fans suffer on the whims of the few who doesnt buy the game.

The thing is, overly sexualised character designs are not the lowest common denominator. They may (arguably) have been in the past, but gaming is much more diverse, with a much wider potential audience, than it has been in the previous decades. Designing sexualised characters has a place, and there is an audience for that. But the same audience is just as likely to play a game that has a more realistic depiction, and, more importantly, the audience put off by sexualised characters becomes a potential market.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Metallix has a point. Most of us dont need the realism card played. Its ok for developers to just appeal to the lowest common denominator wgen it comes to character design or admit they like sexually arousing characters even despite the moanings of people like Patrick Keplek and most of the mainstream press which have severe guilt over looking at too many sexually attractive designs. But dont let the fans suffer on the whims of the few who doesnt buy the game.

But those of us that cringe at oversexualized designs are also the fans. I'm not some terrified clueless parent crying about "murder simulators," I just genuinely dislike when a game's female characters get fanservicized to a creepy degree. Its detrimental to the character, immersion-breaking and constantly reminds me that this she was not designed with her personality and story arc as a priority.

You're free to dislike and not buy the game then. Nobody is forcing that stuff in all the games and there's tons of games without it and nobody is forcing you to play those games, either. Why focus on the games clearly not designed for you? I don't go and complain about racing games to racing game fans or racing game devs, despite detesting them and finding them dull beyond measure.

 

[The Lunatic]

To be fair, realistic female armour is no armour at all, as realistically, women were never involved in combat and much less combat involving armour.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And the realism argument is back too! You know, if it's REALLY realism you want, you'd be arguing for the removal of female warriors entirely right? I mean, yeah you've got the good Miss of Arc and Tomoe Gozen, but by and large women were away from the fighting unless it got to the villages.

On top of my head, there are records of several warrior women in the following cultures: Scythians, Celts, Picts, Germanic tribes Norse and loads of migration people in the early middle ages. That's not counting the women's militia of Japan in the post-Sengoku Jidai period (from which the tradition of training school girls to use the Naginata comes from) and the frankly absurd number of women defending villages in pretty much every conflict ever, as village raiding was the standard way for a moving army to secure its' food supply.

Contemporary historiography is quickly revising the idea that women have "rarely" engaged in combat, as more and more accounts of women in combat are turning up and more and more warrior graves turn out to contain women instead of men, as was previously assumed. The real decline of women fighting in Europe coincides with the rise of the (incredibly patriarchal) Roman empire and the Christian church later made a concerted effort to bury references to women in combat, as it clashed with the bibles division of labor on a very fundamental level.

So yeah, maybe not the best card for you to play.

Secondly, the internet doesn't always have the porn a person wants, especially if it's for tv shows and games and the like. There, you're limited primarily by what ends up getting drawn and that's usually a mixed bag at BEST. Despite Rule 34, a lot of series don't tend to get a lot of attention from artists (Such as Alpha Protocol which has about 33 pictures on Rule 34, and a good chunk of them are yaoi pics.) and a lot of them are NOT going to be good.

Let me get this straight: Because someone's particular fetish or kink isn't catered to enough by free porn on the internet, you feel that they should be catered to by mainstream video games? Do you even realize how absurd that sounds?

The deal for me, and many with me, is that I like to keep my stuff somewhat separate. I want my action games to be action games and my porn to be my porn and never shall the two meet. That someone badly wants to wank off to the women of Alpha Protocol should not be reason enough that the rest of us have to see them be sexualized to such an absurd degree that it actively destroys our suspension of disbelief. Because, as I said before, when most people say realism, what they mean is plausible and something that doesn't actively destroy their suspension of disbelief.

You're free to dislike and not buy the game then. Nobody is forcing that stuff in all the games and there's tons of games without it and nobody is forcing you to play those games, either. Why focus on the games clearly not designed for you? I don't go and complain about racing games to racing game fans or racing game devs, despite detesting them and finding them dull beyond measure.

So what if everything else about the game is "designed for me"? What if it is a game that's incredible in every respect, but has women so oversexualized that every time I see the Warrior Queen in her Battle Thong and Chainmail bikini I start giggling uncontrollably from the absurdity (truth: this is one of the things that ruined Kingdoms of Amalur for me, Alyn Shir's outfit [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8DxHERhriw/UXG1PeWNevI/AAAAAAAAAoM/7_fb1wmJ6Dg/s1600/Alyn.jpg]was so stupid that I couldn't take any cutscene with her in it seriously). This especially when her second in command is wearing full plate armor and is standing beside her every time she shows up.

The problem is not about not liking a particular genre or type of gameplay. The problem is that the aesthetics are actively detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. For comparison, it is like being served a really great meal on a disposable paper plate with disposable plastic utensils. It might be the best lasagna you'll ever have, but you'll likely feel that the whole meal is somewhat sub par.

 

[CaitSeith]

Nobody is forcing that stuff in all the games and there's tons of games without it

And getting an idea of where the games with and without (and the degree of) are is part of the reason this thread was made. You aren't helping if you tell to anyone who criticize game design "then this isn't for you; get away from my games and go somewhere else" without even saying where to go. The more you tell people to GTFO and leave games alone, the more they'll stay.

 

[CaitSeith]

The people who like sexualized designs were already well spoken for, however considering how the recent changes in regards to female characters and sexualization were by popular demand, i would say it's reasonable to say that there are also a lot of people who dislike them. And don't you start with personal attacks on my taste. Some people are more disturbed by violence than sex, others are the other way around. I won't judge your porn taste, so quit trying to be all Holier than thou with my taste in games

Which changes? That's what I was trying to inquire with this thread: the changes in female characters as perceived by the players. But all went to trash when the discussion derailed to the old chainmail bikini debate.

 

[The Lunatic]

Except for those societies where that was a done thing, right?

It astounds me how many dudes think that shitty stereotypes and fictional movie/games are accurate history textbooks.

The amount of "Societies" where women fought in plate Armour can probably be counted on one hand.

It's pretty basic biology that you don't make women fight.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Except for those societies where that was a done thing, right?

It astounds me how many dudes think that shitty stereotypes and fictional movie/games are accurate history textbooks.

The amount of "Societies" where women fought in plate Armour can probably be counted on one hand.

It's pretty basic biology that you don't make women fight.

Is that an excuse in a fantasy setting? There were no dragons either, or magic, and most videogame weapons owuld actually be incredibly impractical. Most high-level RPG swords are too heavy to lift, covered in impractical decorations or on fire/frozen/electrocuted. When you can have games where literal gods come to life as enemies, historical realism isn't really an argument you can cling to. if anything, the first couple of modern warfare games were unrealistic by featuring absolutely no female soldiers as opposed to acccurately representing gender statistics in the US army, and they sold themselves on simulating "realistic" warfare. also, women have fought in a lot more wars than you think, whether legally or covertly. The ones who did so legally needed the exact same level of protection as men, while the women who did so illegally in societies where they weren't allowed to fight would dress up as men, so if anything men and women having the same armour would be more realistic.

 

[The Lunatic]

Is that an excuse in a fantasy setting? There were no dragons either, or magic, and most videogame weapons owuld actually be incredibly impractical. Most high-level RPG swords are too heavy to lift, covered in impractical decorations or on fire/frozen/electrocuted. When you can have games where literal gods come to life as enemies, historical realism isn't really an argument you can cling to. if anything, the first couple of modern warfare games were unrealistic by featuring absolutely no female soldiers as opposed to acccurately representing gender statistics in the US army, and they sold themselves on simulating "realistic" warfare. also, women have fought in a lot more wars than you think, whether legally or covertly. The ones who did so legally needed the exact same level of protection as men, while the women who did so illegally in societies where they weren't allowed to fight would dress up as men, so if anything men and women having the same armour would be more realistic.

Well, my argument is towards "Realistic". So, no fantasy isn't realistic.


Though, I do think that ignoring the fact humans are sexually dimorphic is pretty lazy.

Also, women aren't "Frontline" units in any western army as far as I'm aware. They're permitted to serve as medics, or other non-frontline duties. In CoD and other games, typically you play the role of an infantryman, which is a frontline role.

Edit: Looking this up, in the US, an issue was ordered in 2013 to allow Direct combat roles to women. However, I can't find anything stating this has actually happened, and a lot of evidence appears to point towards them being unable to meet the requirements of infantry due to sexual dimorphism.