Could you please stop making high heels and skimpy armor for females? - Page 5 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Guildwars2.com Forums Support Wiki
  • Sign In With Your GW2 Account
  • Register
    • en fr es de
    ›

    Could you please stop making high heels and skimpy armor for females?

    1235

    Comments

    • Haleydawn.3764Haleydawn.3764 Member ✭✭✭✭
      edited December 6, 2018

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent female features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

      I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

      Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they do not embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.
      Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

      And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

      This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" (being a Feminine presenting entity) is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      But back to the actual topic.
      I want more skimpy armors. For both genders and all armor weights. Armors that don't cover bums, hips, side boobs, ankles, shoulders etc. Something flattering and sexy. Because my characters are worth it.

      The above was written as part of an attempt to waste time.

    • Blood Red Arachnid.2493Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Haleydawn.3764 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent female features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

      I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

      Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they do not embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.
      Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

      And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

      This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      The giraffe is an animal which, for sociopolitical arguments, I like to pretend does not exist.

    • Blood Red Arachnid.2493Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
      We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

      The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

      I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

      Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

      I'm thankful for some official input on the matter, I agree 100%, this is all just a matter of taste.

      What makes us mad is when people want to take away our freedom of choice because it suits their own ideals. We don't want that, and there's been such an issue with people trying to force us all one way or another.

      In the end, the best option is to simply give players choice. No one is forcing anyone to wear skimpy/ practical armour. You can mix and match armour styles to get the look you want.

      If you want to be a realistic battle-hardened woman, you can do that!

      If you want to be a fashionable woman who is flaunting her stuff on the battlefield with confidence, you can do that too!

      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      The giraffe is an animal which, for sociopolitical arguments, I like to pretend does not exist.

    • DeceiverX.8361DeceiverX.8361 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Ashen.2907 said:

      @gebrechen.5643 said:
      I really like the "but it's a fantasy game argument". There isn't another logical reason for high heels existing but "it's fashion", while the things you mentioned have a real use.
      "No one with a brain would use bows when pistols and rifles exist, yet here we are." Yes, bows are still around and are still used for hunting over rifles. Which means there are practical applications of Bows or Crossbows in the world, while there is not a single one for high heels in a fantasy world.
      I can live with them existing, but we don't need more of those but less. I really could see getting a lot more sandals or boots and especially more skirts, kilts, etc.

      Bows are used over firearms by some modern hunters as a form of sport to personally handicap the hunter, not because they are in any way more effective than a rifle.

      Depends on intent of the use of the animal as well. Classical weapons like bows and crossbows usually lean to cleaner kills with less potential for mutilation of smaller game and offer lower chances of fragmentation of bone or ammunition in the meat.

      I just want to mention as a leatherworker and somewhat of a real-life combatant and medieval martial artist: Anyone talking about realism in armor should only talk about heavy armor. Leather was barely used historically for armor considering how ineffective it is (I mean, it's the skin of dead animals that died to less-deadly bows and spears than what were seen on the battlefield, especially considering cost/ease of making it in relation to gambeson (available as one of the low-level medium armor pieces BTW - props to ANET for that) which is superior in pretty much every way and made entirely of linen. I'm pretty sure the number of non-skimpy heavy armors in this game vastly outnumber the skimpy ones.

      Nonetheless, diversity is good. My femme lesbian friend loves her sexualized eye-candy in video games, and I know several men who feel weird playing as such characters. The more diverse the options, the better, I say.

      You sure that Sniper idea is as good as you thought it was gonna be?
      Because I think my original idea is better.

    • robertthebard.8150robertthebard.8150 Member ✭✭✭

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
      We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

      The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

      I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

      Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

      I'm thankful for some official input on the matter, I agree 100%, this is all just a matter of taste.

      What makes us mad is when people want to take away our freedom of choice because it suits their own ideals. We don't want that, and there's been such an issue with people trying to force us all one way or another.

      In the end, the best option is to simply give players choice. No one is forcing anyone to wear skimpy/ practical armour. You can mix and match armour styles to get the look you want.

      If you want to be a realistic battle-hardened woman, you can do that!

      If you want to be a fashionable woman who is flaunting her stuff on the battlefield with confidence, you can do that too!

      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

    • Dragon Priestess.9760Dragon Priestess.9760 Member ✭✭
      edited December 6, 2018

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
      We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

      The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

      I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

      Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

      I'm thankful for some official input on the matter, I agree 100%, this is all just a matter of taste.

      What makes us mad is when people want to take away our freedom of choice because it suits their own ideals. We don't want that, and there's been such an issue with people trying to force us all one way or another.

      In the end, the best option is to simply give players choice. No one is forcing anyone to wear skimpy/ practical armour. You can mix and match armour styles to get the look you want.

      If you want to be a realistic battle-hardened woman, you can do that!

      If you want to be a fashionable woman who is flaunting her stuff on the battlefield with confidence, you can do that too!

      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

      Tarnished Coast, North America.
      I am on the hunt for exclusive dyes wink wink

    • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      @Haleydawn.3764 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent female features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

      I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

      Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they do not embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.
      Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

      And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

      This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      I agree with this. Expanding the scope of femininity is merely appealing to notions of body positivity and such, which are more ideals than objective views.

      Make up, hairstyle, clothing and the like are superficial. If you had said more like agreeable, empathetic/emotionally motivated, risk averse, choosy or aesthetic motivated or some such, I could agree, but the points you list are as easily changed as your shoes and it's more a disservice to females to say their femininity is so one dimensional.

      But I do agree, femininity is more than just boobs.

    • Zeefa.3915Zeefa.3915 Member ✭✭✭

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      @Haleydawn.3764 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent female features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

      I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

      Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they do not embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.
      Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

      And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

      This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

      I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

    • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Bolero Bloodreign.9025 said:

      @Turin.6921 said:
      Yeah a man with a slim waist and wide hips. You have a really narrow idea of what femininity is if it only revolves around the chest.

      There's a lot of fit men with a slim waist. The hip in the photo is not wide, it's the kilt you're mistakenly staring at. And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman, something you refuse to notice that armor is lacking.

      Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Turin in this one...the chest is not flat, there is actually a distinct breast area present, it just so happens to be about an A cup, but it is definitely not flat...and I did look at the profile view.

      Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

    • Thelgar.7214Thelgar.7214 Member ✭✭✭
      edited December 7, 2018

      I'd really like a nice set of heavy armor heels that show some leg. The lack of them leaves Sil Lee with these abominations...

    • Neural.1824Neural.1824 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
      We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

      The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

      I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

      Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

      Something we agree on. Thank you Gaile.

      Soul-binding needs to be allowed to die gracefully. It has expired. It is long past it's time to become a footnote in the history of gaming.

    • Blood Red Arachnid.2493Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Member ✭✭✭✭

      I get to be popular today.

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

      Nope. I'm saying that other people say that. I'm clarifying that, when somebody goes into full aesthetic dictator, they're usually doing it to safeguard society.

      @Zeefa.3915 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

      I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

      It's hard to measure disparate facets of the feminine, as their is no exact unit of femininity. Let me put this into a more sterile example: A woman with massive boobs who dresses and acts like a dock worker is more feminine that a woman with a flat chest who dresses and acts like a dock worker. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to weigh one over the other.

      @robertthebard.8150 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

      It would be a bit more like saying "If you don't like pollution, don't live in the city." Yes, you can get a breath of fresh air out in the country, but the problem of pollution still exists. The pro-censorship crowd doesn't want to censor things because they don't like it, they want to censor things because those things contribute to and sustain a problem in society. Effectively it is culture pollution. Running away from offensive content doesn't matter because eventually it comes to get you. The only solution is to get rid of everything, because otherwise all of the evils will take refuge in whatever's left.

      The giraffe is an animal which, for sociopolitical arguments, I like to pretend does not exist.

    • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      @Haleydawn.3764 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent female features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

      I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

      Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they do not embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.
      Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

      And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

      This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      Blood, I'm going to have to a agree with HaleyDawn on this one...and I can attest with numerous visual sightings of females that have breasts but DO NOT even look feminine at all...and visa versa, but that isn't what this discussion is about and unless we can manage to keep it on track with the OP's original post then it will be closed.

      As Gaile said, it's all a matter of personal taste...I personally disagree with the OP, after all, why not attempt to distract your opponent before battle even starts, it might just give you enough opening to end it before any harm could come to you. I think there's enough variety in game to suit everyone, but you'd have to unlock ALL the armor skins to most likely find something that suits you, and if that's to much trouble...then we have another issue entirely.

      Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

    • robertthebard.8150robertthebard.8150 Member ✭✭✭

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      I get to be popular today.

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

      Nope. I'm saying that other people say that. I'm clarifying that, when somebody goes into full aesthetic dictator, they're usually doing it to safeguard society.

      @Zeefa.3915 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

      The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

      Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

      So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

      I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

      It's hard to measure disparate facets of the feminine, as their is no exact unit of femininity. Let me put this into a more sterile example: A woman with massive boobs who dresses and acts like a dock worker is more feminine that a woman with a flat chest who dresses and acts like a dock worker. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to weigh one over the other.

      @robertthebard.8150 said:

      @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

      The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

      In this case it's all wrong, as this Aydin Paladin goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

      Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

      It would be a bit more like saying "If you don't like pollution, don't live in the city." Yes, you can get a breath of fresh air out in the country, but the problem of pollution still exists. The pro-censorship crowd doesn't want to censor things because they don't like it, they want to censor things because those things contribute to and sustain a problem in society. Effectively it is culture pollution. Running away from offensive content doesn't matter because eventually it comes to get you. The only solution is to get rid of everything, because otherwise all of the evils will take refuge in whatever's left.

      Actually, they do want to censor it because they don't like it, and you sort of point that out in this post. What problem in society is created by skimpy armor in a video game? I'm not aware of any, got any actual insight, or just "but skimpy is evil"? I've been playing games for a very long time, and I have yet had any characters from the games I've played "come to get me". It offends their sensibilities, and their feelings are all that matter to them, and so everyone needs to be controlled to not do what they find offensive, which can range from wearing skimpy armor in a video game, to playing, or not playing a female character at all, depending on what day of the week it is, and which easily offended group you're talking to.

    • daw.4923daw.4923 Member ✭✭

      Are you sure,we playing same game? 99% outfits are full covered body, 99% of heavy armor sets are tin cans and probably 1x heels.
      sad part is,that basicly 90% of heavy armor on females looks extremly bad,bcs they are made for males. even last set,you can see female feets gets completly lost in metal and its look so dumb,she whoud be even able to lift leg. only skimpy armor class is light and ofc everybody gona wear that,bcs they want more of it,but sadly they dont have much options,so 80% is using profane armor set.

    • Kas.3509Kas.3509 Member ✭✭✭

      @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
      We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

      The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

      I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

      Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

      I agree. Its not like devs should stop making this or this. It's just that you should have multiple options to choose from -> some skimpy ones, some fully dressed etc.

      I would like short pixie skirt for light armor without covered legs. Not necesarilly skimpy, just pixie like for my tinkerbell identity: P I'd also like some more feminine shoes but without heels. But many people would like many different things.

      I believe overall GW2 is doing good with giving each of us a lot of different options.

    • Khalisto.5780Khalisto.5780 Member ✭✭

      Lol, this is nothing compared to the trench coat curse on medium armors and dresses on male light armor toons.

    • Sarge shot Grif.6450Sarge shot Grif.6450 Member ✭✭✭

      I don't really get the point of complaining about skimpy armor right now, most recent armors have been very tame and you usually don't have many choices for skimpy armor compared to the regular stuff anyway. The good thing about the wardrobe system is that you don't even have to use it if you don't like it.

    • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

      @Kovu.7560 said:
      I wish there were more armor options, outside of some of the cultural armor that showed more fur on Charr, both male and female.
      Unlike most of the other races where skin is just skin, the fur often has neat patterns that go unnoticed as the application of new armor designs on Charr often feels like somewhat of an afterthought.

      And people actually wonder why Anet doesn't want to introduce another (likely anthropomorphic) race.

      ~ Kovu

      I remember seeing the Scallywag chest for the first time on my Human Guardian (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_human_male_front.jpg) and I thought "heck no, that looks silly on a heavy armor wearer".

      When I was gearing up my Male Charr Revenant, I just happened to have an exotic chest piece in the bank and tossed it on, expecting to then transmute it, but when I saw what the back looked like on my Charr (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_charr_male_back.jpg) I thought "YES! that is what a Revenant would wear".
      I decided to round out the look by adding a Tiger Charr Backpack :)

    • Nury.3062Nury.3062 Member ✭✭✭

      ohhh...it's those people again...GW2 needs more skimpy stuff,not less...

    • Dragon Priestess.9760Dragon Priestess.9760 Member ✭✭

      I mean at this point, Anet has already stated their stance on things. I wonder if it should become a pinned post so that everyone else who thinks of posting a thread like this can see it.

      Tarnished Coast, North America.
      I am on the hunt for exclusive dyes wink wink

    • Sirian.3689Sirian.3689 Member ✭✭

      Seems that the armor effect part of any armor and the armor skins effect on anything worn, that is armor function vs armor appearance are several separate magical quality's, so how skimpy can a skin be? Perhaps an armor skin is just a framework supporting the protection properties and all else is fashion, or perhaps some armor quality's need a thick skin.

    • Warlord.9082Warlord.9082 Member ✭✭

      What are you talking about? There isn't a proper set of high heels available for armor sets and outfits are supposed to be skimpy because I for one won't buy em if they aren't.

      Armor sets is what you make of them. Therefore, that is quite definitely your problem and not anyone elses. To ask them to stop making stuff people want is ridiculous.
      On my mesmer I have ridiculously combination of armor sets which is really sexy (or well, I think it is): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dq7ssxkWsAEQ2E-.jpg:large
      But on the other hand, I have my grieving guardian who you can hardly tell is female: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoLwnGvWkAEtR7_.jpg:large

      So it is quite definitely your problem what you make armor sets look like. You don't get to tell others how they use the armors made available to them.

      Outfits is also ridiculous because there are plenty of outfits that are not skimpy, to name a few from my own collection:

      • Dynamics Exo-Suit
      • Inquest Exo-Suit
      • Noble Count
      • Lyssa's Regalia
      • Fallen Balthazar
      • Mad Scientist
      • Cook
      • Bandit Sniper
      • Marjory's Shrouded Outfit
      • Spring Promenade

      In fact, looking at them again, the only skimpy outfits I have got are:

      • Sunspear (which I personally don't think is skimpy as there is nothing sexy about it but it shows some skin so to support your argument I am including it)
      • Nature's Oath (same as Sunspear, this is not skimpy but I'll throw it under the bus)
      • Ice Encasement
      • Elonian Elementalist

      And I am fairly certain that this ratio of 1 in 3 sexy outfits continues, although I am more certain that it actually declines because looking through the list the number of sexy outfits dries up pretty fast after the 4 I mentioned.

    • Luxuria.3248Luxuria.3248 Member ✭

      Every time a thread like this pops on the forums or anywhere else, it makes me turn my head around a full 360 degrees. When it comes to the wardrobe/armor system, Guild Wars 2 is one of the most (and I shudder to use this tainted word, thank you 21st century internet saints) diverse out there. There are PLENTY of non-skimpy armor for every weight class, and far less skimpy options.
      Also, perhaps we don't know what a shoe with a HIGH HEEL is anymore, since GW2 has very few shoes with heels to begin with.

      Many here that wasted so much of their precious time adding to the echo chamber could have spent it more wisely by looking through the selection of skins available in the wardrobe instead, and we would have both been better off. Unless is cold, take your heads out of your bums and research a subject you are so quick to rage about.

      Peace.

    • robertthebard.8150robertthebard.8150 Member ✭✭✭

      @Luxuria.3248 said:
      Every time a thread like this pops on the forums or anywhere else, it makes me turn my head around a full 360 degrees. When it comes to the wardrobe/armor system, Guild Wars 2 is one of the most (and I shudder to use this tainted word, thank you 21st century internet saints) diverse out there. There are PLENTY of non-skimpy armor for every weight class, and far less skimpy options.
      Also, perhaps we don't know what a shoe with a HIGH HEEL is anymore, since GW2 has very few shoes with heels to begin with.

      Many here that wasted so much of their precious time adding to the echo chamber could have spent it more wisely by looking through the selection of skins available in the wardrobe instead, and we would have both been better off. Unless is cold, take your heads out of your bums and research a subject you are so quick to rage about.

      Peace.

      That would be great, if they were complaining about what they want to use. They're not, they're complaining about what everyone else is using that offends their sensibilities, and thus needs to be stopped. You can bet they're already using the closest thing they could find to a burlap sack.

    • zionophir.6845zionophir.6845 Member ✭✭
      edited December 7, 2018

      at least my mini bikini south sun kasmeer meade is enjoying swimming in blood and scourge red circles when i wvw/pvp,

    • Calanthe.3857Calanthe.3857 Member ✭✭

      The armor is magic, so it protects as well even if it looks skimpy.

      I just wish there were more skimpy outfits and high heels for males, too. B)

      I wonder what's here.

    • Dragon Priestess.9760Dragon Priestess.9760 Member ✭✭

      @Calanthe.3857 said:
      The armor is magic, so it protects as well even if it looks skimpy.

      I just wish there were more skimpy outfits and high heels for males, too. B)

      And to go with those skimpy male outfits - some really awesome full body tattoos!

      Tarnished Coast, North America.
      I am on the hunt for exclusive dyes wink wink

    • Batel.9206Batel.9206 Member ✭✭✭

      @Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

      @Calanthe.3857 said:
      The armor is magic, so it protects as well even if it looks skimpy.

      I just wish there were more skimpy outfits and high heels for males, too. B)

      And to go with those skimpy male outfits - some really awesome full body tattoos!

      Like Monk tattoo armor in GW1? https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Monk_armor
      That would be really cool! (We could finally get an excuse to show off epic norn tattoos.)

      fear not this night
      you will not go astray

    • Fat Disgrace.4275Fat Disgrace.4275 Member ✭✭✭✭
      edited December 8, 2018

      but you dont need to go full "skimpy" to look good. just a mix n match i put together

    Sign In With Your GW2 Account or Register to comment.
    • Follow Us:

    Buy Now
    ©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
    Privacy Policy | Legal Documentation