[Question] Bikini Armour! when? :)

[kapri.5918]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.

@kapri.5918 said:If you had actually read everything then you would have understood that I don't want bikinis in the game. Nor am I for armor that promotes exposure of skin and vital spots of the body. If you had read my post you would understand this. One thing to be beautiful...whole nother thing with it on the battlefield. If you think blatantly that the over exposure of T&A is empowering to women then you are lying to women. The only people who should say how women should be beautiful are women themselves. Calling yourself a feminine expression advocate is not only a blatant lie and laughably pathetic but is dangerous to women. It's like your Weinstien or some other person who wants to give "advice" to women. Using big words and false friendly terms to objectify how a "strong" woman looks like....

I didn't say you wanted bikinis, I was just expressing my opinion that I'd want exposing armor on my male characters too. I think the primary reason lots of people would want it is so they have the option of something that isn't a buttcape to wear that also shows some of the avatar's legs that can be mixed with other armor options, not simply for the sake of wearing as little as possible.

And you think the freedom of exposing their bodies is empowerment is a lie? So feminism is a lie? Well thank goodness you said it and not me.

And none of this is saying how women should be beautiful. It is and always has been about the freedom of wearing what they want without people like you chastizing them for it...I guess you're at least holding up your end of the bargain. You're not shaming women for wearing exposing clothes, you're shaming men for liking it, society for allowing men to like it and shaming logical people in the middle trying to explain why your view is contradictory.

You're slowly starting to understand what I am saying. Showing one's body in a sexual way is not feminism. How, in any way, does it help promote women as a whole other than give them an image as someone who would only use their sexual assets to promote themselves? Like any group that is non white male, asking for rights but to turn around and only use one asset of their whole being? Would that then be a degradation to those women who want to get into fields that do not require "sexuality" then have to walk around in skimpy attire or bikinis? I am not going to chastise them for wearing what they please. But appearances can tell you a lot about a person. I am also not going to shame my fellow man for enjoying something. But what I am going to do is fight the legitimization that somehow only "strong" and "empowered" women wear sexy clothing or bikinis.

This is probably the closest I'll get to an SJdub in actually direct discussion as most normal people I talk to don't actually like or use and disagree with views that directly target people by proxy of group identities such as male, straight, people of color, white, etc. Those identities have a meaning but those idenities are not entities that exist. They are merely categories that don't carry agency, goals, beliefs or rights themselves. It's the individual people that carry and mix those identities that have these things.

The ideology that we need to promote women (the identity) rather than women (the actual individuals) is why feminism has created such a bizarre contradictory and backwards atmosphere that has you so confused on the subject. You say showing one's body in a sexual way is not feminism when feminism has said that very thing (in defense of sex workers) as well as the opposite at the same time. Degradation to women? Using only one asset? Fighting against sexy women being considered strong? If you truly believe this group identity is a living being that exists, at what point do you start treating this group identity (women) as an adult rather than a child that must be protected from the ills of the world?

But this is getting off topic and likely will get this thread closed.

On topic: Introducing a bikini isn't legitimizing sexy women as being the ONLY strong and empowered women. I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion.

First off, Kudos to you for having deep points. Let's delve in shall we? The ability for women to express themselves freely has been a part of feminism forever. I do not disagree on this. A woman should be free to dress how she pleases without fear of harassment or recrimination of any kind. I can understand if I am in some way confused by the twists and turns of the basis of promoting women's identity vs. the individual. But there are very understandable things to it. You make an example of sex workers. Now, I am not going to be offended by their choice of profession. But I do not think they have a right to cry foul tbh. Whether Female or Male individuals in this area, it is not a job that I would consider the promotion of either gender. Nor does it promote the human race in any way. Let's be clear on this that I do not believe I am above them either. But, as stated, with the amount of money the sex industry makes, what people feel should be the least of their worries. Let's continue. I do treat this subject with both thoughts towards adults and children. Because you sit in a world whose mindset is that "sex sells." Tv, movies, comics, games, etc. You can see that in the most predominant cases that each image of the women involved always seem meet a certain requirement. This game does this as well. For example, Eir Stegalkin. Wording this will be tricky but here we go. Eir is an older lady who has fought many battles. And yet, every time we see her she appears young and without blemish. Why? A woman who has dedicated her life in the fight against Elder Dragons and she does not have a scar of any kind? Yet her image is that of what a strong woman is supposed to be...despite that she has led a very hard life she appears young and unblemished. So furthermore to this, what are women and girls supposed to think when this is not only applied to GW2 but to everything else as well? I am not saying beauty should not be celebrated...what I am saying is that beauty/sex appeal should not be made predominant to who a woman is. Similar that a man should not be judged on the amount or lack of muscles he has. A bikini would be adding to this and is one half of the basis of why I am against it. I feel that it furthers the legitimization of "a woman should be sexy." Plenty of cases throughout real life, gaming, etc. where a woman did not show off their body through armor or other measures and yet were beautiful. One example to give, in one of my favorite tow separate book series The Belgariod and The Mallorean series is a lady named Polgara. She never wore sexy clothes. And yet she was always one of the most beautiful (and powerful) women around. In the end, adding bikini armor, in my opinion, hurts the character and further sets a mindset that showing more T&A is more important to the character then say the fighting prowess or the intelligence of the character. And, whether you consider the importance of the character being real or just a silly pixel image, I believe it would promote a false legitimization to girls and women that showing one's bodily assets are just as, if not more, important towards strength.

[Ashen.2907]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.

Id just like to touch on this for a second, i dont want to see men

or

women run around in little floppy bits of clothing that covers almost nothing in real life to begin with. It has nothing to do with the it being sexualiziation, it has everything to do with modesty, of which ive been told i have far to much of, my point on that will still stand. On top of that, having something like a bikini count as "armor" is something ill be against /forever/ because i know for a fact if i was going to go up against a dragon i wouldnt want to do it in a bloody bikini, and the concept is an idiotic trope in RPG, that i would love to see one game not do.

Would you want to go up against a dragon wearing a silk shirt and skirt? A blouse and tights? Wielding a sword with a blade insufficiently long to penetrate the dragon's scales? Wearing plate armor that would cook you alive if exposed to dragon's breath?

Against the threats faced by characters in gw2 the heaviest, most absolutely covering, armor in the game provides essentially no more protection that a miniskirt and blouse. So, if I had to choose between heavy, uncomfortable, sweaty, physically exhausting to wear (and I have worn heavy armor) and something light and comfortable that provides essentially the same protection...the choice seems obvious.

sigh

my point about modesty and what i do and do not like seeing went right over your head didnt it? The "Roleplay" part is minor compared to the former, and thankfully as a Charr i dont get alot of the skimpy/revealing clothing and i can pick the ones that look the most realistic, and the most covering, the latter of which, i value far more over the former. As i stated in a response to Leo, i

dont

want to see a bunch of people running around in almost no clothes what so freaking ever, it doesnt matter

what

kind of setting its in.

Forgive me

for not making that clearer in my original post. If this ever trope got added i would hope that anet added an option to have all characters wearing it show up in town clothes or something similar, as i dont want to see it.

I didn't respond to your point about modesty because that is a matter of personal preference. I responded specifically to your second, listed as separate from concerns about modesty, point regarding combat attire for fighting against a powerful foe.

So no, your point about modesty didn't go over my head, but perhaps mine about gear coverage went over yours. If your concern is about modesty then it wouldn't matter what activity you are engaging in, in public, while wearing a bikini. You specifically reference combat against a large, presumably dangerous, foe. Combat effectiveness, as regards to gear, in GW2 has no connection to that gear's coverage or real world applicability.

So, be modest in game. Don't wear revealing armor. Ignore others who are running around in more revealing options. Express an opinion about the negative impact of any addition of bikinis as armor to your heart's content.....but pretending that there is anything to support the preference in terms of efficacy/realism/etc in a game where a cloth bra can protect against mortar fire is ludicrous.

For what its worth, I would prefer a more realistic aesthetic in terms of armor and weapons for the game myself. If bikinis were to be available in the game, I would prefer that they provide zero armor value, just as I would prefer that to be the case for light (and most medium) armor in general.

[Dante.1763]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:I find myself trapped in a very bizarre world. The people who used to chastise me for my prudishness now themselves aim to censor.I feel the same way. I have nothing against modesty and what not, but the OP isn't asking for twerking and poledancing emotes, which certainly might be construed as sexualization...it's just something any normal woman IRL can wear outside...but we have to censor it for some reason...it's a wierd world indeed.

Id just like to touch on this for a second, i dont want to see men

or

women run around in little floppy bits of clothing that covers almost nothing in real life to begin with. It has nothing to do with the it being sexualiziation, it has everything to do with modesty, of which ive been told i have far to much of, my point on that will still stand. On top of that, having something like a bikini count as "armor" is something ill be against /forever/ because i know for a fact if i was going to go up against a dragon i wouldnt want to do it in a bloody bikini, and the concept is an idiotic trope in RPG, that i would love to see one game not do.

Would you want to go up against a dragon wearing a silk shirt and skirt? A blouse and tights? Wielding a sword with a blade insufficiently long to penetrate the dragon's scales? Wearing plate armor that would cook you alive if exposed to dragon's breath?

Against the threats faced by characters in gw2 the heaviest, most absolutely covering, armor in the game provides essentially no more protection that a miniskirt and blouse. So, if I had to choose between heavy, uncomfortable, sweaty, physically exhausting to wear (and I have worn heavy armor) and something light and comfortable that provides essentially the same protection...the choice seems obvious.

sigh

my point about modesty and what i do and do not like seeing went right over your head didnt it? The "Roleplay" part is minor compared to the former, and thankfully as a Charr i dont get alot of the skimpy/revealing clothing and i can pick the ones that look the most realistic, and the most covering, the latter of which, i value far more over the former. As i stated in a response to Leo, i

dont

want to see a bunch of people running around in almost no clothes what so freaking ever, it doesnt matter

what

kind of setting its in.

Forgive me

for not making that clearer in my original post. If this ever trope got added i would hope that anet added an option to have all characters wearing it show up in town clothes or something similar, as i dont want to see it.

I didn't respond to your point about modesty because that is a matter of personal preference. I responded specifically to your second, listed as separate from concerns about modesty, point regarding combat attire for fighting against a powerful foe.

So no, your point about modesty didn't go over my head, but perhaps mine about gear coverage went over yours. If your concern is about modesty then it wouldn't matter what activity you are engaging in, in public, while wearing a bikini. You specifically reference combat against a large, presumably dangerous, foe. Combat effectiveness, as regards to gear, in GW2 has no connection to that gear's coverage or real world applicability.

So, be modest in game. Don't wear revealing armor. Ignore others who are running around in more revealing options. Express an opinion about the negative impact of any addition of bikinis as armor to your heart's content.....but pretending that there is anything to support the preference in terms of efficacy/realism/etc in a game where a cloth bra can protect against mortar fire is ludicrous.

For what its worth, I would prefer a more realistic aesthetic in terms of armor and weapons for the game myself. If bikinis were to be available in the game, I would prefer that they provide zero armor value, just as I would prefer that to be the case for light (and most medium) armor in general.

Most of you what you put here, i already addressed in my response to Leos 2nd response to my post, so at least we are on the same page kinda, and if it did get added(due to lack of clothing not affecting anything), i want an option to not see it(Standard models isnt the answer, as that hides everyone.), because if it did get added, it would be very prevalent.

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:The ability for women to express themselves freely has been a part of feminism forever. I do not disagree on this. A woman should be free to dress how she pleases without fear of harassment or recrimination of any kind.

No. Women are not 1st class citizens that have rights above every other citizen (or they shouldn't be). They (the adults) will be treated like all other adults and can/will be subjected to the same amount of harassment and recrimination that their actions require. No person should be above and protected from these things call social stigmas.

@kapri.5918 said:I can understand if I am in some way confused by the twists and turns of the basis of promoting women's identity vs. the individual. But there are very understandable things to it. You make an example of sex workers. Now, I am not going to be offended by their choice of profession. But I do not think they have a right to cry foul tbh.

Is it not a tinge hypocritical to withold the ability to express an opinion while descriminating by an individual's choice of profession?

@kapri.5918 said:Whether Female or Male individuals in this area, it is not a job that I would consider the promotion of either gender. Nor does it promote the human race in any way. Let's be clear on this that I do not believe I am above them either. But, as stated, with the amount of money the sex industry makes, what people feel should be the least of their worries.

Frankly, it's not about who feels what, it's about the double standards being held, not by those sex workers, but by the regular people going out of their way to make other regular people adhere to the same faulty double standards they hold.

@kapri.5918 said:Let's continue. I do treat this subject with both thoughts towards adults and children. Because you sit in a world whose mindset is that "sex sells." Tv, movies, comics, games, etc. You can see that in the most predominant cases that each image of the women involved always seem meet a certain requirement. This game does this as well. For example, Eir Stegalkin. Wording this will be tricky but here we go. Eir is an older lady who has fought many battles. And yet, every time we see her she appears young and without blemish. Why? A woman who has dedicated her life in the fight against Elder Dragons and she does not have a scar of any kind? Yet her image is that of what a strong woman is supposed to be...despite that she has led a very hard life she appears young and unblemished. So furthermore to this, what are women and girls supposed to think when this is not only applied to GW2 but to everything else as well?

I will demonstrate the double standard here. You just explained a particular beauty standard and in the same paragraph you say:

@kapri.5918 said:I am not saying beauty should not be celebrated...what I am saying is that beauty/sex appeal should not be made predominant to who a woman is. Similar that a man should not be judged on the amount or lack of muscles he has.

This conflates that "beauty standards" are literal for women when, in fact, men are far less likely to judge a woman's appearance against the ideal beauty standard (there have been studies to attest to this) than a woman is...who is also apparently being oppressed by said beauty standard. To word it simply, men don't mind a non-ideal woman.

On the other hand, muscles aren't the standard for men's attractiveness...that tends to lean more on height among other things. I won't go into the standards for men...

@kapri.5918 said:A bikini would be adding to this and is one half of the basis of why I am against it. I feel that it furthers the legitimization of "a woman should be sexy." Plenty of cases throughout real life, gaming, etc. where a woman did not show off their body through armor or other measures and yet were beautiful. One example to give, in one of my favorite tow separate book series The Belgariod and The Mallorean series is a lady named Polgara. She never wore sexy clothes. And yet she was always one of the most beautiful (and powerful) women around. In the end, adding bikini armor, in my opinion, hurts the character and further sets a mindset that showing more T&A is more important to the character then say the fighting prowess or the intelligence of the character. And, whether you consider the importance of the character being real or just a silly pixel image, I believe it would promote a false legitimization to girls and women that showing one's bodily assets are just as, if not more, important towards strength.

Firstly, take into consideration that your stance may be projecting. You assume wearing certain clothes = sexy (that wouldn't be wrong, in lots of cases) then jump to the conclusion that this "legitimizes women being forced to be sexy". Secondly, your example...I haven't seen it. To be considered sexy is subjective and cannot be made an example of unless it's a widely shared opinion (maybe it is) but dismiss the components of what makes a woman sexy...that is beauty and personality/attitude. Power and intelligence tends not to be in that equation.

The folly you're committing isn't that you want people to stop believing that powerful and intelligent women must be sexy but rather you don't want people to believe powerful and intelligent women CAN be sexy too. By all logic of your argument, you don't want females to put these ideals together either by promoting unattractiveness (good luck with that) or shaming people who like attractiveness (good luck with that also).

[Leo G.4501]

@Ashen.2907 said:For what its worth, I would prefer a more realistic aesthetic in terms of armor and weapons for the game myself. If bikinis were to be available in the game, I would prefer that they provide zero armor value, just as I would prefer that to be the case for light (and most medium) armor in general.

I'd advocate for realistic aesthetics in the form of less glowing/floating/whatever other bizarre effects that armors have more of as the game progresses, but that's just me. I think the armor situation would be 500% better if they, instead, took various armors that had already existed and just added variations of them. For example: one of the medium coats, make an alternate version that is closed and another that is short; one of the light armors, have it tight or skimpy on the females with a variant that is loose and covered. Etc. etc.

I figure, at some point, people would tire of glowing effects and settle with certain looks but maybe I'm actually the minority and everyone adores all the bright flashy armor that all seem to have the same annoying bits they want to wish away but get bighter and flashier options instead.

@Dante.1763 said:Most of you what you put here, i already addressed in my response to Leos 2nd response to my post, so at least we are on the same page kinda, and if it did get added(due to lack of clothing not affecting anything), i want an option to not see it(Standard models isnt the answer, as that hides everyone.), because if it did get added, it would be very prevalent.

FYI, I didn't respond to that post because I had no objections to it. Beyond desiring different outcomes, we do not misunderstand each other, as far as I can see.

[kapri.5918]

"No. Women are not 1st class citizens that have rights above every other citizen (or they shouldn't be). They (the adults) will be treated like all other adults and can/will be subjected to the same amount of harassment and recrimination that their actions require. No person should be above and protected from these things call social stigmas."

I can actually agree to this. Though I would not say stigma as it be-notes a certain bigotry. More along the lines of a social standard.

"Is it not a tinge hypocritical to withold the ability to express an opinion while descriminating by an individual's choice of profession?"

A person cannot state their opinion without being discriminatory towards someone else. You may find a consensus with others but there will always be an individual or individuals who feels "offended" by that opinion. To hold one's piece on something though is up to the individual or group alone. That opinion should be allowed to be expressed freely but is ultimately determined by the person with the opinion and at what level importance they hold it. Various reasons will dictate this choice.

"Frankly, it's not about who feels what, it's about the double standards being held, not by those sex workers, but by the regular people going out of their way to make other regular people adhere to the same faulty double standards they hold."

We, as a society, have always held the notion on how people should be. Even in today we hold the standard of what it is to be "cool" or relevant. From the type of clothes, car, the music you listen to, even onto the petty little things have we always adhered to an image set by political leaders, religious leaders, celebrities. We follow those we deem important to tell us what is important and what is taboo. My thoughts on that though is I could care less about what you have. You could be richer than me. You could be a world leader. Or you could be some poor fellow homeless on the street. Who are you. The masses throughout history have shown in how badly in decision making they are. It is the individual I care about. Do you follow the lines like everyone else or do you do your best to stand out and be different? But I am straying.

"This conflates that "beauty standards" are literal for women when, in fact, men are far less likely to judge a woman's appearance against the ideal beauty standard (there have been studies to attest to this) than a woman is...who is also apparently being oppressed by said beauty standard. To word it simply, men don't mind a non-ideal woman.

On the other hand, muscles aren't the standard for men's attractiveness...that tends to lean more on height among other things. I won't go into the standards for men..."

Have you not seen a magazine section of a store? How many magazines are displayed dedicated to women's beauty? That this is the way to look? Same goes for men's health magazines. Men predominantly will not solely judge a woman on her appearance alone. But us men, as a whole will not chase after that girl we do not know that do not meet a certain expectation. I cannot ask you as an individual to honestly answer this but it is true nonetheless that a woman not "prettied up" will be passed over for a woman that is "pretty." The same standard is held to men as well. As a man who is not muscled nor skinny I can attest the fact that women will pass me over for a guy who is in shape and all. How many times has guys like me heard "you're a good/nice guy..."... a lot.

"Firstly, take into consideration that your stance may be projecting. You assume wearing certain clothes = sexy (that wouldn't be wrong, in lots of cases) then jump to the conclusion that this "legitimizes women being forced to be sexy". Secondly, your example...I haven't seen it. To be considered sexy is subjective and cannot be made an example of unless it's a widely shared opinion (maybe it is) but dismiss the components of what makes a woman sexy...that is beauty and personality/attitude. Power and intelligence tends not to be in that equation."

Projecting...maybe. I also don't assume wearing certain clothes = sexy. They do. Example, take a picture of a real life nurse. Is she, by the standards set of this day and age, sexy? No. But if you take this same woman and dress her in a sexy nurse outfit then yes. Even if you do not dress her that far but add what is the fashion sense of today. Breasts exposed and pushed up. Legs, thighs, and more showing. Full on makeup. Then she is sexy. I use this as a comparison and nothing else. As for forcing people to be "sexy" let me share an article with you.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/instagram-influencer-says-dress-coded-louvre-picasso-loved-outfit-182239493.html

Now, my opinion is this. She has the right to wear what she wanted to. But she did this for selfish reasons. She also tried to fight the standards. To which, I feel, were inappropriate. Why? Because visitors to an art museum should not deflect from the art nor treat the art in a way that disrespects it or detracts it. The lady in question then said that she was being "artful" but in this case was being disrespectful as it is not her place to be artful. I am not trying to be disrespectful to her as an individual but her actions were disrespectful. She is not a part of the museum but she went there to force herself to be an art piece. The final thing that she stated was that she said that Picasso would have loved her. Beauty may be subjective but our society has clearly defined what is beauty. Finally, Intelligence is a guiding force towards one's personality. If one does not have intelligence then how can an individual have a personality? If I am to ever meet a woman that I would be lucky enough to have a date or even share a coffee with (let alone share their time) I would hope that that woman is intelligent enough to determine who she is instead of following the norm. The I like it because everyone likes it is degrading in anyone. A woman who is not afraid to speak up. That can debate and reason. A women that follows what a magazine tells her or what the latest fashion trend is just an object. Something that exists and yet exercises no free will. A woman who doesn't seek to appease society and follow the rules because that's how it is done. I kind of feel like I am going to be lamb basted now...

[Sugar Min.5834]

All I want for Christmas from ANet is a swimsuit and you guys have to turn it into a 10 page debate on sexism and feminism? Can't a girl get something nice in GW2? -.-

[TheBravery.9615]

@Mil.3562 said:All I want for Christmas from ANet is a swimsuit and you guys have to turn it into a 10 page debate on sexism and feminism? Can't a girl get something nice in GW2? -.-

lmao this is why we can't have nice things. People get so defensive about articles of clothing in a video game it's ridiculous.

[Ardid.7203]

The simple point of variety outright defeats any pretension of self declared realism, IMO. Is way more important to offer variety than to respect some narrow paradigm that doesn't even fit with everyone's.

Would I use the bikini mail on my characters? Nor very probable.Would I like to have it added to the game? Yes, of course.Would I prefer to have an alternative to the actual underwear atrocities? Yes.

[kharmin.7683]

My expectation is that ANet would be afraid of offending some of the female gaming community or any possible backlash (public or otherwise) against producing chain mail bikinis that they simply won't do it.

[Zaoda.1653]

I know there'll be plenty of nay-sayers that are like 'zomg this is not what GW2 is about and it's so unrealistic' to which I say puhhh-leaaase! There are many unrealistic things in GW2 that I suppose they ignore too, like HATS and TSHIRTS and SUNGLASSES - in a magical world. So ignoring all those people and their logic...

I think bikini skins would be a good idea, and also have an underwear option (like lord faren's famous red speedo) and bare chest skin for males (especially to hide those hideous trench coats that medium classes keep getting!). I'd pay good money for skins like that.

[Zaoda.1653]

@Warkind.6745 said:Requirement in a Korean MMO maybe.

They've had bikinis in Southsun forever though and people have been asking for those just as long. Maybe one day Anet will finally add them to the gem store for you guys.

I hope so. Lord Faren's red speedo as a leg skin would be awesome. Same with a bare chest skin for males.

[Lahmia.2193]

@Warkind.6745 said:Requirement in a Korean MMO maybe.

They've had bikinis in Southsun forever though and people have been asking for those just as long. Maybe one day Anet will finally add them to the gem store for you guys.

I'm surprised they didn't add any with the last Four Winds Festival. They even had an artpiece of various swimsuits for male and female characters.

[rdfaye.4368]

My personal opinion: Nope, don't like the bikinis on anyone and don't want to see them in game. One of the reasons I play GW2 is it has limited numbers of skimpy armor which, to my eye, look not only unsafe but uncomfortable. (A miniskirt is about the last thing I would wear while running through a jungle. Sooo many scratches, bruises, and insect bites.) I also like that GW2 does not look like other mmorpg's I this and in many other style choices the devs have made.

Dyeable underwear for use during non-combat swimming would be fine. Again, just voicing my opinion, if yours is different that is fine.

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

[perilisk.1874]

Wouldn't be bad to have some outfits suited for swimming and summer fun, for both sexes. If you can dye it metallic, so much the better. I'll make sure to buy Speedo Armor and get my Lord Faren RP on.

[kapri.5918]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"kapri.5918" said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

amusing thread.

[DarkForcE.9210]

It's funny most MMOs female armors are more naked in late games

[Khaliel.3918]

Never, hopefuly.

[Durzlla.6295]

If they add Bikini armor the male equivalent better be speedo armor, none of this feathered armor shit, we want armor equality damn it! Let female characters walk around covered in 20 layers of steel and let male characters run around nearly naked!

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.

You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.

[kharmin.7683]

Target age demographic or even moral stances from other countries where GW2 is available might also preclude such an endeavor.

[kapri.5918]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.

You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.

No, it does not. Especially since this is a game where this is the only point that would hold up having bikinis as armor. And you keep dodging my arguments. That doesn't help you.

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.

You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.

No, it does not. Especially since this is a game where this is the only point that would hold up having bikinis as armor. And you keep dodging my arguments. That doesn't help you.

What argument? The only other portion of the post that had an argument had to do with depth of lore and likely immersion. Are you arguing that swim suits don't exist in the lore of GW2? Or that magic predicates the form that their clothing takes? Or that swim suit skins/outfits is the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I'm waiting to hear a better statement, hopefully not bogged down with other political messages, of what the game needs and doesn't need. But while saying that, I'm also not petty enough to press a dialog when there really is no room for it, for example, with @Dante.1763.