Guild Wars 2

I’m pretty disturbed by the watchknights in this update.. I find it hard to believe that a Jenna, a confident, powerful female leader would endorse these glorified ‘fem-bots’.

I think it’s one thing for player’s avatars to be able to represent multiple facets of a particular gender (being living, sentient characters there’s an implication of personal choice, which i totally advocate), but an engineered construct that is overtly feminine (they even have high heels!) and overtly sexual (part of the art on their “anatomy” implies nudity) is worrying because they are representations of women with no agency of their own made to obey, whilst being thin, tall and busty, and worst of all silent. They are obedient, objectified women designed to serve.

I think I would less concerned if there was equal gender representation, but I’m yet to see any male watchknights, meaning that it’s a clear choice on the developers behalf. I dunno, I just don’t like it. It’s perhaps a small thing but I think it’s lazy and simplistic, particularly from a game that I think has some very compelling and engaging content that promotes collaboration, community, cooperation, compassion and a real sense of collectivity.

Interested in others thoughts.

To me, they’re modelled after Amazonians. Would you prefer if she surrounded herself with hulky half dressed man bots?

They’re not sex bots. They’re dangerous warriors intended to defend the realm. Why is it a bad thing that these defenders were modelled after women? Is Xena a bad example too, should she have been Male?

I agree. The idea of mechanised people, even mechanised women, is fine. But the degree to which they appear to be a “Male Gamer aged 17-35” fantasy is excessive.

I can’t stand them personally. What happened to ANet supporting a less sexualised game than many others? I think 9ft tall women with ornately detailed buttocks and nipples is sexualised by anyone’s standard.

They don’t look as though they were designed to defend, rather that they were designed to titillate. If they spend the majority of their functional time under mesmer spell anyway, why not go for a more mannequin-esque design?

They could have appeared feminine or human or exotic or interesting in many ways without resorting to the simulation of a naked female in stiletto heels. I do not like this appearance for them at all.

FYI, Jennah is a Watchknight in disguise.

Rytlock Brimstone: She’s a Watchknight, isn’t she?

Zojja: I’m impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?

Rytlock Brimstone: I don’t get it, Zojja.

Zojja: How many questions?

Rytlock Brimstone: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.

Zojja: It took more than a hundred for Jennah, didn’t it?

Rytlock Brimstone: [realizing Logan believes she’s human] He doesn’t know.

Zojja: He’s beginning to suspect, I think.

Rytlock Brimstone: Suspect? How can he not know what it is?

Caithe’ll be wandering round making origami unicorns next ;-)

Just because it is modeled after a femakitten dy does not automatically make it sexual in nature. Some people are just to hyper sensitive about the human body its a little ridiculous. They are made of armor hence why they look “naked” and as for the slender design that’s easy to explain its called efficiency. I see the watchknights as a beautiful piece of craftsmanship nothing more. And to be quite honest to accuse Anet of being sexist with them is a little ignorant. Just look at great sculpters of the past they did not do them for the sexuality, but for the celebration of the human form. Try to look at them for what they are not for what form they were created after. Then you might see that they are just awesome pieces of mechanical ingenuity.

IT’s ART! No different than the statue of david or The Birth of Venus. Now stop complaining. You are Not taking this game in a backward direction!

Elbegast.6970:

FYI, Jennah is a Watchknight in disguise.

Rytlock Brimstone: She’s a Watchknight, isn’t she?

Zojja: I’m impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?

Rytlock Brimstone: I don’t get it, Zojja.

Zojja: How many questions?

Rytlock Brimstone: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.

Zojja: It took more than a hundred for Jennah, didn’t it?

Rytlock Brimstone: [realizing Logan believes she’s human] He doesn’t know.

Zojja: He’s beginning to suspect, I think.

Rytlock Brimstone: Suspect? How can he not know what it is?

Nice Blade Runner crossover….I like it

TottWriter.8591:

I agree. The idea of mechanised people, even mechanised women, is fine. But the degree to which they appear to be a “Male Gamer aged 17-35” fantasy is excessive.

I can’t stand them personally. What happened to ANet supporting a less sexualised game than many others? I think 9ft tall women with ornately detailed buttocks and nipples is sexualised by anyone’s standard.

They don’t look as though they were designed to defend, rather that they were designed to titillate. If they spend the majority of their functional time under mesmer spell anyway, why not go for a more mannequin-esque design?

They could have appeared feminine or human or exotic or interesting in many ways without resorting to the simulation of a naked female in stiletto heels. I do not like this appearance for them at all.

Sexualised ART is OK! As long as artistic in nature, which Watchnights are.

Michelangelo was a sexist!

kitten him for making a statue of a naked man.

Personally, I don’t find computer bits to be appealing. I definitely don’t find computer bits that are designed to look like clocks to be appealing.

I think that your concerns are unwarranted. Treat them as they are, computer generated clocks that fight.

I think what they were going for was a female design because the queen is female. They are supposed to be strong opponents in a reflective image of a Mesmer queen that kicked an entire armies behind.
They just came out a bit… weird.

Farzo.8410:

Michelangelo was a sexist!

kitten him for making a statue of a naked man.

Michelangelo was making ART of the human anatomy. You fail to understand that Michelangelo’s knowledge in anatomy has had a impact on early physicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo

I agree with the OP.
Heels in combat? Really? This epeeist isn’t buying it. Yes, it’s a fantasy game set in a fantasy world and blah blah blah, but the anvil of disbelief has just fallen with a resounding crash for me. The watchknight-fembot-things tottering around on their stilettos are some of the silliest things I have ever seen in a game.

How about some truly sinister, or at least dignified, clockwork guardians that don’t feed into already-pervasive sexual stereotypes? Why does a killer robot need to have a gender, anyway? Dr. Who managed to do without it; why can’t you, ArenaNet?

Finally, if ArenaNet is insistent upon indulging players’ fantasies in its game, then I at least demand equal time. I’d like some buff, mostly-naked male NPCs to leer at, myself. Actually, given the state of undress of the fembots, let’s go for the full monty.

They are OK as they are. You know anyone offended by them are taking way to close of a look at them.

Also I want heels for my female characters in combat and town clothing. I don’t care if it isn’t realistic.

I must be getting prudish as I’m about to turn 38. My first reaction to seeing them was "really?". Then there was some "bow chika wow wow" that swiftly went back to "whatever". Maybe it’s a weird homage to the fembots from Austin Powers or something.

And then super centaur with the spread gun from Contra started making things interesting.

If you think the high heels was bad see my thread for more provocative stuff!

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/jubilee/Watchknights-chests/first#post2569141

Here are the reasons why the Watchknights are NOT concerning for me.

When I look at these robots, I see strong, towering symbols of power and beauty. I see robots designed with the purpose to be respected and even feared.

I guess for me, I don’t see being female/feminine as a weakness. I’m not the kind of person who judges ones value or capabilities based on what they are, or aren’t wearing.

That being said, I’m going to switch gears for a moment here.

Lets be honest with what is happening here. There are some players in this thread that are claiming sexism. They are projecting their personal beliefs onto these characters and looking for reasons to support those beliefs.

That is their right to do so, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

Sexism is something we need to be aware of and discuss. We need to make sure we keep the conversation going so we don’t make the mistake of anyone being treated unequal.

However, we also need to be reasonable. We can’t allow ourselves to simply react when we see something, without first looking at it in context. Calling “foul” just because these robots happen to be feminine, and are “sexualized” is, in my opinion, being overly sensitive.

There is nothing about these robots that say anything about being weak, objectified, or undervalued.

I admit that my post is a little haphazard. The reason is because whenever someone walks into a conversation and starts throwing around claims of sexism, peppered with buzzwords, it becomes very difficult to have a counter opinion.

We have already seen in this post how because of the design of these robots, these automatically become some assumed sexual fantasy for males.

We need to be very careful here to keep our critical thinking hats on.

Onshidesigns.1069:

Farzo.8410:

Michelangelo was a sexist!

kitten him for making a statue of a naked man.

Michelangelo was making ART of the human anatomy. You fail to understand that Michelangelo’s knowledge in anatomy has had a impact on early physicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo

No kitten Sherlock.

Did you think I was serious?

I’m just making a fool of the people who goes ‘’ArenaNet are sexists for making Watchknights female.’’

I knew this would be brought up eventually.

I didn’t even notice. I thought it was some walking clock.

I just looked at the gaps between the butt and legs starting, and in the arms and thought, “weak spots, would be easy to take out those flimsy looking rods”.

They are art deco, reminds me a lot of the bronze statues in rapture city, from bioshock.

What disturbs me about their inclusion in the game, however, is that they seem to come from nowhere. Where is the factory that makes them? Surely they are not hand made in little backstreet clockmakers shops?

What would have been awesome would be if these were a symbol of the human union with the charr. They would combine charr clockwork cleverness with the human sense of beauty, resulting in an elegant yet merciless army of incorruptible clockwork agents.

Without the factory, without the charr involvement, they just seem too deus ex machine and have been conjured from thin air, which is unsatisfying.

chronometria.3708:

They are art deco, reminds me a lot of the bronze statues in rapture city, from bioshock.

What disturbs me about their inclusion in the game, however, is that they seem to come from nowhere. Where is the factory that makes them? Surely they are not hand made in little backstreet clockmakers shops?

What would have been awesome would be if these were a symbol of the human union with the charr. They would combine charr clockwork cleverness with the human sense of beauty, resulting in an elegant yet merciless army of incorruptible clockwork agents.

Without the factory, without the charr involvement, they just seem too deus ex machine and have been conjured from thin air, which is unsatisfying.

Well, to be fair, there are always stuff popping up into the world and we have no idea where it comes from.

I get what you’re saying, but at this point any real explanation would work. The queen, being a queen has access to resources that others don’t. She may have had them commissioned in some other part of the world, by someone we don’t have access to.

In the end, I think they are just really awesomely designed robots. It is such a nice change from the clunky Golums, and Ausra glowing stuff.

When I first walked up to one and looked up, I was like, “Whoa, cool!” I saw the giant staff and wondered what it would be like to fight them.

Actually, my biggest disappointment with these is when I was fighting in the arena thing, these Watchknights are as large as I am. That made me sad because I thought about how epic it would be to go toe to toe with one of these robots.

Other than that nitpick, I think these are really well designed.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I guess for me, I don’t see being female/feminine as a weakness. I’m not the kind of person who judges ones value or capabilities based on what they are, or aren’t wearing.

That being said, I’m going to switch gears for a moment here.

Lets be honest with what is happening here. There are some players in this thread that are claiming sexism. They are projecting their personal beliefs onto these characters and looking for reasons to support those beliefs.

I appreciate that femininity can be seen as a strength, and I am certainly not ashamed of my own femininity, but there is a difference between appreciating it and fetishising it, and I am of the opinion that the Watchknights represent the latter.

A woman’s breasts and backside are far too often objectified for their emphasis in the models to be automatically put down to “embracing the strength of women”. I’m not a self-hating woman at all, and I would relish the sight of strong female figures in the postion of defending humanity. But that’s not what the Watchknights are. They are highly sexualised figures. And what’s wrong with that, you ask? What’s wrong is that it is a body shape which is glamourised to such excess that women are shamed for not possessing it. It is an unrealistic, disproportionate representation of what real women actually look like.

Real women have curves, yes. They might have slender waists and large breasts and comparatively long legs. But they still don’t look like the Watchknights. They still have far wider waists, shorter legs. A nude woman with breasts that size is not that perky, trust me. And what about women who don’t have that wonderful “sexy” figure? Do they just get airbrushed out of life in the same way that wrinkles and cellulite are? Either this is a sexualised fantasy, in which case it is “logical” (though still distasteful IMO) that they do not appear, or it is a “celebration of femininity” in which case, why is it only “celebrating” the women who conform to the most narrow, unrealistic version of beauty which exists?

If there were a genuine celebration of the strength of women in the game I would be all for it. And heck, there is, in places. You have female characters getting stuff done as opposed to simply being the damsel in distress. (Though let’s be honest, none of them are ugly or too fat, because that doesn’t sell. All the heroes and heroines in games must also be appealing to the eye.)

Yes, people here are of the “opinion” that the Watchknights are sexist, unrealistic depictions of women put there because they are attractive to the male eye. That’s because there is very, very little evidence to the contrary.

Tott, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. You ignore it and brush it under the patriarchy. Your feeling of offense is not because there’s some master plot to sexualize women and promote them only through the male gaze.

In fact, where you see gross, unrealistic shapes that could forever ruin femininity, others see beauty and power in SPITE of form. The Watchknights are powerful regardless of how they look. However, all you see is how they look (women) and suppose that it MUST be sexualization, abuse of women, making women weak, etc.

It’s perspective, and your perspective is colored by sex-negative radical critical feminism.

TottWriter.8591:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I guess for me, I don’t see being female/feminine as a weakness. I’m not the kind of person who judges ones value or capabilities based on what they are, or aren’t wearing.

That being said, I’m going to switch gears for a moment here.

Lets be honest with what is happening here. There are some players in this thread that are claiming sexism. They are projecting their personal beliefs onto these characters and looking for reasons to support those beliefs.

I appreciate that femininity can be seen as a strength, and I am certainly not ashamed of my own femininity, but there is a difference between appreciating it and fetishising it, and I am of the opinion that the Watchknights represent the latter.

A woman’s breasts and backside are far too often objectified for their emphasis in the models to be automatically put down to “embracing the strength of women”. I’m not a self-hating woman at all, and I would relish the sight of strong female figures in the postion of defending humanity. But that’s not what the Watchknights are. They are highly sexualised figures. And what’s wrong with that, you ask? What’s wrong is that it is a body shape which is glamourised to such excess that women are shamed for not possessing it. It is an unrealistic, disproportionate representation of what real women actually look like.

Real women have curves, yes. They might have slender waists and large breasts and comparatively long legs. But they still don’t look like the Watchknights. They still have far wider waists, shorter legs. A nude woman with breasts that size is not that perky, trust me. And what about women who don’t have that wonderful “sexy” figure? Do they just get airbrushed out of life in the same way that wrinkles and cellulite are? Either this is a sexualised fantasy, in which case it is “logical” (though still distasteful IMO) that they do not appear, or it is a “celebration of femininity” in which case, why is it only “celebrating” the women who conform to the most narrow, unrealistic version of beauty which exists?

If there were a genuine celebration of the strength of women in the game I would be all for it. And heck, there is, in places. You have female characters getting stuff done as opposed to simply being the damsel in distress. (Though let’s be honest, none of them are ugly or too fat, because that doesn’t sell. All the heroes and heroines in games must also be appealing to the eye.)

Yes, people here are of the “opinion” that the Watchknights are sexist, unrealistic depictions of women put there because they are attractive to the male eye. That’s because there is very, very little evidence to the contrary.

I’m concerned that you are comparing your human body to that of a mechanical clockwork robot in a video game. That doesn’t seem healthy at all.

My point of course is that mechanical clockwork robots in a video game are not human people and thus they cannot be sexist. They do not promote any ideal as far as body figure for humans is concerned because they are not humans.

Sometimes a mechanical clockwork robot in a video game is just a mechanical clockwork robot in a video game.

cainejw.7142:

Tott, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. You ignore it and brush it under the patriarchy. Your feeling of offense is not because there’s some master plot to sexualize women and promote them only through the male gaze.

In fact, where you see gross, unrealistic shapes that could forever ruin femininity, others see beauty and power in SPITE of form. The Watchknights are powerful regardless of how they look. However, all you see is how they look (women) and suppose that it MUST be sexualization, abuse of women, making women weak, etc.

It’s perspective, and your perspective is colored by sex-negative radical critical feminism.

So, in order to be a rational person, I should be looking at them and seeing what they are in spite of how they look? Forget trivialities like what they actually look like, it’s what’s inside that counts?

It’s funny, because it almost sounds as though they didn’t need to have been made with the one female set of proportions which is held up as a standard for women across the world to attain or be deemed unattractive.

I don’t give a kitten about patriarchy. I care about the fact that the “celebration of femininity and strength” they display is one which millions of women starve themselves in an attempt to obtain, when it’s not even a body shape held by most of the poster women who flaunt it via photoshopped images across the world’s media.

And as for a plot? Of course it’s not a plot! We’re just so used to seeing that figure as representing “what women look like” that it’s the default go-to when designing a female character.

I don’t have the same super sexist view of them as the OP but I really have to question their design as well. Why would they go to all the effort of constructing these things with boobs and butts to bounce silver pieces off of? They’re robot soldiers, they shouldn’t look like S/M mistresses. High heels make even less sense. Platform, maybe a wedge, but not stiletto. That is not a stable design.

This is why I like the Asura. Golems are big bulky blocks of material. There is no “asthetic” in their design because their purpose is defined by what they do, not how they look. These things make no sense and wouldn’t have been designed this way, regardless of that they shouldn’t have been.

Kal Spiro.9745:

I don’t have the same super sexist view of them as the OP but I really have to question their design as well. Why would they go to all the effort of constructing these things with boobs and butts to bounce silver pieces off of? They’re robot soldiers, they shouldn’t look like S/M mistresses. High heels make even less sense. Platform, maybe a wedge, but not stiletto. That is not a stable design.

This is why I like the Asura. Golems are big bulky blocks of material. There is no “asthetic” in their design because their purpose is defined by what they do, not how they look. These things make no sense and wouldn’t have been designed this way, regardless of that they shouldn’t have been.

The Asura have always been about function over form. Humans tend to be form over function in real life, and that comes into play in game.

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

What kind of topic did I stumble into now….

*walks away slowly

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

I agree a lot with what is being said on both sides here. I’m an artist myself, and I certainly understand appreciation of artful and beautiful design, and I think that there is a lot to admire in what Anet does, and even in the design of these robots. And I’m certainly not advocating censorship, and I don’t even think that I’m ‘offended’ by them. They are figures of strength that demand a level of respect that perhaps echo that of the leader of the nation they are constructed to protect.

But that leader is represented as a strong, wilful, articulate, intelligent commanding individual who makes choices and affects the world around her. What the issue here is that a choice was made for these mindless automatons/constructs absent of this same agency (that we’ve seen yet, at least) to be modelled using culturally typical representations of the female form objectified.

It’s a question of semiotics. The symbols of strength, prowess, dominance and grace, all valuable in celebrating the in-game human race, could be just as easily articulated without the heels or alluding to nudity, or by only representing one gender with these constructs. By using these signs something is being said about gender, like it or not.

For me, it’s not about sexism, but rather representation. I think it’s not about censorship, but rather the creators of texts being mindful of the messages that are being articulated with their work, and in the case of artists, that there work seeks to subvert or destabilise culturally damaging assumptions, not reinforce them.

I don’t even see how this is up for debate, the Watchknights are perfectly fine. Stop over-exaggerating everything for offenses that don’t exist.

cainejw.7142:

Tott, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. You ignore it and brush it under the patriarchy. Your feeling of offense is not because there’s some master plot to sexualize women and promote them only through the male gaze.

In fact, where you see gross, unrealistic shapes that could forever ruin femininity, others see beauty and power in SPITE of form. The Watchknights are powerful regardless of how they look. However, all you see is how they look (women) and suppose that it MUST be sexualization, abuse of women, making women weak, etc.

It’s perspective, and your perspective is colored by sex-negative radical critical feminism.

They’re naked women fighting in dominatrix-style stiletto heels. I’m as conservative as southern girls come and I see the sexualization of these statues, too. I don’t understand how you and others can’t.

When I first seen these clock robots, I got a really creepy feeling, but in a good way.

Like, something isn’t right here. These are big, scary robots. Can we trust them? Where did they come from?

Of course being an asura, EVERYTHING is bigger than I am. The bigger they are, the scarier they are. Good thing I can bite ankles.

I won’t go into the sexism issue here. It would make about as much sense as going into the glorified violence issue, or violence against animals or humans. What makes one more important than another? What makes one more acceptable than the other?

This is a game. This is art. How we view it is entirely up to (and within) ourselves. It wouldn’t be worth much if it didn’t stimulate our thinking or feeling, good or bad, in some way.

mtpelion.4562:

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

Are you seriously claiming that they aren’t modeled after the female form?

Alleluia.1320:

cainejw.7142:

Tott, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. You ignore it and brush it under the patriarchy. Your feeling of offense is not because there’s some master plot to sexualize women and promote them only through the male gaze.

In fact, where you see gross, unrealistic shapes that could forever ruin femininity, others see beauty and power in SPITE of form. The Watchknights are powerful regardless of how they look. However, all you see is how they look (women) and suppose that it MUST be sexualization, abuse of women, making women weak, etc.

It’s perspective, and your perspective is colored by sex-negative radical critical feminism.

They’re naked women fighting in dominatrix-style stiletto heels. I’m as conservative as southern girls come and I see the sexualization of these statues, too. I don’t understand how you and others can’t.

Nudity =/= Sexualization

The human body isn’t scary and offensive to look at, it’s a natural form that can be appreciated without being sexualized.
The Watchknights have a nice style to them, the female form to them is more artistic and beautiful than sexy.

I’m not too much of a fan of heels but I don’t care that they’re there too, just saying that to say that.

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

Are you seriously claiming that they aren’t modeled after the female form?

Strawman Detected.

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Edit: Also, Anet, on another note, thank you so much for having no kittened, stupid flipping heavy armours with 8 inch heels. That means a lot to me. Seriously.

Look, its not that bad. It could have been worse.

adrad.3125:

It’s a question of semiotics. The symbols of strength, prowess, dominance and grace, all valuable in celebrating the in-game human race, could be just as easily articulated without the heels or alluding to nudity, or by only representing one gender with these constructs. By using these signs something is being said about gender, like it or not.

This. Thank you.

I just assumed they were an ode to Fritz Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis” . I think some of you may be getting upset over what should be a beautiful thing….a nod to a dead guy.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

Are you seriously claiming that they aren’t modeled after the female form?

Strawman Detected.

What are you talking about? That’s what you said. “They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.” /confused

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

Elbegast.6970:

I just assumed they were an ode to Fritz Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis” . I think some of you may be getting upset over what should be a beautiful thing….a nod to a dead guy.

Did those robots have those “bolts” on their chests and stiletto heels? I’ve never seen the movie, but somehow I doubt it. Correct me if I’m wrong, though.

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

High heels aren’t very practical, but they really hurt when you get kicked by them. Pray that these bots don’t realize this.

Stabby-Stabby Shoes™

If only they were voiced by Tricia Helfer…

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

Are you seriously claiming that they aren’t modeled after the female form?

Strawman Detected.

What are you talking about? That’s what you said. “They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.” /confused

I didn’t say that the female form did not influence the design, I said that there are no female models. They are mechanical clockwork robots. They can’t be females and thus it is not a female model.