Guild Wars 2

TottWriter.8591:

I would think of them like athletes if they had a body structure which I considered athletic. – snip -

Yes, but you’re arguing design from a practical perspective. This is a video game, not an MIT tech experiment. To argue that the design of these robots is, or isn’t practical in this fantasy word simply makes no sense.

This is the problem here. We are trying to justify a design idea to fit our own arguments. The reality is that it’s no more, or less practical/realistic than the rest of the game. They’re robots, they have boobs and high heels, and ya?

TottWriter.8591:

And in all honesty, that they are a female figure with breasts doesn’t concern me as much as the fact that the designers have gone to the effort of adding details which go above and beyond implying that the figure is nude (nipples, and contoured buttocks, for example). Once you get into a “nude” figure wandering around, that tends towards sexualisation in my view, be that figure male or female. I would have just as much problem were they male robots with nipples and a suspiciously ornate package and buttocks.

And you seem to be seeing this as negative. There are lots of characters in this game running around with outfits that are sexualized. The detail that goes into those characters and outfits are just as sexualized (for both genders).

To me, this isn’t a negative thing. I don’t view sexuality as negative. I’m not offended by males or females being sexual.

TottWriter.8591:

I’m not exactly sure what I have said to insult or offend if I’m honest. I’ve stated my point in as general a manner as I could, simply because that is the best way, in my opinion, to avoid going down a tangent towards personal attacks. My opinions differ from yours, yes, but that’s all they are. Different. I don’t see how my experience and viewpoint can be insulting.

Go back and look at the assumptions and generalizations you were making.

TottWriter.8591:

Elsewhere on the forums are posters requesting screenshots of the Watchknights’ chests and backsides so that they can use them as wallpaper. That is ample evidence, so far as I can see, that these figures are being fetishised. Do I think all men and all the designers fetishise them in this manner? Of course not. Heck, my boyfriend saw them before I did and he was more irritated by them than I was.

So?

There could be a lot of reasons why people want photos of them. You’re making gross assumptions again.

My question to you is. Why is it bad of some find these designs pleasing sexually, or otherwise?

TottWriter.8591:

Given ANet’s stated intention to not over-sexualise the game in the past, they are clearly a company aware of the potential for game assets to be taken in this fashion. I cannot imagine that this aspect of the Watchknights was something which no one brought up at any point in the design process.

Maybe that is because they don’t feel they are. Maybe you’re taking them out of context, and focusing too much on individual aspects of the design, instead of looking at them in context of the game?

I don’t see them as any more or less sexualized as anything else. The only reason I noticed them is because they’re new. I’ve been looking at centaurs, trolls, golems, and such for a year. Suddenly there is something new and I took notice.

TottWriter.8591:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

The question I have is why is this choice any more, or less valid than any other choice? Are we questioning it because they’re female?

Would we be asking the same questions if they were big “male” robots? Would be be asking why they’re big, muscular, and mean looking?

What does “big, muscular and mean looking” have to do specifically with masculinity?

I’ll be honest, if they were sexualised male robots, I absolutely would have a problem, because that wouldn’t be congruent with the design purpose. But I wouldn’t see a sexualised male figure as “mean-looking”, so perhaps that’s where I misunderstand.

A big, muscular, mean looking female form would be fantastic. That also is something that the Watchknights do not represent.

Masculine =/= sexualise, just as Feminine =/= sexualised.

I (along with many other posters here) feel that the specific model used by the Watchknights is indeed sexualised. That seems inappropriate for a combat unit no matter what the gender.

Honestly, I think everyone would have been perfectly happy with these fembots if they were at least twice as wide which huge muscles. Leave everything else exactly as it is, big boobs, tight butt and stilettos but make them giant monster women and everyone would have said amazon fighting women or norn, seems fine, moving on.

I suspect there are more people offended at the appearance of feminine robots than there are people perceive them in a way which the offended people suggest. Unless they have some story significance for their appearance, I suspect they are just consequences of a designer’s inspiration. Of all the possible sources of inspiration, I doubt it was ever intended to be disrespectful to women or suggestive of submissive women. I too wonder why they made the robots that way, but I don’t think it’s an issue.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Honestly, I think everyone would have been perfectly happy with these fembots if they were at least twice as wide which huge muscles. Leave everything else exactly as it is, big boobs, tight butt and stilettos but make them giant monster women and everyone would have said amazon fighting women or norn, seems fine, moving on.

I wouldn’t have been.

I don’t think they need to make them more “masculine.” I don’t see them as being any less for being feminine. They’re giant robots with blade weapons. They are beautiful and capable at the same time.

Despite what some may want us to believe, being strong, and being sexy are not mutually exclusive. There is more to strength than your body type, what clothing you’re wearing, or what gender you are.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Honestly, I think everyone would have been perfectly happy with these fembots if they were at least twice as wide which huge muscles. Leave everything else exactly as it is, big boobs, tight butt and stilettos but make them giant monster women and everyone would have said amazon fighting women or norn, seems fine, moving on.

I wouldn’t have been.

I don’t think they need to make them more “masculine.” I don’t see them as being any less for being feminine. They’re giant robots with blade weapons. They are beautiful and capable at the same time.

Despite what some may want us to believe, being strong, and being sexy are not mutually exclusive. There is more to strength than your body type, what clothing you’re wearing, or what gender you are.

So do you think Norn women are more masculine? I don’t. Just because they’re bigger doesn’t make them masculine, it just takes them away from the danty flower appearance they have. I don’t care if they’re robots and therefore their form has no impact on anything, they look like underwear models.

At least if they were big they would look like they were designed to crack skulls, which they were, not to whip you and tell you that you’re a naughty boy.

YES! I mean, GW2 has been doing so well in terms of portraying females as people rather than sex objects (well, at least compared to other MMOs), but really…

These things look straight out of Heavy Metal (not the music, but the semi-pornographic sci-fi/fantasy movie and magazone). I mean, did you really need to put nipples on these things?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Honestly, I think everyone would have been perfectly happy with these fembots if they were at least twice as wide which huge muscles. Leave everything else exactly as it is, big boobs, tight butt and stilettos but make them giant monster women and everyone would have said amazon fighting women or norn, seems fine, moving on.

I wouldn’t have been.

I don’t think they need to make them more “masculine.” I don’t see them as being any less for being feminine. They’re giant robots with blade weapons. They are beautiful and capable at the same time.

Despite what some may want us to believe, being strong, and being sexy are not mutually exclusive. There is more to strength than your body type, what clothing you’re wearing, or what gender you are.

See, I don’t equate “muscular” with masculinity. I think a strong, muscular body can still be very feminine and very attractive, while embodying a lot more of the protective and strong qualities the Watchknights are supposed to display.

And I absolutely agree that there’s more to strength than body type. However, an exaggeratedly sexual female body just conveys “I am made to look attractive” as far as I can see.

I don’t mind that at all, in the right context. Ornamentation is fine by me, male or female. But as symbol of humanity’s endurance they fall very short. Quite an achievement for a 9ft robot.

Kal Spiro.9745:

So do you think Norn women are more masculine? I don’t. Just because they’re bigger doesn’t make them masculine, it just takes them away from the danty flower appearance they have. I don’t care if they’re robots and therefore their form has no impact on anything, they look like underwear models.

At least if they were big they would look like they were designed to crack skulls, which they were, not to whip you and tell you that you’re a naughty boy.

LOL, wut?

These robots are taller than Norn. They’re carrying giant blades, and they can transform into anything they want.

The problem here is that you have a gender stereotype problem. You equate certain traits with certain qualities. So, because someone looks like an underwear model, they can’t be strong and, “crack heads.”

Because someone is wearing high heels, they automatically want to whip you sexually and call you a naughty boy?

Are you seeing how these generalizations are hurting the argument here?

This is starting to get a little out of hand.

In game, a strong, attractive female leader decided to make a queens guard to mirror herself. That makes sense, and if anything should be seen as the opposite of sexism; they could have made muscular male robots instead (and if they did I can guarantee they would be as “sexualised” as their current female counterparts.)

Now, the fact that they have an “idealised” human figure, is simply because they wanted something to represent an “idealised” version of humanity. Jennah’s showing off how enduring and triumphant the human race is, and to do this she’s made intimidating and, yes, beautiful avatars to represent this. I don’t think we can compare this to the airbrushed models we see in fashion magazines (which I too, am against) because those magazines try and portray their edited human figures as realistic. Nobody could argue the same of clockwork robots.

I honestly don’t see the sexualisation of them. They’re idealised in the same way Michaelangelo’s David is, or the creation of Adam. Buffy wore some “provocative” outfits during her run, as did Xena, and Leia, Sarah Connor, Elen Ripley; I don’t think human sexuality is something that demeans someone, or should be avoided. Should all women in Guild Wars wear veils? Should women not be allowed to wear high heels when they decide they want to visit a club?

If these were kitchen servants I’d be totally on your side here. But these are the defenders of the realm, and they’re beautiful and deadly. To me that’s a strong portrayal of women, and if I’m wrong about that, then I clearly don’t understand feminism anymore.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kal Spiro.9745:

So do you think Norn women are more masculine? I don’t. Just because they’re bigger doesn’t make them masculine, it just takes them away from the danty flower appearance they have. I don’t care if they’re robots and therefore their form has no impact on anything, they look like underwear models.

At least if they were big they would look like they were designed to crack skulls, which they were, not to whip you and tell you that you’re a naughty boy.

LOL, wut?

These robots are taller than Norn. They’re carrying giant blades, and they can transform into anything they want.

The problem here is that you have a gender stereotype problem. You equate certain traits with certain qualities. So, because someone looks like an underwear model, they can’t be strong and, “crack heads.”

Because someone is wearing high heels, they automatically want to whip you sexually and call you a naughty boy?

Are you seeing how these generalizations are hurting the argument here?

My main problem with them is that they have been designed to suggest nudity, and they have been designed to emphasise and glorify a figure which a lot of women develop serious eating disorders and lifetime health problems attempting to emulate.

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

Likewise, I’m a practical person. I see someone running around in heels, and I wince. That much is maybe just me, I’ll admit, but dear lord. Heels for me equate to pain for the wearer, not some daft dominatrix image. What can I say. Fantasy or not it bugs me when something makes that little sense, even when it can’t be fetishised.

The misconception that a lot of people seem to be making here is that it’s not inherently problematic to show women as having sexual or aesthetically pleasing qualities. However, it becomes problematic when it is done in a way, so as to objectify and diminish the other qualities of that person.

For anyone that is truly interested in learning more about this topic and isn’t here to simply defend their world view with straw man arguments, ad hominem, cherry picking, etc., you may be interested in the following link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

Dahkeus.8243:

The misconception that a lot of people seem to be making here is that it’s not inherently problematic to show women as having sexual or aesthetically pleasing qualities. However, it becomes problematic when it is done in a way, so as to objectify and diminish the other qualities of that person.

For anyone that is truly interested in learning more about this topic and isn’t here to simply defend their world view with straw man arguments, ad hominem, cherry picking, etc., you may be interested in the following link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

What a nice roundabout what of calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant, without acknowledging their arguments. I’m not saying you’re being passive aggressive, but it definitely could be construed that way.

How have these robotic beings been objectified or diminished? They are capable fighters, are they not? are they not respected in their defined construction?

I studied politics, and feminism was a topic that was covered in great depths, and funnily enough a woman’s choice of footwear never came up. Nor a robots, for that matter.

Personally I think the problem here is a lot of people equate sexuality with sexism. Joss Whedon would like a word with you.

Shiren.9532:

… I suspect they are just consequences of a designer’s inspiration. Of all the possible sources of inspiration, I doubt it was ever intended to be disrespectful to women or suggestive of submissive women. I too wonder why they made the robots that way, but I don’t think it’s an issue.

“Consequences of a designer’s inspiration” In a field largely dominated by guys, I’m not surprised that this portrayal is the unthinking default. As someone who plays video games and reads comics, unthinking sexualization really is nothing new to me. I don’t think anyone would argue with what you’re saying. Whereas you can dismiss it as not being an issue because it was unintentional, imagine for a second that this is the background radiation of your life. The critiques being made in this thread are not diminished by intentionality (though I imagine they’d be more hurt and angry in tone if it became clear that it was intentionally done for the eye candy!). It’s a major thread in academic analysis that the author’s intended meaning is only part of the story: that imagery, history or cultural context that the author is unaware of can influence an audience’s reading.

I think I’m not far off base if I say that most here are just trying to make the devs aware of what messages they’re sending/culture they’re reinforcing, perhaps unintentionally, in certain choices. I suppose I will make it a personal critique of the overall devs involved, though, and say that being unaware of how using the skin of a naked woman in heels in the watchknights comes off seems mighty tone-deaf.

And for those of you saying that because they are “strong” that makes them not sexualized, I’m going to refer you to a series of comics that will hopefully help you come to terms with the flaws in your slippery-slope arguments: http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311 and http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=336

Hi, everyone. There’s a lot of good discussion and critique in this thread, but it’s been marred by a lot of comments that are disruptive to a constructive conversation. If you have a different opinion from the OP, that’s fine. However, if you express that opinion in ways that are condescending, disrespectful, rude, sexist, dismissive, off-topic, and/or derailing, we will have to clean up the thread to make sure that the conversation stays on course. Please discuss in a way that is respectful of the opinions of others, even if you disagree with them.

Thank you!

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

The misconception that a lot of people seem to be making here is that it’s not inherently problematic to show women as having sexual or aesthetically pleasing qualities. However, it becomes problematic when it is done in a way, so as to objectify and diminish the other qualities of that person.

For anyone that is truly interested in learning more about this topic and isn’t here to simply defend their world view with straw man arguments, ad hominem, cherry picking, etc., you may be interested in the following link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

What a nice roundabout what of calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant, without acknowledging their arguments. I’m not saying you’re being passive aggressive, but it definitely could be construed that way.

How have these robotic beings been objectified or diminished? They are capable fighters, are they not? are they not respected in their defined construction?

I studied politics, and feminism was a topic that was covered in great depths, and funnily enough a woman’s choice of footwear never came up. Nor a robots, for that matter.

Personally I think the problem here is a lot of people equate sexuality with sexism. Joss Whedon would like a word with you.

Wisdom comes from acknowledging ignorance, so I’m sure anyone who doesn’t want to admit that will probably take that the wrong way. If so, they weren’t the intended audience of that statement.

As for your last statement, that is exactly in line with what I said. I don’t have a problem with the fact that these NPCs have such qualities, but rather that unlike characters in a Joss Whedon film, these characters don’t have anything else to them (aside from being able to fight). They are essentially objectified.

This is why I don’t see Norn females as inherently problematic, even though the have a highly sexualized aspect to them. They are acknowledged as thinking, feeling people with valid opinions and perspectives.

TottWriter.8591:

My main problem with them is that they have been designed to suggest nudity, and they have been designed to emphasise and glorify a figure which a lot of women develop serious eating disorders and lifetime health problems attempting to emulate.

Nudity isn’t bad.

A lot of women have a lot of growing up to do if they look at a robot in a video game and somehow feel they need to starve themselves to emulate it.

I’m sorry, but what would you have them do? Make chubby versions, muscular versions, short ones, tall ones, black ones, white ones, asian ones, ones with big breasts, small breasts? What about short legs, long legs?

What amount of variation would make you happy? How many versions of this robot should have been in the game to make sure that everyone is fairly represented?

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

TottWriter.8591:

Likewise, I’m a practical person. I see someone running around in heels, and I wince. That much is maybe just me, I’ll admit, but dear lord. Heels for me equate to pain for the wearer, not some daft dominatrix image. What can I say. Fantasy or not it bugs me when something makes that little sense, even when it can’t be fetishised.

This is a robot, in a fantasy game.

You want to start talking about practical outfits in Guild Wars 2?

I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the watchknights were…why boobs? I mean it’s ridiculous. Not form efficient. Poor balance with the wide hips. So stupid…

Dahkeus.8243:

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

The misconception that a lot of people seem to be making here is that it’s not inherently problematic to show women as having sexual or aesthetically pleasing qualities. However, it becomes problematic when it is done in a way, so as to objectify and diminish the other qualities of that person.

For anyone that is truly interested in learning more about this topic and isn’t here to simply defend their world view with straw man arguments, ad hominem, cherry picking, etc., you may be interested in the following link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

What a nice roundabout what of calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant, without acknowledging their arguments. I’m not saying you’re being passive aggressive, but it definitely could be construed that way.

How have these robotic beings been objectified or diminished? They are capable fighters, are they not? are they not respected in their defined construction?

I studied politics, and feminism was a topic that was covered in great depths, and funnily enough a woman’s choice of footwear never came up. Nor a robots, for that matter.

Personally I think the problem here is a lot of people equate sexuality with sexism. Joss Whedon would like a word with you.

Wisdom comes from acknowledging ignorance, so I’m sure anyone who doesn’t want to admit that will probably take that the wrong way. If so, they weren’t the intended audience of that statement.

As for your last statement, that is exactly in line with what I said. I don’t have a problem with the fact that these NPCs have such qualities, but rather that unlike characters in a Joss Whedon film, these characters don’t have anything else to them (aside from being able to fight). They are essentially objectified.

This is why I don’t see Norn females as inherently problematic, even though the have a highly sexualized aspect to them. They are acknowledged as thinking, feeling people with valid opinions and perspectives.

They are objectified in the sense that they are objects, yes. They don’t have feelings or emotions, because they are robots. Not because they are female robots; they would be as unthinking and unfeeling no matter what they wore, or what shape they took.

They are an extension of Jennah herself, the army she wanted to guard her people. To her, they reflect the best of her people, and of herself, like the statues of ancient Greece or Rome.

The fact that she decided to model them on a female form is testament to her position as a strong female leader. She’s showing that you don’t have to be male, or bulky, or coated in armor to have power. She’s an example of this herself, as she’s none of those things and still one of the most powerful people on the face of Tyria.

Not content with just complaining about every update and change, trivializing the creativity and effort required cyclical updates and attacking developers ability to competently do their jobs…we are now trying to beat down how they express themselves artistically?

I know a few women that walk on men in heels and hit them with things as a full time job and they would say that, if anything, the WatchKnights would be an empowering symbol rather than exploitative …

(15 min later)

…I just sent one an image of the WatchKnights and asked about it and she confirmed my assumption and added that people who see them as sexbots should have more pride and respect for the female form instead of seeing a representation and assuming it is a symbol of objectification instead of confidence.

So there you have it. Anet, is actually more forward thinking than most of its critics (The sylvari having totally gender independent sexuality and visible relationships between Sylvari of the same “gender” showcased in the story also lend to this). Jenna’s Watchknights are an obvious symbol of strength, dominance, and grace. A lot of you are just too uptight to see the more progressive expression.

bhagwad.4281:

I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the watchknights were…why boobs? I mean it’s ridiculous. Not form efficient. Poor balance with the wide hips. So stupid…

You should be more concerned about how it walks on two legs efficiently at all rather than how the aesthetic breasts affect that.
Why does it bother you so much? Honestly asking.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

bhagwad.4281:

I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the watchknights were…why boobs? I mean it’s ridiculous. Not form efficient. Poor balance with the wide hips. So stupid…

You should be more concerned about how it walks on two legs efficiently at all rather than how the aesthetic breasts affect that.
Why does it bother you so much? Honestly asking.

It’s just an incongruity. You want killer robots? That’s cool. Let’s say we have the technological know how to make it balance well on two legs. It makes sense. But I just don’t get what kind of person would put boobs on a robot. I mean…even wings would be awesome. But wide hips? What on earth for?

If they modeled the robot on a guy, will we start putting pricks on them next?

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

bhagwad.4281:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

bhagwad.4281:

I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the watchknights were…why boobs? I mean it’s ridiculous. Not form efficient. Poor balance with the wide hips. So stupid…

You should be more concerned about how it walks on two legs efficiently at all rather than how the aesthetic breasts affect that.
Why does it bother you so much? Honestly asking.

It’s just an incongruity. You want killer robots? That’s cool. Let’s say we have the technological know how to make it balance well on two legs. It makes sense. But I just don’t get what kind of person would put boobs on a robot. I mean…even wings would be awesome. But wide hips? What on earth for?

If they modeled the robot on a guy, will we start putting pricks on them next?

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

The misconception that a lot of people seem to be making here is that it’s not inherently problematic to show women as having sexual or aesthetically pleasing qualities. However, it becomes problematic when it is done in a way, so as to objectify and diminish the other qualities of that person.

For anyone that is truly interested in learning more about this topic and isn’t here to simply defend their world view with straw man arguments, ad hominem, cherry picking, etc., you may be interested in the following link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

What a nice roundabout what of calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant, without acknowledging their arguments. I’m not saying you’re being passive aggressive, but it definitely could be construed that way.

How have these robotic beings been objectified or diminished? They are capable fighters, are they not? are they not respected in their defined construction?

I studied politics, and feminism was a topic that was covered in great depths, and funnily enough a woman’s choice of footwear never came up. Nor a robots, for that matter.

Personally I think the problem here is a lot of people equate sexuality with sexism. Joss Whedon would like a word with you.

Wisdom comes from acknowledging ignorance, so I’m sure anyone who doesn’t want to admit that will probably take that the wrong way. If so, they weren’t the intended audience of that statement.

As for your last statement, that is exactly in line with what I said. I don’t have a problem with the fact that these NPCs have such qualities, but rather that unlike characters in a Joss Whedon film, these characters don’t have anything else to them (aside from being able to fight). They are essentially objectified.

This is why I don’t see Norn females as inherently problematic, even though the have a highly sexualized aspect to them. They are acknowledged as thinking, feeling people with valid opinions and perspectives.

They are objectified in the sense that they are objects, yes. They don’t have feelings or emotions, because they are robots. Not because they are female robots; they would be as unthinking and unfeeling no matter what they wore, or what shape they took.

They are an extension of Jennah herself, the army she wanted to guard her people. To her, they reflect the best of her people, and of herself, like the statues of ancient Greece or Rome.

The fact that she decided to model them on a female form is testament to her position as a strong female leader. She’s showing that you don’t have to be male, or bulky, or coated in armor to have power. She’s an example of this herself, as she’s none of those things and still one of the most powerful people on the face of Tyria.

I agree that they are robots and it doesn’t make sense for them to have all the qualities of a human. However, that is also why I don’t think it makes sense for them to be fully sexualized in the same way a human is.

I also agree that the concept of having robots with a feminine figure reflects the empowering qualities of Queen Jennah, but it crosses past that because they are not elegant feminine figures the same way that Jennah is, but instead are modeled after a completely naked woman (well, unless you count the heals). Jennah may utilize her sexuality as part of what makes her powerful, but she doesn’t do so by walking around topless in front of everyone.

In other words, the core concept behind what was likely intended behind these characters was great, but poorly implemented because they don’t say “you can be a good fighter while also being feminine.” It’s a delicate balance, I know, but it’s the difference between why Buffy the Vampire Slayer is often heralded for it’s female empowerment, but something like Chainsaw Lollipop isn’t.

I see the word “sexualisation” and “fetishizing” being thrown around, and I’m curious where you think that idea comes from. Looking alone at the character model, there is nothing “sexualised” about them. They’re garnished with a female form, yes, but they’re doll like in their anatomy. You mention them having nipples, I assume the word you were looking for was areolas, because if they were to resemble a body part, that’s the part it would be. Even still, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that. Just because of that, or the fact that they’ve been given a rear end (which, any butt would be ‘defined’ and ‘contoured’, I’ve never seen an artistic representation that wasn’t), doesn’t immediately make them sexualised. Because they aren’t given clothing doesn’t make then “nude”, they’re not people, they’re machines, and just because their metal is out for all to see, does not immediately make them sexual objects.

I’m so sad that I live in a time where any depiction of the female form that doesn’t immediately match a certain person’s standards is seen in a negative way, that anything even remotely resembling nudity is seen negatively. We are so body-phobic, that even a positive depiction of women in a fantasy context has to be thrown into the “sexism” pile because they’re character model is to “thin”. Let it be known, for the record, in a real life context, I am just as much against “thin” shaming as I am “fat” shaming -, but this isn’t real life context.

This isn’t a magazine, or a depiction, even a stylised one, of a human, it’s of a robot. If you look at that character model and imagine skin and muscle overlaid on top of those parts, it seems a pretty average size to me. Of course, without skin, and muscle mass, of course it’s thin. If you took all my skin, and muscle and fat off parts of my body missing from the robot, I’d look like that too, albeit a much more gore-y version.

These designs are not, in any way sexual, unless you put them in a sexual light. If you start thinking of them as if they were meant to be sexual objects, then yes, you’re going to see them sexually. I haven’t, and I don’t, funnily enough, because I see them for what they are, not on the inside, just what they are. Robots, with a feminine figure, to which I say, “Awesome!”

I’m not so immediately distained by the sight of a female figure that I have to say, “Good gods, put clothes on it! It’s too thin! Think of the children!” Because that shouldn’t be the thought process, you focus so much on them being too small, without regard for anyone who could be comparatively the same shape in reality (with skin, of course). There are people who are naturally that shape, women come in all shapes and sizes, whose breasts are indeed that perky, butts just as round, and comparatively as thin. Criticizing any shape in any way is inherently negative, and detrimental to any message about positive body image you’re trying to send out. Size should not matter, and I agree every size should be portrayed, but knocking it because it’s not the same shape or size as you, or what you consider the average, is not a healthy message either.

The playable character models have a range of sizes available, and I know someone said they aren’t ugly, but I would tend to disagree. I find some of them quite unattractive, and that’s not a bad thing, that’s a positive thing, in my opinion. Same as having the varying sizes, and if they didn’t allow that, I would criticize, but criticize the NPCs seems nonsensical, to me. Especially when the NPCs in question are mechanical creations, not depictions of people.

I would also note, that they were meant to be created by a woman, and someone who draws, I do tend to draw my idealisation of a female form. Not because it’s the norm, most people would say my designs aren’t “magazine” depictions of women, but because they’re what I like to look at. The same could be said in the context of a woman creating female formed robots, you would make them in a form that resembled yourself, or an idealised version of yourself. There’s nothing wrong with that, and honestly, probably quite realistic in context.

I think the most bothersome thing I’ve read is that they’re “attractive to the male eye”, they’re attractive to me, too. Sure, some of the more immature or lonely are going to look at them in a sexual context, but they’ll do the same to any female character figure, in any amount of clothing, regardless. Some people are just like that, the majority, however, are not. (Continued, since it was too long to post in one.)

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

Why not indeed. But we don’t see it happening. Don’t you wonder why? Btw, this is the equivalent not just of having a prick, but one that is fully erect and throbbing

Also, I’m a 4’10”, “curvy” woman, I’m not close to the same shape or size as they are, and I’m certainly not an ideal but I wouldn’t compare myself to them, in any context, in any media, nor do I see anything negative about their design, not only because they’re fictional, but because they’re not meant to look ‘human’. They aren’t meant to look unnatural, because they’re not. To think that anyone is going to look at these figures and become fixated on being that shape, mental disorders not-withstanding, is absurd. That isn’t to say I don’t obsess over my appearance, I do, but I have sense, and – again, mental disorders not-withstanding – so does everyone else when it comes to a stylised figure of this nature.

People should be appreciative of all forms, male and female, big and small, regardless, and women, I think, especially should be positive, and proud to see the female figure, both as the player characters who are strong, powerful women, and any depiction of female Amazonian might, even in robotic form. It truly upsets me that this is being argued against and seen negatively, maybe it shouldn’t be celebrated, but at least appreciated.

bhagwad.4281:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

Why not indeed. But we don’t see it happening. Don’t you wonder why? Btw, this is the equivalent not just of having a prick, but one that is fully erect and throbbing

Why would it be erect? That would ACTUALLY be implying something sexual, unlike the Watchknights.

And we probably don’t see it happening because it’d lead to a possible M rating unless artistic integrity could be argued well enough. But I wouldn’t be complaining if they could get away with it.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

You misunderstand my argument. First and foremost, they are female shaped for us, as a player, to “enjoy”. The lore is pretty much irrelevant since it can be shaped by the designers in any shape to “justify” their female shape.
For example The scarlet blade game might have lore to justify why all toon are scantly clad big breasted women, but I am sure we can agree that that lore came after the character design.

So yes, I compare them to booth babes and winner circle girls, because their female shape only matter for ‘decoration’.

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

Seras.5702:

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

There’s actually a nice in-game Blade Runner allusion in an Asura-Sylvari conversation near the Asura gate in the Grove, as I recall.

Who are we kidding? It may be art, but it’s a very specific kind of art meant to cater to gamers who’re mainly guys. As a gamer myself I like to think I have a bit more depth than that which is what really irritates me.

If it was “just art”, then we’d also have male nude watchknights complete with accessories.

Slayer Lord.5023:

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

The content and meaning is exactly what’s being debated….

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

bhagwad.4281:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

Why not indeed. But we don’t see it happening. Don’t you wonder why? Btw, this is the equivalent not just of having a prick, but one that is fully erect and throbbing

Why would it be erect? That would ACTUALLY be implying something sexual, unlike the Watchknights.

And we probably don’t see it happening because it’d lead to a possible M rating unless artistic integrity could be argued well enough. But I wouldn’t be complaining if they could get away with it.

If you notice, the David’s umm…package…is quite small. Extremely tiny in fact in proportion to his body. Video game developers however always make their characters have huge boobs. It’s not random. There’s no getting around the fact that they’re sexualized. Not all women have massive protruberances, but women in this game always do.

Hey, I’m not disputing it’s art. I just want people to admit that it’s not just art. It’s art with a very specific gender based consideration in mind.

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

You misunderstand my argument. First and foremost, they are female shaped for us, as a player, to “enjoy”. The lore is pretty much irrelevant since it can be shaped by the designers in any shape to “justify” their female shape.
For example The scarlet blade game might have lore to justify why all toon are scantly clad big breasted women, but I am sure we can agree that that lore came after the character design.

So yes, I compare them to booth babes and winner circle girls, because their female shape only matter for ‘decoration’.

Or they have a female shape because Queen Jennah designed them, and I highly doubt they only created Jennah for the sole excuse of having female robots.
Also yes, they are relatively pleasing to the eye while looking intimidating at the same time. The art team did a really good job designing them and it’s downright insulting for the only thing you see in it is Eye Candy.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

Actually, they were designed by the devs. Who are, I assume, male or exist in a largely male atmosphere, though I admit I’m basing that on the statistics from elsewhere in the industry. So: Watchknights were made by an NPC woman who was made by men. So no, they were not designed by a woman in any sense. Even in-character, we have no idea to what extent she controlled the design. The lack of this being addressed in the game shows that it was unintentional on the devs’ parts. Please stop trying to make this into an empowering “Jennah did it to empower women!” thing because that’s nowhere near canon at this point.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

I’m going to assume from the context that the poster’s question wasn’t for you. I assume it was for rhetorical/for the devs. Why did they go with the trope of “robot with prominent breasts” instead of “robot with prominent kitten”? It’s to illustrate the difference with which we treat the female body as default oggle fodder and how this unthinkingly seems to perpetuate that. It’s seriously awesome that you’d support the male equivalent, though since my assumption is that there’d be a lot of homophobic comments about it in-game

Edit: And no one is trying to insult the art team! The watchknights are beautiful and complex in design, as many here have said previously in the thread. There are just a few elements of the design that sway this into ‘randomly objectified’ territory, so they stand out. /unintentional nipple joke

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

You misunderstand my argument. First and foremost, they are female shaped for us, as a player, to “enjoy”. The lore is pretty much irrelevant since it can be shaped by the designers in any shape to “justify” their female shape.
For example The scarlet blade game might have lore to justify why all toon are scantly clad big breasted women, but I am sure we can agree that that lore came after the character design.

So yes, I compare them to booth babes and winner circle girls, because their female shape only matter for ‘decoration’.

Or they have a female shape because Queen Jennah designed them, and I highly doubt they only created Jennah for the sole excuse of having female robots.
Also yes, they are relatively pleasing to the eye while looking intimidating at the same time. The art team did a really good job designing them and it’s downright insulting for the only thing you see in it is Eye Candy.

As I said, I don’t think the lore is a ‘justification’.

You seem to imply that I don’t think that these robots are cool looking. I do think they look awesome, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the problematic side of again using the female body for this design.

Alleluia.1320:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

The content and meaning is exactly what’s being debated….

What a double standard put on the female image. What about guys like Superman? Tall, dark, in perfect shape and fearlessly brave. How does that effect my male body image? No, I’m told I have to be that guy.

Yet somehow when the same thing is applied to the female form, this is up for mature debate. It’s just not logical.

bhagwad.4281:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

bhagwad.4281:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

If the mechapricks on the robots were done artistically like the Statue of David and went well with the style of Divinity’s Reach, then why not? The Watchknights are doing that fine with their roboboobs.

Why not indeed. But we don’t see it happening. Don’t you wonder why? Btw, this is the equivalent not just of having a prick, but one that is fully erect and throbbing

Why would it be erect? That would ACTUALLY be implying something sexual, unlike the Watchknights.

And we probably don’t see it happening because it’d lead to a possible M rating unless artistic integrity could be argued well enough. But I wouldn’t be complaining if they could get away with it.

If you notice, the David’s umm…package…is quite small. Extremely tiny in fact in proportion to his body. Video game developers however always make their characters have huge boobs. It’s not random. There’s no getting around the fact that they’re sexualized. Not all women have massive protruberances, but women in this game always do.

Hey, I’m not disputing it’s art. I just want people to admit that it’s not just art. It’s art with a very specific gender based consideration in mind.

Save for one or two of the Norn body types, Anet has been pretty modest with bust sizes in my opinion. It’d be pretty stupid all women in this game be absolutely featureless to avoid being considered remotely sexualized wouldn’t it?

I don’t believe there’s much ‘gender based consideration’ in this game to be concerned about at all. Compared to most MMOs there’s not a grossly large number of hyper sexualized female armor I’ve come across and body types aren’t very exaggerated. There’s a few, but they’re not too extreme.

Honestly I think everyone is looking for things to be offended by that don’t even exist.

Slayer Lord.5023:

Alleluia.1320:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

The content and meaning is exactly what’s being debated….

What a double standard put on the female image. What about guys like Superman? Tall, dark, in perfect shape and fearlessly brave. How does that effect my male body image? No, I’m told I have to be that guy.

Yet somehow when the same thing is applied to the female form, this is up for mature debate. It’s just not logical.

Women are less “visual” than men:

Hamann, Stephan, et al. “Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli.” Nature neuroscience 7.4 (2004): 411-416.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n4/abs/nn1208.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

Making Superman for women just wouldn’t have the same impact. Now if they had a hot romance going with lots of steamy sex being described, that would turn women on.

But for us guys? Even the most crude visual stimuli can do it.

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

You misunderstand my argument. First and foremost, they are female shaped for us, as a player, to “enjoy”. The lore is pretty much irrelevant since it can be shaped by the designers in any shape to “justify” their female shape.
For example The scarlet blade game might have lore to justify why all toon are scantly clad big breasted women, but I am sure we can agree that that lore came after the character design.

So yes, I compare them to booth babes and winner circle girls, because their female shape only matter for ‘decoration’.

Or they have a female shape because Queen Jennah designed them, and I highly doubt they only created Jennah for the sole excuse of having female robots.
Also yes, they are relatively pleasing to the eye while looking intimidating at the same time. The art team did a really good job designing them and it’s downright insulting for the only thing you see in it is Eye Candy.

As I said, I don’t think the lore is a ‘justification’.

You seem to imply that I don’t think that these robots are cool looking. I do think they look awesome, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the problematic side of again using the female body for this design.

But how is it problematic? Would it be problematic if they were based on men rather than women? There’s really nothing sexual about them at all to be considered a problem to begin with.

Why is the fact that they’re based on the female form such a grievous issue?

@ Kalathra: This is where the cultural context comes in. Yes, calling something “sexualized” is subjective in that there are no measures for sexual vs nonsexual in the sense that we can’t measure it with a ruler or a scale. However, there are measures of this that are commonly accepted, such as movie ratings. If you put a topless woman in a movie, even if she’s just walking across the street, the movie automatically gets an adult rating. If you don’t show the nipples while this same scene occurs, you can show it to a much younger audience. Because of that, we are all trained, to some degree, to see the revealing of this body part as something tied to a much more adult and erotic situation, hence why “sexualization” comes into play.

I should pause here and say, that if humanity were in a different place, there would be absolutely nothing problematic with putting watchbots like this into GW2. The problem is inherently culture itself.

So, why then, am I criticizing the watchbots? This is because as much as we all like to think that we are immune to the subtle inferences that media and culture make about certain things, we are still human beings and the way we see our world is shaped by them. Even if everyone here in this thread is perfectly able to overcome these inferences and to see these NPCs only as what they are and what they were intended to be, we don’t live in a vacuum.

There will be people who see these NPCs and understand the message that was intended (you can have feminine qualities and kick butt) and there will be people who see them and think “Ooooh, fem bots! I totally want to do one of those!”

I’m not arguing that we need to live on some sterilized society where nothing that can be misinterpreted or taken the wrong way, but as self-critical intelligent people, we need to be aware of the effects that occur when we set up situations that encourage such thinking, even if we don’t intend it to happen.

Slayer Lord.5023:

What a double standard put on the female image. What about guys like Superman? Tall, dark, in perfect shape and fearlessly brave. How does that effect my male body image? No, I’m told I have to be that guy.

Yet somehow when the same thing is applied to the female form, this is up for mature debate. It’s just not logical.

Hi, there I think there is a Jimquisition (from Escapist) video you might like to watch that addresses this topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men
Superman is never a goal for a female character to obtain (I’ve never played as Lois, running around doing reportery things that save Superman’s life, though there are a few well-written comics that attempt such trope-subversion). That’s the difference. You can literally own a mini watchknight. It is an objective in the game.

There are definitely male body issues that abound in fantasy settings, but usually they stem from what the male creators want from a man and not what women want (slighty off topic, and ohgodI’msorryforbringinginTwilight but I think that’s why Edward Cullen got such a rabid fangirl base. It was a guy semi-sexualized/idealized for the pleasures of a woman).

Slayer Lord.5023:

Alleluia.1320:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

The content and meaning is exactly what’s being debated….

What a double standard put on the female image. What about guys like Superman? Tall, dark, in perfect shape and fearlessly brave. How does that effect my male body image? No, I’m told I have to be that guy.

Yet somehow when the same thing is applied to the female form, this is up for mature debate. It’s just not logical.

No one’s upset the watchknights are pretty (even if I think they aren’t cus their faces scare me) or that they exemplify positive traits like bravery or something (mostly cus they don’t, since they aren’t sapient.) So the Superman analogy doesn’t really apply.

As for double standards, I’d have as much of a problem if these were naked male forms since my main problem with the whole thing is the immodesty and the objectification it breeds. And it undercuts any positive image traits that can be garnered from these watchknight’s “pretty and deadly” vibe when there is fancy lacework to draw the eye to their derriers or an obviously naked form complete with exposed breasts. (And possibly portraying arousal, too, as the bolts could have been just more lacework. Instead they’re bolts that stick out.)

Dahkeus.8243:

@ Kalathra: This is where the cultural context comes in. Yes, calling something “sexualized” is subjective in that there are no measures for sexual vs nonsexual in the sense that we can’t measure it with a ruler or a scale. However, there are measures of this that are commonly accepted, such as movie ratings. If you put a topless woman in a movie, even if she’s just walking across the street, the movie automatically gets an adult rating. If you don’t show the nipples while this same scene occurs, you can show it to a much younger audience. Because of that, we are all trained, to some degree, to see the revealing of this body part as something tied to a much more adult and erotic situation, hence why “sexualization” comes into play.

I should pause here and say, that if humanity were in a different place, there would be absolutely nothing problematic with putting watchbots like this into GW2. The problem is inherently culture itself.

So, why then, am I criticizing the watchbots? This is because as much as we all like to think that we are immune to the subtle inferences that media and culture make about certain things, we are still human beings and the way we see our world is shaped by them. Even if everyone here in this thread is perfectly able to overcome these inferences and to see these NPCs only as what they are and what they were intended to be, we don’t live in a vacuum.

There will be people who see these NPCs and understand the message that was intended (you can have feminine qualities and kick butt) and there will be people who see them and think “Ooooh, fem bots! I totally want to do one of those!”

I’m not arguing that we need to live on some sterilized society where nothing that can be misinterpreted or taken the wrong way, but as self-critical intelligent people, we need to be aware of the effects that occur when we set up situations that encourage such thinking, even if we don’t intend it to happen.

This is true.

However I’m also willing to bet my left nut that the developers fully knew what they were doing when they put in the big tatas, high heels, and hips.

And since when did “feminine power” necessarily be the perfect figure? Haven’t we all read fantasy novels where the woman didn’t adhere to the stereotype?

Min in wheel of time
Vin in Mistborn trilogy
Paksenarrion in Deeds of Paksenarrion
Malazan books where the soldiers are male and female
etc etc…

Be imaginative folks. If you’re trying to demonstrate women’s power, we don’t need such blatant visual cues shoved down our throats. We’re not idiots.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Plunder.8195:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

TottWriter.8591:

That they look “sexy” would also be less irritating were it not a phenomenon I encountered near enough at every turn. A break would be nice. I wonder how many men would be comfortable surrounded by scantily clad or nude men bearing large pelvic bulges, all with smouldering, thoughtful expressions; like they really care about you.

I would be perfectly comfortable. Why? Because I am able to separate a video game design from reality.

I don’t think such a reductionist approach is very helpful in this conversation. Computer games are a reflection of real life (culture).
Think, and pay attention, on how often the female body is simply used as a decoration. Think of for example booth babes, the girls that kiss the winner of some race, the girl on the cover of your tv-magazine etc.
Then having these watchknights with a female body is a reflection of what we do in real life. Again the female body is simply used as a decorative tool.

You might call it art, but that doesn’t make it not-sexist.

But the Watchknights aren’t for decoration. They’re for defense. How can you even compare them to booth babes and winners circle girls? They’re cold and metallic sword wielding, shape shifting abominations that just happen to look like women when in their normal forms because they were DESIGNED by a woman.

You misunderstand my argument. First and foremost, they are female shaped for us, as a player, to “enjoy”. The lore is pretty much irrelevant since it can be shaped by the designers in any shape to “justify” their female shape.
For example The scarlet blade game might have lore to justify why all toon are scantly clad big breasted women, but I am sure we can agree that that lore came after the character design.

So yes, I compare them to booth babes and winner circle girls, because their female shape only matter for ‘decoration’.

Or they have a female shape because Queen Jennah designed them, and I highly doubt they only created Jennah for the sole excuse of having female robots.
Also yes, they are relatively pleasing to the eye while looking intimidating at the same time. The art team did a really good job designing them and it’s downright insulting for the only thing you see in it is Eye Candy.

As I said, I don’t think the lore is a ‘justification’.

You seem to imply that I don’t think that these robots are cool looking. I do think they look awesome, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the problematic side of again using the female body for this design.

But how is it problematic? Would it be problematic if they were based on men rather than women? There’s really nothing sexual about them at all to be considered a problem at all to begin with.

Why is the fact that they’re based on the female form such a grievous issue?

It would not be problematic it was a male body, since the male body is only very rarely used as a ‘decoration’.

I never said it was a grievous issue, don’t put words in my mouth. But it’s surely good to be aware of sexual objectification when it happens. And that happens now with the choice of making these watchknight in a (idealized) female shape for no good reason, other than probably pleasing the male gaze.

It wouldn’t be an issue if it wouldn’t happen almost everywhere, all the time, in the real world.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kal Spiro.9745:

So do you think Norn women are more masculine? I don’t. Just because they’re bigger doesn’t make them masculine, it just takes them away from the danty flower appearance they have. I don’t care if they’re robots and therefore their form has no impact on anything, they look like underwear models.

At least if they were big they would look like they were designed to crack skulls, which they were, not to whip you and tell you that you’re a naughty boy.

LOL, wut?

These robots are taller than Norn. They’re carrying giant blades, and they can transform into anything they want.

The problem here is that you have a gender stereotype problem. You equate certain traits with certain qualities. So, because someone looks like an underwear model, they can’t be strong and, “crack heads.”

Because someone is wearing high heels, they automatically want to whip you sexually and call you a naughty boy?

Are you seeing how these generalizations are hurting the argument here?

No, actually these generalizations ARE the argument. What is seen when you show something a thing is what matters. This entire argument and the problem presented by it is about perception of a wide variety of people.

I didn’t see any of these things until they were pointed out. I didn’t even look twice at these robots. I noticed they had boobs which I thought was pointless and weird then I moved on. Someone in Map mentioned they had exaggerated butts, so I checked it out and realized it was true, which I again thought was weird and pointless. Then I again moved on. I then read this thread and considered what was said and could do no less than agree. They are over-sexualized for no good reason. They do not represent what they were meant to represent. Their physical form serves no point other than to inflame male ardor.

You either don’t see it, or don’t want to see it. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

Slayer Lord.5023:

Alleluia.1320:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Dahkeus.8243:

Slayer Lord.5023:

Why must topics like this happen? Is this what our society has been reduced to? The constant struggle not for equality, but for demands being placed on art. We all have our values, but no one cause should define your life. If your really passionate about your morality then there are so many real life causes you can get involved in.

Perhaps the whole “it’s a video game or it’s art” arguments are overdone, yet they are the most constant and logical ones to make. Even if female body image was on the creators’ brain, does not you noticing it make it on yours as well? That is perspective. Step outside of yourselves from time to time.

Art without criticism isn’t art.

Criticize art about its content and meanings not just " I see metal chests ". That’s all I ask. Some maturity and not just juvenile critiques.

The content and meaning is exactly what’s being debated….

What a double standard put on the female image. What about guys like Superman? Tall, dark, in perfect shape and fearlessly brave. How does that effect my male body image? No, I’m told I have to be that guy.

Yet somehow when the same thing is applied to the female form, this is up for mature debate. It’s just not logical.

Because the implications behind a male’s sexual image and a female’s sexual image are treated very different in society.

Because men don’t have a history of being oppressed because they were seen as little more than maids and sexual objects.

Because men don’t get sexually harassed or kitten d anywhere close to as often as it happens with women.

Bad stuff happens to men too, but this tends to be despite the cultural beliefs and social standards we have, not because of them.