Guild Wars 2

Celestina.2894:

Alleluia.1320:

Questorian.1098:

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…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

………..I’m sorry, but EDI was FAR more sexualized then these could ever hope to be.

How you can have a problem with these and not EDI is beyond me.

Gotta agree with this, how is EDI less sexualized than the watchknights?

Speaking of Mass Effect, my first reaction to the watchknights was that they creeped me out a bit and their imposing statue and and somewhat dissected female curvature reminded me of the banshees from Mass Effect 3.

Plunder.8195:

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.

Then go complain about it in the real world where it’s a real problem.

I don’t know how anyone can see these things as sexualized, first time I saw them I though ‘Hey cool shapeshifting robot’. The ‘gender’ of the robot didn’t even matter to me, and I’m sure it doesn’t matter to a large majority of players.
People making comments that they want to do the horizontal monster mash with them are just playful jokes by people who DO notice the female form, but are just jokes in case anyone wants to bring that up again.

I just cannot fathom how this can be seen as a problem at all. Maybe I’m just stupid then. All I see is a robot that can turn into things and people that aren’t robots, and that should be what most people see.

Christos de Soufre.3802:

…I just thought they were robots. Because that’s what they are.

I think it’s offensive to even care what the “gender” of the robot is. Kind of like how racism and other forms of prejudice are getting to the point where the only exist because people talk about them. It seems more like an arbitrary choice to me, if anything. It’s a robot.

They have breasts. The devs gave them the appearance of a specific gender, not the audience. As I said upthread, this would be a different ballgame if the robots were aesthetically sexless/androgynous.

…and racism exists in institutionalized forms no matter if people talk about it or not. But I won’t head down that road, because I have horrible premonitions of the quality of that discussion.

This isn’t an isolated case. The ideal ‘strong female’ is depicted as hourglass shaped and scantily clad (with most of their clothes being there for aesthetics rather than functionality) a little too often. It’s in comics, it’s in cartoons, it’s in games, it’s everywhere.

Of course, when you analyze just this particular case it seems really ridiculous to point these things out. GW2 is in general good about not objectifying its female characters. But when it introduces a robot which is pretty much modeled after a hourglass-shaped naked woman in stilettos out of the blue, and when scantily clad hourglass-shaped women in stilettos are typically objectified and fetishized, some people will be uncomfortable with it.

Ultimately, it’s unnecessary. It’s something the game could’ve done without. They could’ve made female-looking robots without the naked, hourglass-shaped, stilettos part. There was absolutely no reason to resort to this particular trope. Of course, we don’t know the intention of the designer when they thought of this look, but since the female form is objectified more often than not, and since naked women are portrayed as meant for men to look at more often than not, you can’t really blame people for raising an eyebrow.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

I don’t know how anyone can see these things as sexualized, first time I saw them I though ‘Hey cool shapeshifting robot’.

Then you’re not thinking like a robot engineer. The first thing I thought of was…What kind of kittened design is this. Robots having boobs? Why? What’s the functionality? I mean someone had to actually sit down and think "Hmm…let me put this completely useless appendage on a killer robot.

And while I’m at it, let me also expand their hips thereby making it even less efficient with the boobs already shifting its center of gravity.

So no…looking at those robots and ignoring their form is NOT logical. The form is in place for a very specific purpose that has nothing to do with function.

Dahkeus.8243:

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?

Is it unbelievable that a creator in Tyria would create something like this? If GW2 was a sanitised feminist fantasy where nothing stepped out of bands of what was considered strictly politically correct according to a certain agenda it would be one of the most bland worlds to play in. This is an MMO, not a feminist fantasy.

They aren’t females… they are robots. I don’t think there are many people out there who think they are sexually attractive.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Then go complain about it in the real world where it’s a real problem.

I don’t know how anyone can see these things as sexualized, first time I saw them I though ‘Hey cool shapeshifting robot’. The ‘gender’ of the robot didn’t even matter to me, and I’m sure it doesn’t matter to a large majority of players.
People making comments that they want to do the horizontal monster mash with them are just playful jokes by people who DO notice the female form, but are just jokes in case anyone wants to bring that up again.

I just cannot fathom how this can be seen as a problem at all. Maybe I’m just stupid then. All I see is a robot that can turn into things and people that aren’t robots, and that should be what most people see.

I’m sorry, what? How is something that’s in a game made by people being played by people not part of the real world? A person came up with the design. People are looking at it. Being part of a game doesn’t exclude it from being part of the real world.

Your argument is in a way akin to that of people who claim they don’t notice race. You know why most people don’t notice these things? Because they don’t have to. It’s never been a problem to them, so it’s not something they need to pay attention to.

Something being a joke doesn’t exclude it from being a problem that needs to be talked about. You’re basically stating that the people who do notice the female form then proceed to “joke” about how they want to dance the horizontal tango with them – what does that say, then? That to these people, the obvious reaction to something looking female is joking about wanting to have sex with them? That’s not a problem to you?

In a perfect world, nobody would care about gender (or race, or any other thing). But the world isn’t perfect, and people do care.

I’m surprised no one in this entire thread jumped at the chance of discussion of power fantasies and false equivalences yet in regards to male vs. female sexualisation.

Bovinity.8610:

It’s much, much, much easier to just produce some outrage

It’s not outrage. It’s just an observation that it’s blatantly to evoke a sexualized image. I don’t care. I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

The bad news is that you’re posting about it, so you must care in some way.

The other bad news is that no one at ANet sat down and said, “Lets make something to turn the male players on.” or “Lets make something to offend female players”

So ultimately you do care, but no one at ANet set out to make you care.

Dahkeus.8243:

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.

1. Not every culture shares this issue.
2. By crying “over sexuliazation!” and “Exploitation!” at every model of the male or female form, you are perpetuating the issue and holding culture back.

Instead you should look at artistic expression for the merits it provides. In this case, the Watchknights symbolize confidence, empowerment, advancement, elegance, and protection.

Seeing one and saying “errmahgawd it haz bewbz! BOOO!” trivializes everything about it and encourages the exact perception that you are vehemently opposed to. You are quite literally the Biagio da Cesena to Anet’s Michaelangelo.

Humanity isn’t where you think it is, so you propose censorship over education and expression. How do you ever expect anything to evolve?

neon.4863:

This isn’t an isolated case. The ideal ‘strong female’ is depicted as hourglass shaped and scantily clad (with most of their clothes being there for aesthetics rather than functionality) a little too often. It’s in comics, it’s in cartoons, it’s in games, it’s everywhere.

Of course, when you analyze just this particular case it seems really ridiculous to point these things out. GW2 is in general good about not objectifying its female characters. But when it introduces a robot which is pretty much modeled after a hourglass-shaped naked woman in stilettos out of the blue, and when scantily clad hourglass-shaped women in stilettos are typically objectified and fetishized, some people will be uncomfortable with it.

Ultimately, it’s unnecessary. It’s something the game could’ve done without. They could’ve made female-looking robots without the naked, hourglass-shaped, stilettos part. There was absolutely no reason to resort to this particular trope. Of course, we don’t know the intention of the designer when they thought of this look, but since the female form is objectified more often than not, and since naked women are portrayed as meant for men to look at more often than not, you can’t really blame people for raising an eyebrow.

(I can’t believe I’m still talking here someone please stop me it hurts)

I’m looking at the Watchknight mini on the updates page right now and honestly, it doesn’t seem that ‘objectified and fetishistic’. Complain about the stilettos all you want (personally, I hate heels and think they’re ugly, but that isn’t weighing into my opinion of the Watchknights all that much)but I don’t think the art teams intentions were to give people feelings in their pants looking at them. They’re more imposing and threatening than sexual.

Their hourglass figure is pretty modest honestly. I guess their hips seem wider than they are because of their somewhat strange way of standing (which makes sense because robot, it’s probably for balance if that makes sense). The breasts aren’t too big either in my opinion.

Is it an ‘objectified’ female form? Heck no, it’s more basic and average if anything, nothing is really exaggerated to be sexual to me. I just feel like everyone saying these things are looking waaaaaaay too far into it and don’t even notice.

Seeing one and saying “errmahgawd it haz bewbz! BOOO!” trivializes everything about it and encourages the exact perception that you are vehemently opposed to. You are quite literally the Biagio da Cesena to Anet’s Michaelangelo.

^^^ 100x this.

I agree with much (not all) of what you said, but not this:

Kalathra.3128:

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.

There is indeed such a thing as exaggerating the female form to a degree of anatomical impossibility.

The watchknights are by no means the worst offenders of this at all (as I’ve said before, I love their design). However, Giselle Bundchen is a supermodel and she has twice the watchknight’s waist size… (see below)

Also, their pelvises are actually at an angle that over-emphasizes their butts to a degree that is also anatomically impossible. There is a picture out there that illustrates this by taking a 3d model of a woman and gradually photoshopping it back to fit onto a human skeleton. It looked quite different afterwards. Unfortunately, I can’t find it.

(I’m not saying that the design of the watchknights is bad or inappropriate. I am saying that yes, they are sexualized. I personally don’t have a problem with that, although I understand it if other people do.)

Bovinity.8610:

I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

The bad news is that you’re posting about it, so you must care in some way.

The other bad news is that no one at ANet sat down and said, “Lets make something to turn the male players on.” or “Lets make something to offend female players”

So ultimately you do care, but no one at ANet set out to make you care.

I don’t care about the female figures. I care about the attitude that prompted Anet to create them. It’s like if I don’t care about apple juice, but someone keeps showing me pictures of apple juice thinking I’ll like it, I’ll obviously notice that they’re trying no?

And I’m willing to bet that someone at Anet did sit down and say “Let’s make something to turn the male players on”. What, you think those huge boobs on every female character are a coincidence?

Dahkeus.8243:

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/

I’ve seen the three videos released so far and I, as a gender-issue-aware person who fights double standards and gender bias consciously and every day, am really not a fan of them. She raises some valid points and issues, but her argumentation in many cases is too biased to remain objective and falls short.

Anyway, back to guild wars. Here’s a picture of a damsel in distress that is almost completely naked, chained up, and that I have to rescue on a regular basis:

PS: I have +1’ed everyone in this thread who is trying to have a mature discussion about this, on all sides.

What is happening here is that we have a character design that has sexualized elements. This is a fact.

The amount to which this offends us is subjective. Some, don’t think twice about it, while others are highly sensitive, or even offended by it.

So who is right?

Well, in my opinion, everyone is. If you have a problem with the design of this robot, your feelings are perfectly valid. You have every right to feel offended by something you see in the game (Bathing suits, skimpy armour, shirtless males, half naked statues).

What you don’t have the right to do however, is tell others they’re wrong for not feeling offended, or to claim they’re sexist, insensitive, misogynistic, or whatever.

We can all argue the practicality of this robot all we want. If you think high heels, or breasts on a fictional robot are a stupid idea, then by all means voice your opinion.

What we need to stop doing here IMO is throwing out buzzwords and assumptions without regard. We need to be careful not to make assumptions about people, and not belittle people for their views.

I have no problem discussing this stuff, but we need to stay rational. If we start posting videos of radical feminists, or calling each other names, then the only thing that will happen is that it will further divide people on an already volatile topic.

bhagwad.4281:

Bovinity.8610:

I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

The bad news is that you’re posting about it, so you must care in some way.

The other bad news is that no one at ANet sat down and said, “Lets make something to turn the male players on.” or “Lets make something to offend female players”

So ultimately you do care, but no one at ANet set out to make you care.

I don’t care about the female figures. I care about the attitude that prompted Anet to create them. It’s like if I don’t care about apple juice, but someone keeps showing me pictures of apple juice thinking I’ll like it, I’ll obviously notice that they’re trying no?

And I’m willing to bet that someone at Anet did sit down and say “Let’s make something to turn the male players on”. What, you think those huge boobs on every female character are a coincidence?

I disagree here. I actually do believe that most of the time the intent is not “let’s come up with something to turn the male players on”. I think most of the time it is to make something attractive, aesthetically pleasing, what have you – not necessarily in a sexual way. But female forms being sexualized in some way or another is so common we, as a collective, regardless of gender, end up playing into the trope without even trying to. It’s internalized more often than not.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

What is happening here is that we have a character design that has sexualized elements. This is a fact.

The amount to which this offends us is subjective. Some, don’t think twice about it, while others are highly sensitive, or even offended by it.

So who is right?

Well, in my opinion, everyone is. If you have a problem with the design of this robot, your feelings are perfectly valid. You have every right to feel offended by something you see in the game (Bathing suits, skimpy armour, shirtless males, half naked statues).

What you don’t have the right to do however, is tell others they’re wrong for not feeling offended, or to claim they’re sexist, insensitive, misogynistic, or whatever.

We can all argue the practicality of this robot all we want. If you think high heels, or breasts on a fictional robot are a stupid idea, then by all means voice your opinion.

What we need to stop doing here IMO is throwing out buzzwords and assumptions without regard. We need to be careful not to make assumptions about people, and not belittle people for their views.

I have no problem discussing this stuff, but we need to stay rational. If we start posting videos of radical feminists, or calling each other names, then the only thing that will happen is that it will further divide people on an already volatile topic.

Here, have a +1!

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

What is happening here is that we have a character design that has sexualized elements. This is a fact.

The amount to which this offends us is subjective. Some, don’t think twice about it, while others are highly sensitive, or even offended by it.

So who is right?

Well, in my opinion, everyone is. If you have a problem with the design of this robot, your feelings are perfectly valid. You have every right to feel offended by something you see in the game (Bathing suits, skimpy armour, shirtless males, half naked statues).

What you don’t have the right to do however, is tell others they’re wrong for not feeling offended, or to claim they’re sexist, insensitive, misogynistic, or whatever.

We can all argue the practicality of this robot all we want. If you think high heels, or breasts on a fictional robot are a stupid idea, then by all means voice your opinion.

What we need to stop doing here IMO is throwing out buzzwords and assumptions without regard. We need to be careful not to make assumptions about people, and not belittle people for their views.

I have no problem discussing this stuff, but we need to stay rational. If we start posting videos of radical feminists, or calling each other names, then the only thing that will happen is that it will further divide people on an already volatile topic.

I agree, I think it is wrong to claim that those who don’t agree with the obvious design of the robots are sexist and all that.

The things is, I’m not seeing much of that at all. What I’m seeing is people saying that they feel it’s sexualized and objectified and the opposition saying, they are wrong and shouldn’t feel that way.

You are completely right that they have every right to feel that way, and the opposition also has every right not to see it. But the opposition should not be opposing what they see and should be willing to accept what they see and why they see it without claiming it’s not a thing.

I wonder who else just saw cool robots to fight…

neon.4863:

bhagwad.4281:

Bovinity.8610:

I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

The bad news is that you’re posting about it, so you must care in some way.

The other bad news is that no one at ANet sat down and said, “Lets make something to turn the male players on.” or “Lets make something to offend female players”

So ultimately you do care, but no one at ANet set out to make you care.

I don’t care about the female figures. I care about the attitude that prompted Anet to create them. It’s like if I don’t care about apple juice, but someone keeps showing me pictures of apple juice thinking I’ll like it, I’ll obviously notice that they’re trying no?

And I’m willing to bet that someone at Anet did sit down and say “Let’s make something to turn the male players on”. What, you think those huge boobs on every female character are a coincidence?

I disagree here. I actually do believe that most of the time the intent is not “let’s come up with something to turn the male players on”. I think most of the time it is to make something attractive, aesthetically pleasing, what have you – not necessarily in a sexual way. But female forms being sexualized in some way or another is so common we, as a collective, regardless of gender, end up playing into the trope without even trying to. It’s internalized more often than not.

This is actually an interesting thing to find out. I wish we could corner a designer and ask:

“If you were developing this game for women and women were your only audience, would your character designs change in general”.

I say yes, they would. Others think it would be exactly the same. It’ll be interesting to find out which is which.

Ynot.8397:

I wonder who else just saw cool robots to fight…

I don’t know about cool robots to fight, but I did see another mob whose only purpose is to be destroyed.

I agree with OP. When I got a good look at the Watchknight designs it immediately threw me out of the game. It’s blatant pandering with the molded butt, abs, and the inclusion of nipples on the design.

From an in game perspective, I can’t imagine that Queen Jennah would have such an overly sexy female robot approved as representing her, and her reign. An asura would marvel at the tech, but scoff at the aesthetic design over practicality. I can see other humans making crude jokes about them. The charr laughing at them for making giant naked versions of humanity’s queen to protect the people. The norn wondering why they aren’t fierce looking, the Sylvari asking why they’re naked, etc.

And for the people calling up Metropolis, yes, I got the reference. I’ve noticed that when there’s a sexy fembot design, this often gets brought up. And you know what? It’s gone from being an homage to an excuse. Yes, Metropolis was a seminal piece of film work, but when its regularly used as the reason for sexy robot ladies, I call BS. That movie came out over 80 years ago, and if designers are ONLY calling back to that one film, when there’s been decades of new and interesting robot designs, you have to wonder why (hint: it rhymes with toobs).

TLDR; Really feeling like Anet dropped the ball and went with cheap sexual thrills for the design.

I think the thing about this that disturbs me the most is the fact that, somewhere, at some point, there is some teen or younger kitten to these ugly travesties, and to call these things art is hilarious.

These Watch-knights aren’t even worth the time it takes to sigh and facepalm over them, so including them in the same vein as priceless works of art is quite a good joke.

Also, the only way someone could refer to them as Art-deco is the relation to the fact that it was probably IKEA who built these things.

The design, sexualized or not, was a little jarring at first— it knocked me out of my suspension of disbelief for a second when I first saw them. But how my brain filled in the gaps here (and I am honestly not being flippant here) was that “well, I guess Queen Jennah has an appreciation for the female form.”

Kal Spiro.9745:

Ynot.8397:

I wonder who else just saw cool robots to fight…

I don’t know about cool robots to fight, but I did see another mob whose only purpose is to be destroyed.

What other purpose would a mob have in a combat oriented video game?

……
These Watch-knights aren’t even worth the time it takes to sigh and facepalm over them, so including them in the same vein as priceless works of art is quite a good joke.
…..

As is claiming they are borderline pornography (but like most of this discussion, it’s an opinion).

Kal Spiro.9745:

The things is, I’m not seeing much of that at all. What I’m seeing is people saying that they feel it’s sexualized and objectified and the opposition saying, they are wrong and shouldn’t feel that way.

We are seeing this on both sides.

The degree to which someone says robot design is sexualized is based on the personality and experiences of the individual. This means, when you have people claiming it is sexualized, then the opposition will claim it isn’t.

This is because there is a big difference from saying, “In my opinion, this design is very sexualized.” and just stating it as a fact.

I don’t have a problem if someone finds it overly sexualized. What I have a problem with is them claiming this to be a fact, and then additionally shaming others for creating it, liking it, or not seeing it as a problem.

Kal Spiro.9745:

You are completely right that they have every right to feel that way, and the opposition also has every right not to see it. But the opposition should not be opposing what they see and should be willing to accept what they see and why they see it without claiming it’s not a thing.

Your wording is a bit strange here. The opposition has the right to feel differently. I just wanted to be clear here because the way you worded it seemed to imply that the default conclusion is that it is sexualized, and that anyone claiming otherwise is simply covering their ears and eyes in denial.

What we all need to do in this thread is try and see things from another perspective. If you have a problem with this, I want to know why. If I don’t, I would hope that you would listen to my opinion as well.

In the end, the goal is to make sure that in the future game designers are creating content that works for as many people as possible. We can’t pander to one side or the other if we want well rounded, and diverse games.

The solution to this is to get rid of all the stupid buzzwords (patriarchy, mansplaining, misogyny, Dudebro, "What about teh menz?, kitten culture, etc). We need to discuss this rationally and objectively. Only then will we create equality and a cool gaming environment.

The more I think about this the angrier I get because wouldn’t it make sense to have the Watchknights look like the Avatar of Dwayna? Wouldn’t it be a smarter political move for Jennah to tie her reign with one of the six, especially the one that’s the first and tied with leadership and health?

Especially since Dwayna has feathers in her motif, it would’ve matched the Seraph well and the Watchknights wouldn’t look so out of place.
(Posting again because I like to have solutions when I critique something.)

Kelayda.8359:

The more I think about this the angrier I get because wouldn’t it make sense to have the Watchknights look like the Avatar of Dwayna? Wouldn’t it be a smarter political move for Jennah to tie her reign with one of the six, especially the one that’s the first and tied with leadership and health?

Especially since Dwayna has feathers in her motif, it would’ve matched the Seraph well and the Watchknights wouldn’t look so out of place.
(Posting again because I like to have solutions when I critique something.)

Actually, tying her personal guard to the Divines might cause a bit of a hiccup in the peace treaty with the Charr, who are religiously seeking to avoid religion.

Kelayda.8359:

The more I think about this the angrier I get because wouldn’t it make sense to have the Watchknights look like the Avatar of Dwayna? Wouldn’t it be a smarter political move for Jennah to tie her reign with one of the six, especially the one that’s the first and tied with leadership and health?

Especially since Dwayna has feathers in her motif, it would’ve matched the Seraph well and the Watchknights wouldn’t look so out of place.
(Posting again because I like to have solutions when I critique something.)

My initial thought on where the design might have came from was the Chronomancer designs from GW1, but then somebody else with the same idea pointed to the actual concept art and they’re not as close as I thought they were: link

Still, it’s a good example of how the watchknight design could have been both desexualised and gender balanced, if that was the aesthetic they were going for.

mtpelion.4562:

Kelayda.8359:

The more I think about this the angrier I get because wouldn’t it make sense to have the Watchknights look like the Avatar of Dwayna? Wouldn’t it be a smarter political move for Jennah to tie her reign with one of the six, especially the one that’s the first and tied with leadership and health?

Especially since Dwayna has feathers in her motif, it would’ve matched the Seraph well and the Watchknights wouldn’t look so out of place.
(Posting again because I like to have solutions when I critique something.)

Actually, tying her personal guard to the Divines might cause a bit of a hiccup in the peace treaty with the Charr, who are religiously seeking to avoid religion.

That is a good point! Maybe they could just use more of the seraph design into them (winged helm, the design on the chest of serpah armor, etc), more of a valkyrie inspired look that calls back to Dwayna without it being too obvious.

Faowri.4159:

Still, it’s a good example of how the watchknight design could have been both desexualised and gender balanced, if that was the aesthetic they were going for.

Just wanted to add. I don’t think that everything necessarily needs to be desexualized and gender balanced.

What we need to do is create characters that are best for the story. If they happen to be all one gender, then cool. If they happen to be sexualized, then cool. As long as it fits within the context of the story.

In this case, if I take into consideration the design aesthetics of the city/queen, and previous models/situations in the game, I don’t feel they’re that far out of context. Sure, they could have added male versions, and sure they could have made them less sexualized, but I’m not sure what that would have done other than to just appear “token.”

It’s ok to have female robots. It’s ok to have them sexualized. The trick is to make sure it’s in context, and to make sure it’s not one sided. With all the shirtless, muscle bound, speedo wearing, manly-mans, in this game, I’m not too concerned that it’s suddenly sexist and unequal.

bhagwad.4281:

neon.4863:

bhagwad.4281:

Bovinity.8610:

I just feel kind of of irritated that Anet thinks I’m so shallow as to care about a robot’s shape.

The bad news is that you’re posting about it, so you must care in some way.

The other bad news is that no one at ANet sat down and said, “Lets make something to turn the male players on.” or “Lets make something to offend female players”

So ultimately you do care, but no one at ANet set out to make you care.

I don’t care about the female figures. I care about the attitude that prompted Anet to create them. It’s like if I don’t care about apple juice, but someone keeps showing me pictures of apple juice thinking I’ll like it, I’ll obviously notice that they’re trying no?

And I’m willing to bet that someone at Anet did sit down and say “Let’s make something to turn the male players on”. What, you think those huge boobs on every female character are a coincidence?

I disagree here. I actually do believe that most of the time the intent is not “let’s come up with something to turn the male players on”. I think most of the time it is to make something attractive, aesthetically pleasing, what have you – not necessarily in a sexual way. But female forms being sexualized in some way or another is so common we, as a collective, regardless of gender, end up playing into the trope without even trying to. It’s internalized more often than not.

This is actually an interesting thing to find out. I wish we could corner a designer and ask:

“If you were developing this game for women and women were your only audience, would your character designs change in general”.

I say yes, they would. Others think it would be exactly the same. It’ll be interesting to find out which is which.

Yeah, I agree with you there, I do think the designs would change in general.

But I just also think that people in general (designers perhaps less so, since they need to be more aware of these things) usually don’t even care about these things enough to actively think about them. For instance, if you stop a random stranger on the street and ask them what kind of movie genre they would recommend, they’d probably recommend their favorite genre. If you asked them what kind of genre they would recommend to a woman specifically or to a man specifically, the answer would most likely change. The parameter changes from “things I like” to “things I think other people may like based on their gender”, and those are very different things.

And even if they didn’t specifically consider the male players, there’s such a long-standing belief that the gaming community is primarily young males (I’ve seen this debunked by actual statistics already) that they may end up unconsciously designing things based on what they believe young males would like to see.

GW2 is generally good at keeping objectification away, though, so I’m more willing to bet on this being done unconsciously rather than consciously. But alas, we will likely never know.

neon.4863:

And even if they didn’t specifically consider the male players, there’s such a long-standing belief that the gaming community is primarily young males (I’ve seen this debunked by actual statistics already) that they may end up unconsciously designing things based on what they believe young males would like to see.

This is a topic for another day, but this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the stats. There is more to this story than this. But….lets not derail.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

neon.4863:

And even if they didn’t specifically consider the male players, there’s such a long-standing belief that the gaming community is primarily young males (I’ve seen this debunked by actual statistics already) that they may end up unconsciously designing things based on what they believe young males would like to see.

This is a topic for another day, but this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the stats. There is more to this story than this. But….lets not derail.

No, please, explain. Don’t just quote me, say it’s wrong, and then say “let’s not derail” without actually explaining what you mean.

OK this thread is jsut two extremse or two side but NEVER in the middle. let me try to find it.
first of we CAN NOT say its made to turn on maleplayers. actuallyif you wouldn´t have made a fuzz about it i wouldn´t have even noticed they had nippls.
further more we have NO IDEA who desgined them. it could have been a man or a woman. but they still had to be aproofed by design leaders and also programmers. mostly they consist of both male and feamel people. and if the women in all possible stages of that design can agree to impliment this desgin in the game, can we really argu thakittens sexist or appealing just for men. well the first is is always possible, femi-kittens have proofen that on tumblr but the secound ….NO we can´t.

Are the nipples to much. well yes and no. unless anet design also blueprints for those explaining those nippls are jsut bolts, we can only say it was nota the best decision made.
are the high heel to much?
WHO THE kitten CARES. even the robot bodies resemble a over feminized figure high heels are not the problem here.
because those heels are PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THEIR HEELS. they ARE the heels. high heels are not good forspart since they bend the foot or break and all the thing that can happen with these shoes.
but these heels are part of their built body and so they can not have those issues. they are robots; they don´t have ligements or any nervs to feel pain and if their feet break, they can repair them and then would work just as before.
and they transform anyway into something else when they fight. AND MOST IMPORTANLTY: if you defeat a robot in his veteran form he turns into a normal mob bot, not capable to stop you anymore, its jsut there to be junked.
so if you still feel heels are not good for fightin, WELL, they aren´t in their robot form.

as for the animation i can only say:
watch at human females. same idle animations. nobody complains about femal humans and how they are more “seducive” and “sexualized”.
so we can scrap animation of that list.

as for the comments on that the bodies are not waht women looklike.
THATS THE POINT. they are not there to represent humenkind the most varied forms. they are supposed to resemble the glorious triumph of humanity over hard obticles like near extintion, the survial even after the lose of so many kingdoms and homes, the strengh and faith they still hold up despite of all troubles humankind has gone through.
In our history SPECIALY during and after the reniscance, women, personifaction of beauty of their respectiv time period have been symbols of triumph, victory and process.
Most expensive and most known painting: mona lisa a woman
the statue of liberty: a woman
storm on the bastiell and victory of the revultion in france: symbolized by a women.
the greatest (historicaly) monarch of great britian: a woman

all this historical backround of OUR global sociaty went into the desing of tyrias human race and so they will symbolize thing as we do.

portraying the current status of DR and queen jennah with these robots is totaly justified.

but still the nipple can be debated

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

It’s ok to have female robots. It’s ok to have them sexualized. The trick is to make sure it’s in context, and to make sure it’s not one sided. With all the shirtless, muscle bound, speedo wearing, manly-mans, in this game, I’m not too concerned that it’s suddenly sexist and unequal.

I don’t necessarily agree that we have a somewhat equal distribution of sexualised men in the game as we do women (and bear in mind that I do consider GW2, in many ways, extremely progressive in terms of gender representation, so I’m not outright shooting it down). There are lots of imbalanced armour sets for scholars, for example, and lots of cases like the recent phoenix set that lavished a lot of scantily-clad detail on the women and provided only a lacklustre carbon copy of the usual buttcape design for men. There are lots of designs that are very even between the genders, but at the same time we again have very few revealing sets for males of certain classes, and as a straight female I’d really like to see more of them.

Like I’ve said before, I’m really not an opponent of sexualised content when it’s done right, and I agree with your comment that what’s best for the story is best. What many people have seen as a sexualised fembot is hard to justify as being best for the story in this case, however. They feel terribly out of place to me here and there’s not a lot of lore context to support that it’s anything more than what the designers thought looked cool (and they do look cool, but in context I still feel they’re out of place and I’m still annoyed that sexualised content is yet again targeted at men, and only men).

Leading on from that, I’m of the opinion that if sexualised or sexy content is what you’re going for, then great – but remember that your audience doesn’t only contain straight males, so there ought to be a little something for everybody in there. It’s not ‘tokenism’ to be inclusive of all your players.

neon.4863:

No, please, explain. Don’t just quote me, say it’s wrong, and then say “let’s not derail” without actually explaining what you mean.

Quickly.

The stats that most people are quoting state that 45% of gamers are female. However, the part that most people leave out are where those females are distributed amongst game types. This means that while almost half of gamers are female, many genres of games still have a relatively larger male percentage.

This is why you see some games becoming much more neutral (or even female centric), and others aren’t changing much.

I’m not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, or whether some games are “legit” or not, I’m simply saying that we have to consider all the variables when using these stats.

Oh, there are definitely ways to make this bizarre choice part of the plot (which, let’s be clear, is not currently the canon case). To counter the “she wanted them to look like that” head!canons, I’d love to see an in-game scene of Jennah flipping a royal kitten fit at the in-game designer and him/her refusing to redo the order, so Jennah has to deal with not getting her way at her own jubilee. Would also be fun to see different in-game NPCs try to butter her up to get the future design/redesign bids. XD Character development and a meta self-critique while leaving the door open for small design changes in the future = win-win. Of course they’ve already got the voice-overs for this story so I doubt this would happen. But still, if we’re listing theoretical explanations… I like mine, haha. I just find it hard to believe she’d specify for nipples without asking that the vulnerable exposed cogs be protected somehow.

Faowri.4159:

(and they do look cool, but in context I still feel they’re out of place and I’m still annoyed that sexualised content is yet again targeted at men, and only men).

This is an assumption I don’t agree with. There is nothing to support this claim at all, nor do I think it’s realistic to assume only men find this sexualized, or even all men for that matter.

Queen Jennah and mesmers in general have so much style based off long, flowing, silky clothing, so I think that the message of “strong femininity” could have been done much better of they had the watchbots dressed up in some similar fashion.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Faowri.4159:

(and they do look cool, but in context I still feel they’re out of place and I’m still annoyed that sexualised content is yet again targeted at men, and only men).

This is an assumption I don’t agree with. There is nothing to support this claim at all, nor do I think it’s realistic to assume only men find this sexualized, or even all men for that matter.

I don’t believe that all straight men enjoy this kind of content because I don’t generalise the preferences of an entire gender, but when you have sexualised female figures as art and decoration, it’s usually designed, intentionally or through internalised patterns, to appeal to the straight male demographic. I don’t think that’s unfair to say?

Faowri.4159:

I don’t believe that all straight men enjoy this kind of content because I don’t generalise the preferences of an entire gender, but when you have sexualised female figures as art and decoration, it’s usually designed, intentionally or through internalised patterns, to appeal to the straight male demographic. I don’t think that’s unfair to say?

I think it is unfair to see that as a negative. Many sports cars are designed with curves and such that are pleasing to the eye. Many things take elements from what we consider “feminine” to make them more pleasing.

The problem is if you conclude that this is bad. There is nothing wrong with designing a robot that appeals to people. To say that it applies only to the male demographic would be very one sided to me.

So, if you were to say that this was designed to appeal to anyone who finds the female form appealing, then ya, I could get behind that.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Faowri.4159:

I don’t believe that all straight men enjoy this kind of content because I don’t generalise the preferences of an entire gender, but when you have sexualised female figures as art and decoration, it’s usually designed, intentionally or through internalised patterns, to appeal to the straight male demographic. I don’t think that’s unfair to say?

I think it is unfair to see that as a negative. Many sports cars are designed with curves and such that are pleasing to the eye. Many things take elements from what we consider “feminine” to make them more pleasing.

I think it’s negative when it’s exclusionary of a great deal of the playerbase, especially when you are a company that has been very outspoken about ensuring your game design is inclusive, and have many staff on board who are very passionate about representation issues in gaming. There are lots of people who do not enjoy sexualised content, full-stop, just as there are lots of people for whom a sexualised female figure (which is hardly a lacking resource in the gaming industry) does nothing, or may even find to be a turn-off. There’s not a whole lot of justification for pandering to one section of your playerbase and forgetting the rest.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

neon.4863:

No, please, explain. Don’t just quote me, say it’s wrong, and then say “let’s not derail” without actually explaining what you mean.

Quickly.

The stats that most people are quoting state that 45% of gamers are female. However, the part that most people leave out are where those females are distributed amongst game types. This means that while almost half of gamers are female, many genres of games still have a relatively larger male percentage.

This is why you see some games becoming much more neutral (or even female centric), and others aren’t changing much.

I’m not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, or whether some games are “legit” or not, I’m simply saying that we have to consider all the variables when using these stats.

The stat is actually 47%. That’s the full study (for those wondering wtf we’re on). They also have reports for previous years.

You’re right in saying we can’t get a figure for the gender percentage for this particular game (or for MMOs or game types in general) from this study, since it considers all the genres.

However, I said “young males”, not all males. Specifically because lbr, if you really, honestly play games to watch an NPC’s boobs bounce, you’re probably a pubescent boy.

Basically, I’m not quoting these statistics to say 47% of GW2 players are female. I’m saying there is still a generalized belief that the average gamer is a young male, which may influence some design decisions. If I had to venture a guess – especially based on the replies here in this forum – I’d say the average GW2 gamer doesn’t seem to think big boobs are important for their enjoyment of the game. So if this was a design decision intended to please the playerbase, it seems to be a misguided one (perhaps, again, influenced by the perception that the average player is a teenaged boy).

Faowri.4159:

I think it’s negative when it’s exclusionary of a great deal of the playerbase, especially when you are a company that has been very outspoken about ensuring your game design is inclusive, and have many staff on board who are very passionate about representation issues in gaming. There are lots of people who do not enjoy sexualised content, full-stop, just as there are lots of people for whom a sexualised female figure (which is hardly a lacking resource in the gaming industry) does nothing, or may even find to be a turn-off. There’s not a whole lot of justification for pandering to one section of your playerbase and forgetting the rest.

How is this exclusionary?

Does the presence of these character models diminish anyones ability to participate in the game? Are you required to accept these before you can enjoy Guild Wars 2?

There are a lot of people who don’t enjoy a lot of things. I don’t enjoy the drinking games personally, but I know some do. I like the design of the WatchKnights, but some don’t.

You’re arguing one side of the coin here. You’re saying that because some people are offended, that the rest of us should pander to that. I don’t agree.

The viewpoint that some people like design elements, is just as valid and being offended does not give anyone the right to dictate how it should be for everyone else.

neon.4863:

However, I said “young males”, not all males. Specifically because lbr, if you really, honestly play games to watch an NPC’s boobs bounce, you’re probably a pubescent boy.

Perhaps, but I feeding that stereotype probably isn’t constructive.

neon.4863:

So if this was a design decision intended to please the playerbase, it seems to be a misguided one (perhaps, again, influenced by the perception that the average player is a teenaged boy).

There is perhaps another possibility. That this design is actually well received by the majority of players and was influenced based on other factors that have nothing to do with a players age, or gender.

I just feel jumping to conclusions like this are not constructive. They make too many negative assumptions.

Riot Inducer.8964:

Celestina.2894:

Alleluia.1320:

Questorian.1098:

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…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

………..I’m sorry, but EDI was FAR more sexualized then these could ever hope to be.

How you can have a problem with these and not EDI is beyond me.

Gotta agree with this, how is EDI less sexualized than the watchknights?

Speaking of Mass Effect, my first reaction to the watchknights was that they creeped me out a bit and their imposing statue and and somewhat dissected female curvature reminded me of the banshees from Mass Effect 3.

You know……I completely forgot about the Banshees (for good reason…….) and yeah, you’re totally right.