Guild Wars 2

Dahkeus.8243:

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.

So, because they’re TOO feminine, they’re displaying that they’re less powerful than if they had more “conservative” metal “clothing”? Even though they’d have the exact same fighting prowess? To me, that’s implying that being beautiful and feminine somehow implies weakness. I don’t think that’s true.

Buffy the Vampire slayer was created by a male. She wore a disproportionate amount of tight fitting pants. She fought monsters in what could be considered inappropriate attire for the situation, and she was far too slight and thin for the powers she possessed. In canon, her and the other slayers were created by a group of men for the sole purpose of defending others, at the cost of her life. Using the same logic as this thread, she would be considered a deeply sexist and misogynistic fantasy.

But instead she’s held up an icon for female empowerment, because she was a strong, capable, layered human being who is to be respected. These are robots, so they don’t have a personality of their own, we only have the personality of the woman who commissioned them, and she ticks all those same boxes.

Buffy faced a similar situation when Warren was creating sex bots; they were disgusted by it, they stole the technology and used it to create Buffy-Bot, who served a similar function to the watch knights while Buffy was busy being dead again.

They weren’t outraged that someone would make a robot look beautiful, but they were massively outraged at one made simply to serve sexual whims and fantasies. Rightly so. Reconfigured to fight the good fight? not so much of an outrage.

And we’re only assuming these robots were initially drawn by a man. My fiance posted a rather lengthy post earlier, about her experiences as a female artist; she draws idealized feminine characters, because that’s what she enjoys looking at. To me, she is an idealized female character herself, but should I tell her that she’s not allowed to draw “sexualised” females as it might offend someones sensibilities? Should I make her go through all her toons and give them more battle appropriate outfits?

Or does she have every right to express herself and create something she enjoys, in the same was a game developer does?

Again, if these were robots designed to make sandwhiches and kitten the locals, I’d be on the other side of the fence completely. But they’re just not.

Commentary on the Fembot and Male Fantasies in Advertising..by one of my favorite youtube channels, Feminist Frequency (she has an awesome video series on the cliche portrayals of women in video games that I totally recommend checking out)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUrtFnofQM

As the video describes, the “fembot” is offensive mainly because they are usually portrayed as providing accomodation and pleasure, silently and willingly, thereby exploiting the classic objectification of women as slavish sex toys. For this reason, I had NO negative impression of the Watchknights upon first seeing them, because they were not subjected to that treatment at all.

I’d have a problem if the Watchknights weren’t actually knights, but robotic bartenders for the Jubilee or something of that nature, but they’re not…They are merely soldiers, with symbolic importance. If anything it’s quite appropriate that they’re feminine, because they were created in celebration of Krytan culture and Divinity’s Reach. People often refer to cities as “she..” “her..” with connotations of a motherly guardian.

I understand if some people would prefer the Watchknights be perfectly androgynous for the sake of taste/neutrality/what have you. But for the reason I explained, I do not find their femininity offensive, because they do not exploit any harmful tropes about women.

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

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.

So, because they’re TOO feminine, they’re displaying that they’re less powerful than if they had more “conservative” metal “clothing”? Even though they’d have the exact same fighting prowess? To me, that’s implying that being beautiful and feminine somehow implies weakness. I don’t think that’s true.

Buffy the Vampire slayer was created by a male. She wore a disproportionate amount of tight fitting pants. She fought monsters in what could be considered inappropriate attire for the situation, and she was far too slight and thin for the powers she possessed. In canon, her and the other slayers were created by a group of men for the sole purpose of defending others, at the cost of her life. Using the same logic as this thread, she would be considered a deeply sexist and misogynistic fantasy.

But instead she’s held up an icon for female empowerment, because she was a strong, capable, layered human being who is to be respected. These are robots, so they don’t have a personality of their own, we only have the personality of the woman who commissioned them, and she ticks all those same boxes.

Buffy faced a similar situation when Warren was creating sex bots; they were disgusted by it, they stole the technology and used it to create Buffy-Bot, who served a similar function to the watch knights while Buffy was busy being dead again.

They weren’t outraged that someone would make a robot look beautiful, but they were massively outraged at one made simply to serve sexual whims and fantasies. Rightly so. Reconfigured to fight the good fight? not so much of an outrage.

And we’re only assuming these robots were initially drawn by a man. My fiance posted a rather lengthy post earlier, about her experiences as a female artist; she draws idealized feminine characters, because that’s what she enjoys looking at. To me, she is an idealized female character herself, but should I tell her that she’s not allowed to draw “sexualised” females as it might offend someones sensibilities? Should I make her go through all her toons and give them more battle appropriate outfits?

Or does she have every right to express herself and create something she enjoys, in the same was a game developer does?

Again, if these were robots designed to make sandwhiches and kitten the locals, I’d be on the other side of the fence completely. But they’re just not.

Very nice. I considered mentioning Buffy in my post but it wouldn’t have really fit with what I said. Good work.

zenleto.6179:

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

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.

So, because they’re TOO feminine, they’re displaying that they’re less powerful than if they had more “conservative” metal “clothing”? Even though they’d have the exact same fighting prowess? To me, that’s implying that being beautiful and feminine somehow implies weakness. I don’t think that’s true.

Buffy the Vampire slayer was created by a male. She wore a disproportionate amount of tight fitting pants. She fought monsters in what could be considered inappropriate attire for the situation, and she was far too slight and thin for the powers she possessed. In canon, her and the other slayers were created by a group of men for the sole purpose of defending others, at the cost of her life. Using the same logic as this thread, she would be considered a deeply sexist and misogynistic fantasy.

But instead she’s held up an icon for female empowerment, because she was a strong, capable, layered human being who is to be respected. These are robots, so they don’t have a personality of their own, we only have the personality of the woman who commissioned them, and she ticks all those same boxes.

Buffy faced a similar situation when Warren was creating sex bots; they were disgusted by it, they stole the technology and used it to create Buffy-Bot, who served a similar function to the watch knights while Buffy was busy being dead again.

They weren’t outraged that someone would make a robot look beautiful, but they were massively outraged at one made simply to serve sexual whims and fantasies. Rightly so. Reconfigured to fight the good fight? not so much of an outrage.

And we’re only assuming these robots were initially drawn by a man. My fiance posted a rather lengthy post earlier, about her experiences as a female artist; she draws idealized feminine characters, because that’s what she enjoys looking at. To me, she is an idealized female character herself, but should I tell her that she’s not allowed to draw “sexualised” females as it might offend someones sensibilities? Should I make her go through all her toons and give them more battle appropriate outfits?

Or does she have every right to express herself and create something she enjoys, in the same was a game developer does?

Again, if these were robots designed to make sandwhiches and kitten the locals, I’d be on the other side of the fence completely. But they’re just not.

Very nice. I considered mentioning Buffy in my post but it wouldn’t have really fit with what I said. Good work.

Thanks! I like to try and mention Buffy AT LEAST once in every discussion I have. Sometimes makes it difficult to order in a resteraunt. I usually try and go places that serve rabbit, so I can sing about how it must be bunnies. Or maybe midgets.

Willisium.5081:

Buffy the Vampire slayer was created by a male. She wore a disproportionate amount of tight fitting pants. She fought monsters in what could be considered inappropriate attire for the situation, and she was far too slight and thin for the powers she possessed. In canon, her and the other slayers were created by a group of men for the sole purpose of defending others, at the cost of her life. Using the same logic as this thread, she would be considered a deeply sexist and misogynistic fantasy.

But instead she’s held up an icon for female empowerment, because she was a strong, capable, layered human being who is to be respected. These are robots, so they don’t have a personality of their own, we only have the personality of the woman who commissioned them, and she ticks all those same boxes.

I love Buffy. But I can’t see this argument without pointing out that actually she WAS criticized for being exactly as sexist and misogynistist as you say, by some. Not everyone bought into it, and plenty of people said the whole show was flawed, particularly as it went on. The fact that Buffy can’t have sex without it being a source of evil and death, for instance. Hey, I don’t think this, but being deep into Buffy fandom I know it’s there. So it’s not always as easy as saying that most people find something OK, so it’s OK.

Like with your fiance’s art. Of course she’s allowed to draw what she wants, but it won’t stop people having their reaction to it, right? I mean that’s one of the strengths of art anyway. Causing reactions, talking about the reactions, creating new reactions.

I don’t think people find femininity offensive, but rather the emphasis of physical qualities. The only thing feminine about the watchknights are their overtly female qualities like their breasts and hips, and these qualities are rather exaggerated. I believe this to be the source of the outrage. But that’s to expected because we live in an age where body image (of both genders) is used to create pressures and biases in order to mass market products and habits, and the moral implications of this practice, which is worthy of disdain, can be easily extrapolated.

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips, but at the same time I’m not going to fault ANet for what they did because the alternative I mentioned is quite hard and they’ve kind of put themselves in a corner in terms of quality control with their tight two week release schedule.

Also Nostalgia Chick offers a more balanced view of females modern media (movies in this case), with deeper insight. To be perfectly fair though, the bar for this isn’t set very high. What’s more is that she doesn’t even need a kickstarter to do her work (and to procrastinate at doing it)! Just sayin’.

Obviously the developers have been drinking their own kool-aid. The fembots are clearly the result of throwing an Amazon, a clock, the transhuman Maria robot from Metropolis and one other random item into the mystic toilet.

I understand some people had that reaction to Buffy, and I must admit there are one or two episodes that I deem questionable myself, but on the whole its hard to argue Buffy is, akittens core, a sexist show.

I brought up Buffy for the exact reason that some people had similar views on the show that people are using here, and they have been debated from every which angle, and in the end MOST advocates of feminism agree that a depiction of a strong, powerful, beautiful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. And again, the buffy-bot example seems particularly apt.

And there’s a difference between reacting to something and wanting it censored. These robots are Queen Jennahs artistic message to the world of her image of herself and humanity.

Ypu’re allowed to dislike the aesthetics. Labelling it as inherintely sexist doesn’t seek to have much merit, for the reasons a lot of posters have outlined, but our best points get ignored in favor of pursuing straw dogs. Did anyone even watch the link city pidgeon put up?

Maybe they should make some fat with saggy kittens, hair curlers, hairy legs with slippers on too.

Willisium.5081:

I understand some people had that reaction to Buffy, and I must admit there are one or two episodes that I deem questionable myself, but on the whole its hard to argue Buffy is, akittens core, a sexist show.

I brought up Buffy for the exact reason that some people had similar views on the show that people are using here, and they have been debated from every which angle, and in the end MOST advocates of feminism agree that a depiction of a strong, powerful, beautiful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. And again, the buffy-bot example seems particularly apt.

And there’s a difference between reacting to something and wanting it censored. These robots are Queen Jennahs artistic message to the world of her image of herself (snip)

I agree, that a depiction of a strong, powerful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. The ‘beautiful’ bit is unnecessary, but how do you create an ugly femmebot? Maybe if it didn’t have the heels, but kept the other feminine aspects it wouldn’t have rung so many bells.

What you’ve just said about Jennah’s message about her image of herself is fascinating to me. I usually evaluate game content by what the designers want to say, but looking at what the NPC wanted is interesting. Maybe the heels are Jennah’s way of expressing that she’s hobbled by the image she has to present of herself.

bhagwad.4281:

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

QFJ, before it gets lost. These are my feelings towards what I dislike in art design in modern VG in general, put in one sentence.

Pretty sure that watchknights could be designed differently, but with the same number of detail. But currently “enhanced” feminine traits just make them look grotesque and repulsive to me.

adrad.3125:

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

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

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

Interested in others thoughts.

What I find common is that if these robots were male and were “obedient, objectified men designed to serve”, there would be no such protest as men are often viewed as inherently disposable.

Imagine for one moment, the movie “300” with a queen and ripped semi-naked female warriors going to their deaths. Outrage! But if it’s men? No problem. It’s the usual double standard that goes with gender roles.

Can I be blunt on this forum? Both genders can be cynically boiled down to two equally insulting gender roles. Men are inherently disposable drones used for anything that involves dying, especially while they’re young. Women are inherently precious drones used for making babies, especially while they’re young.

So in the case of Watchknights you’re complaining about a female-looking robot being cast into a male stereotype of disposable, semi-naked fighting machine, as if, if they were male it’d be ok. Well, if it’d be ok for them to be male then in an equal society it’s fine for them to be female.

Also…

“I find it hard to believe that a Jenna, a confident, powerful female leader would endorse these glorified ‘fem-bots’. "

Confident, powerful female leaders are not insecure about their bodies. Neither are male ones for that matter.

Willisium.5081:

zenleto.6179:

Willisium.5081:

Dahkeus.8243:

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.

So, because they’re TOO feminine, they’re displaying that they’re less powerful than if they had more “conservative” metal “clothing”? Even though they’d have the exact same fighting prowess? To me, that’s implying that being beautiful and feminine somehow implies weakness. I don’t think that’s true.

Buffy the Vampire slayer was created by a male. She wore a disproportionate amount of tight fitting pants. She fought monsters in what could be considered inappropriate attire for the situation, and she was far too slight and thin for the powers she possessed. In canon, her and the other slayers were created by a group of men for the sole purpose of defending others, at the cost of her life. Using the same logic as this thread, she would be considered a deeply sexist and misogynistic fantasy.

But instead she’s held up an icon for female empowerment, because she was a strong, capable, layered human being who is to be respected. These are robots, so they don’t have a personality of their own, we only have the personality of the woman who commissioned them, and she ticks all those same boxes.

Buffy faced a similar situation when Warren was creating sex bots; they were disgusted by it, they stole the technology and used it to create Buffy-Bot, who served a similar function to the watch knights while Buffy was busy being dead again.

They weren’t outraged that someone would make a robot look beautiful, but they were massively outraged at one made simply to serve sexual whims and fantasies. Rightly so. Reconfigured to fight the good fight? not so much of an outrage.

And we’re only assuming these robots were initially drawn by a man. My fiance posted a rather lengthy post earlier, about her experiences as a female artist; she draws idealized feminine characters, because that’s what she enjoys looking at. To me, she is an idealized female character herself, but should I tell her that she’s not allowed to draw “sexualised” females as it might offend someones sensibilities? Should I make her go through all her toons and give them more battle appropriate outfits?

Or does she have every right to express herself and create something she enjoys, in the same was a game developer does?

Again, if these were robots designed to make sandwhiches and kitten the locals, I’d be on the other side of the fence completely. But they’re just not.

Very nice. I considered mentioning Buffy in my post but it wouldn’t have really fit with what I said. Good work.

Thanks! I like to try and mention Buffy AT LEAST once in every discussion I have. Sometimes makes it difficult to order in a resteraunt. I usually try and go places that serve rabbit, so I can sing about how it must be bunnies. Or maybe midgets.

Why did you have to go and mention bunnies!

(That’s it from me, don’t want to cheapen an interesting thread any further.)

Cirian.8917:

(…) So in the case of Watchknights you’re complaining about a female-looking robot being cast into a male stereotype of disposable, semi-naked fighting machine, as if, if they were male it’d be ok. Well, if it’d be ok for them to be male then in an equal society it’s fine for them to be female.(…)

Bullseye. The double standards in this (and any other in the real life) gender role discusion would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Cirian.8917:

Can I be blunt on this forum? Both genders can be cynically boiled down to two equally insulting gender roles. Men are inherently disposable drones used for anything that involves dying, especially while they’re young. Women are inherently precious drones used for making babies, especially while they’re young.

It’s true that gender stereotypes and bias go both ways. People of either gender benefit from some and are put at disadvantages by others. Logically, in a species with (for the most part) binary gender, inequality affects everybody.

But that doesn’t mean that we should stop talking about gender issues or stop trying to work towards equality. On the contrary. I have heard one time too many that “it happens to men, too, so shut up”. Gender bias and inequality harm everybody.

As such, this discussion is a good one. Many good and valid points were raised, on both “sides”.
And many other people are not firmly taking sides, and don’t have to, and yet contribute valuable thoughts to this.

Please keep the discussion going, and keep open minds. I dream of one day living in a society where people don’t give a skritt about gender roles at all anymore, and no one will be pre-judged; if we continue to talk about this in a mature way, one day I might.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I think the design of the guards is pretty cool, and reminds me of the movie Metropolis. On the other hand, they are blatantly sexualized fem-bots, with pretty explicit nipples, and booty. And I think women are sexualized enough in video games. Maybe it is time this medium grew up.

TwoBit.5903:

I don’t think people find femininity offensive, but rather the emphasis of physical qualities. The only thing feminine about the watchknights are their overtly female qualities like their breasts and hips, and these qualities are rather exaggerated. I believe this to be the source of the outrage. But that’s to expected because we live in an age where but where body image (of both genders) is used to create pressures and biases in order to mass market products and habits, and the moral implications of this practice, which is worthy of disdain, can be easily extrapolated.

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips, but at the same time I’m not going to fault ANet for what they did because the alternative I mentioned is quite hard and they’ve kind of put themselves in a corner in terms of quality control with their tight two week release schedule.

Also Nostalgia Chick offers a more balanced view of females modern media (movies in this case), with deeper insight. To be perfectly fair though, the bar for this isn’t set very high. What’s more is that she doesn’t even need a kickstarter to do her work (and to procrastinate at doing it)! Just sayin’.

I agree that’s why people seem to find it offensive, but I don’t agree that they should, necessarily, or at least that they should give it some more thought. There are exaggerations of body image throughout the entire game, and in many others, because it’s styled to be that way. I agree that body image is a big deal, I struggle with it myself, but at the same time, I’m not going to look at a CGI robot and compare myself to them. A CGI human? Maybe. Even with body image, we tend to look towards people that already almost look like us.

I also agree there are other ways to convey femininity, but this is definitely the most powerful way to do it. Both symbolically and aesthetically, any other feminine traits would have been completely missed or dismissed, and aesthetics is the best way to get your point across in visual mediums. Even more powerful and positive, to me, is that this is the first instance that I’m aware of, of a robot with a female form being placed in a position of power, and protection. Normally, fem bots have always been used as in media as sexualised objects for entertainment purposes. Which is far more detrimental, both symbolically, and metaphorically. This is a hugely positive, powerful representation, even if it is just robots with boobs. (I know you didn’t say anything against that, I went on a tangent after quoting you.)

Also, 100% agree about Nostalgia Chick. If anyone does decide to go and watch the FemFreq videos, please go and watch any of the many counter-‘arguments’, and discussions surrounding her videos and inform yourself of more than just her viewpoint. Her videos are quite bad for misinformation, or at least misrepresenting information, and cherry picking. I think they’re a good thing to watch to hear what she has to say, I agree with some of her points, but please don’t listen to her videos alone and claim them absolute. Get other views and opinions, too, and form your own opinion from the pool of them.

About FemFreq,

Kalathra.3128:

Her videos are quite bad for misinformation, or at least misrepresenting information, and cherry picking. I think they’re a good thing to watch to hear what she has to say, I agree with some of her points, but please don’t listen to her videos alone and claim them absolute. Get other views and opinions, too, and form your own opinion from the pool of them.

This is how I feel about them as well. The videaos are worth watching as some of the arguments and examples are perfectly valid, but they convey a very narrow perspective. I think in the interest of fairness, what we all need is an as broad as possible perspective, so if gender issues matter to you, please check out various sources and form your own opinion.

To be honest, I think the thread runs the risk of repeating itself, the same argumebts are likely to be brought up time and time again.

And the end of the day, we’re discussing an artistic choice, which can be perceived in a multitude of ways. Some people will see these as overly sexualised and demeaning as a resilt. Others will see these as female avatars drafted by a powerful women to represent her own influence. I can see it from both angles, and I know which I think was intended and I personally subscribe to, but others will always disagree.

Whether “sexy” (I use quotations as I don’t find them exactly a turn on, others might) female characters can be viewed as powerful or respected and whether their nature makes them open to being objectified is a wide topic where there’s plenty of grey areas. To dismiss one side of the aegument or the other as people being prudes or being childish / misogynistic isn’t doing the debate justice.

Perhaps we should discuss what we think would have been a more appropriate design choice? Its easy to critisize and hard to create. Personally a more seraphim design, like the kind you’d see aon the figure head of a warship, might jave lead to less controversy. I still wouldn’t like to censor the original artist or enforce the design upon them, as I’d take the current design over a bland sea of andronginous c3p0 wannabes, but I could see the merit in that as an alternate initial choice.

And apologies for typos, writing on my phone!

Watchknights are an adolescent gamer’s masturbation fantasy. This continued trend of objectifying and over-sexualising women is really making me question my commitment to the game.

Willisium.5081:

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

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

Because your ‘dangerous warriors’ are made with a huge and well formed butt, nipples, and fight on heels. ON HEELS!

YES! LET US SEND OUR DANGEROUS WARRIOR BOTS TO FIGHT THE CENTAUR! ON HIGH HEELS! OVER RUGGED TERRAIN!

It makes perfect sense. I’m not sure about who designed these bots, but I worry about you, son (developer). And your team leaders who said to go ahead and make high heeled, big butted, nippled fem-bots.

kinjiro.3251:

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

High heels.

Kanto.1659:

Willisium.5081:

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

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

Because your ‘dangerous warriors’ are made with a huge and well formed butt, nipples, and fight on heels. ON HEELS!

YES! LET US SEND OUR DANGEROUS WARRIOR BOTS TO FIGHT THE CENTAUR! ON HIGH HEELS! OVER RUGGED TERRAIN!

It makes perfect sense. I’m not sure about who designed these bots, but I worry about you, son. And your team leaders who said to go ahead and make high heeled, big butted, nippled fem-bots.

As I was saying, we run the risk of retreading old ground (the practicality of the robots was discussed in great length earlier, with good points on both sides) and insulting / making fun of the side we disagree with gets us nowhere.

Kanto.1659:

Willisium.5081:

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

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

Because your ‘dangerous warriors’ are made with a huge and well formed butt, nipples, and fight on heels. ON HEELS!

YES! LET US SEND OUR DANGEROUS WARRIOR BOTS TO FIGHT THE CENTAUR! ON HIGH HEELS! OVER RUGGED TERRAIN!

It makes perfect sense. I’m not sure about who designed these bots, but I worry about you, son. And your team leaders who said to go ahead and make high heeled, big butted, nippled fem-bots.

It does make perfect sense.

These aren’t people, they were made, and programmed to perform in the shape they have. Their center of gravity could be placed and manipulated so that they’d be able to perform with the heeled feet they have, on any terrain. They don’t have to worry about fumbling and tripping over their own feet, or any kind of human error, they don’t have to worry about losing their balance nearly as much as a regular person, because they were designed to work that way. Also, it’s a fantasy universe, all the female characters wear heels, if were going to talk about proper footwear it would be a whole other large discussion, but specifically in this case, the way their feet are shaped does little to add or take away from the topic at hand.

Also, areolas not nipples. You should be able to name the body part you are so offended by, nipples and areolas are different.

I like the idea of having them be female.. its a bit different and fits with the fact they are defending the Queen and the whole backstory behind her.

Making them so obviously modeled on naked women was a bit unnessesary though.

Had to edit it to clarify I meant the designer who made the fem-bot model.

Half this thread seems to be about how some of us are sexist. I’m pretty okay with the bots. If they were bartenders, like someone mentioned above. A bartender is fine to anthropomorphize. Give them big butts, give them nipples, give them high heels. It’s fine. Perhaps a bit in bad taste since it implies a sexualized angle and that maybe they were built anatomically correct but hey, s’fine.

I’m just on the whole angle of big fighter warrior. If they are for war, why the nipples, why the well formed butt, why the high heels? None of these help for war. Why the innards half showing?

It’s just that for warriors they really don’t look that warriorsome.

Sitkaz.5463:

Willisium.5081:

I understand some people had that reaction to Buffy, and I must admit there are one or two episodes that I deem questionable myself, but on the whole its hard to argue Buffy is, akittens core, a sexist show.

I brought up Buffy for the exact reason that some people had similar views on the show that people are using here, and they have been debated from every which angle, and in the end MOST advocates of feminism agree that a depiction of a strong, powerful, beautiful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. And again, the buffy-bot example seems particularly apt.

And there’s a difference between reacting to something and wanting it censored. These robots are Queen Jennahs artistic message to the world of her image of herself (snip)

I agree, that a depiction of a strong, powerful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. The ‘beautiful’ bit is unnecessary, but how do you create an ugly femmebot? Maybe if it didn’t have the heels, but kept the other feminine aspects it wouldn’t have rung so many bells.

What you’ve just said about Jennah’s message about her image of herself is fascinating to me. I usually evaluate game content by what the designers want to say, but looking at what the NPC wanted is interesting. Maybe the heels are Jennah’s way of expressing that she’s hobbled by the image she has to present of herself.

Well, that’s just how I perceive it. In game, Jennah commisioned these. I try and picture why she opted for the design choices she did (in canon) and they make sense to me. In the same way I understand how my Toons are representative of what image I want to portray.

Whether or not the design choices make functional sense is irrelevant. They work as intended, despite any design choices, we’ve seem them in action.

What can be questioned in why the design was chosen from an artistic perspective, what the queen is trying to show to the other races about humanity.

Kanto.1659:

Had to edit it to clarify I meant the designer who made the fem-bot model.

Half this thread seems to be about how some of us are sexist. I’m pretty okay with the bots. If they were bartenders, like someone mentioned above. A bartender is fine to anthropomorphize. Give them big butts, give them nipples, give them high heels. It’s fine. Perhaps a bit in bad taste since it implies a sexualized angle and that maybe they were built anatomically correct but hey, s’fine.

I’m just on the whole angle of big fighter warrior. If they are for war, why the nipples, why the well formed butt, why the high heels? None of these help for war. Why the innards half showing?

It’s just that for warriors they really don’t look that warriorsome.

Like Willisium mentioned, most of that was discussed at length earlier on in the forum, with good points from each side of those who are for and against the design. You can go back and read all of the things that were said, because I think everyone made some good points.

Again, areolas, not nipples.

Kanto.1659:

Had to edit it to clarify I meant the designer who made the fem-bot model.

Half this thread seems to be about how some of us are sexist. I’m pretty okay with the bots. If they were bartenders, like someone mentioned above. A bartender is fine to anthropomorphize. Give them big butts, give them nipples, give them high heels. It’s fine. Perhaps a bit in bad taste since it implies a sexualized angle and that maybe they were built anatomically correct but hey, s’fine.

I’m just on the whole angle of big fighter warrior. If they are for war, why the nipples, why the well formed butt, why the high heels? None of these help for war. Why the innards half showing?

It’s just that for warriors they really don’t look that warriorsome.

Weird, we have to switch sides here. I would ABSOLUTELY have an issue if they were bartenders.

Kalathra.3128:

It does make perfect sense.

These aren’t people, they were made, and programmed to perform in the shape they have. Their center of gravity could be placed and manipulated so that they’d be able to perform with the heeled feet they have, on any terrain. They don’t have to worry about fumbling and tripping over their own feet, or any kind of human error, they don’t have to worry about losing their balance nearly as much as a regular person, because they were designed to work that way. Also, it’s a fantasy universe, all the female characters wear heels, if were going to talk about proper footwear it would be a whole other large discussion, but specifically in this case, the way their feet are shaped does little to add or take away from the topic at hand.

Also, areolas not nipples. You should be able to name the body part you are so offended by, nipples and areolas are different.

Offended? Don’t be silly. I’m a guy, we love the female body. But to say the heels make no difference hints you never wore a pair or looked at a female wearing one.

The streets where I live are pretty bad and sometimes I see women trying to walk them with high heels. Disaster. Now, we can say that the bots ignore most of that (‘shoes’ are built-in so they don’t slip off, their ankles won’t dislocate, etc) but there is a reason we go to rugged terrain with sturdy boots with a good grip on them. Two narrow platforms (ball of the foot and high heel)? On gravel? To climb a rocky hill?

Or are we saying these clockwork bots will fight in nice smooth asphalt?

Well, anyway, I arrived late. Everything has been said so it is just re-hashing. I’ll just chalk it up with the ‘female armor bares thighs, cleavage, and sides while the same armor leaves a male only showing his face’ rest.

Again, we’ve seen them in action and their feet don’t get in the way.

Willisium.5081:

Again, we’ve seen them in action and their feet don’t get in the way.

You’ve seen a computer animation that ignores laws of physics, such as weight and inertia. Lets just say that the fembots are actually floating via magic and that will be fine.

Kanto.1659:

Kalathra.3128:

It does make perfect sense.

These aren’t people, they were made, and programmed to perform in the shape they have. Their center of gravity could be placed and manipulated so that they’d be able to perform with the heeled feet they have, on any terrain. They don’t have to worry about fumbling and tripping over their own feet, or any kind of human error, they don’t have to worry about losing their balance nearly as much as a regular person, because they were designed to work that way. Also, it’s a fantasy universe, all the female characters wear heels, if were going to talk about proper footwear it would be a whole other large discussion, but specifically in this case, the way their feet are shaped does little to add or take away from the topic at hand.

Also, areolas not nipples. You should be able to name the body part you are so offended by, nipples and areolas are different.

Offended? Don’t be silly. I’m a guy, we love the female body. But to say the heels make no difference hints you never wore a pair or looked at a female wearing one.

The streets where I live are pretty bad and sometimes I see women trying to walk them with high heels. Disaster. Now, we can say that the bots ignore most of that (‘shoes’ are built-in so they don’t slip off, their ankles won’t dislocate, etc) but there is a reason we go to rugged terrain with sturdy boots with a good grip on them. Two narrow platforms (ball of the foot and high heel)? On gravel? To climb a rocky hill?

Or are we saying these clockwork bots will fight in nice smooth asphalt?

I said, and I quote " specifically in this case", I’ve worn heels, I refuse to wear them often because I can’t walk in them. They are difficult to travel in, I am not disputing that in the slightest. What I said was that because they are mafactured you eliminate human error, such as clumsiness, or bad balance, mis-steps, because you can design them, and program them specifically for those situations.

I agree, there would be some terrain where it would be more difficult, but those are instances where even barefoot, or with shoes with great grip, you’re still going have trouble maneuvering (gravel, rocky hills, narrow platforms, etc.). Again, it’s not like it’s only the bots that have heels, all of the women’s shoes in this game have some semblance of a heel on them. This isn’t the real would where we have to think about practicality, and even if it was, it isn’t something that is specifically and only attributed to the Watchknights, it would be a wider discussion about appropriate footwear for adventuring.

Willisium.5081:

Buffy faced a similar situation when Warren was creating sex bots; they were disgusted by it, they stole the technology and used it to create Buffy-Bot, who served a similar function to the watch knights while Buffy was busy being dead again.

They weren’t outraged that someone would make a robot look beautiful, but they were massively outraged at one made simply to serve sexual whims and fantasies. Rightly so. Reconfigured to fight the good fight? not so much of an outrage.

I didn’t see it that way. I think the disgust was that the sex bot was created in Buffy’s image, and from an outside non-prudish perspective Spike did nothing wrong. Somewhere along the way they considered Spike to have crossed the line from fantasy (it’s OK to fantasise about someone, this is healthy and normal) and reality (creating a sex slave robot in her image, this is an extension of a fantasy). At no point did he violate consent or victimise anyone, so what is the harm of having a sex bot? Just because someone is more adventurous and creative with their sexual fantasies doesn’t mean they are doing something wrong. It’s a robot, like all other tools it’s meant to be used for a purpose. How is it different from your wife fantasising about Channing Tatum or your husband thinking of Julie Bowen?

There are entire (legal) industries built on satisfying people’s sexual whims and fantasies and a lot of times they involve real (consenting) adults.

I can understand the Scooby Gang being disgusted and upset about the Buffy bot on a personal level (they weren’t fond of Spike to begin with), but from an outside perspective there was nothing wrong about what he did. What crime did he commit? Owning a better blow up doll than the next guy?

As far as feminine warriors goes, why do people always use feminism to argue that you can’t be feminine and sexual and attractive and pretty while also being strong? Why does it always have to be a man with boobs? Maybe she can have a pretty face, even an aethletic (but not too muscular) figure, but god forbid she have a feminine personality or show any skin. I play a giant cat beast man, that’s certainly not realistic. Robots with heels? Run of the mill fantasy MMO stuff.

Why do the Watchknights have to be idealised symbols of woman power? Why can’t they just be the way they are? Why does everything have to be sanitised and politically correct according to a set agenda?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I think the design of the guards is pretty cool, and reminds me of the movie Metropolis. On the other hand, they are blatantly sexualized fem-bots, with pretty explicit nipples, and booty. And I think women are sexualized enough in video games. Maybe it is time this medium grew up.

The audience of the game isn’t you and your personal tastes. Some people might like to see something sexualised. Judging from all the human females running around in skimpy armour I’d say a large number of players care a great deal about that. Are they all people who should grow up because they want something from their fantasy MMO that’s different to what you want?

Morning All,

So, a few things I wanted to catch up on.

First. Please, I beg you, please, do not waste your time with Anita Sarkeesian’s video series. While we should be discussing gender issues in the media, these videos are cherry-picked, bias, inaccurate, and very damaging to the conversation.

If you are looking for better information, I suggest watching the following videos. Keep in mind that these videos were not made with a $150,000 budget, and that most of these people are not “pop-culture-critics” meaning they’re not professional speakers. Either way, listen to what they have to say, and while I don’t suggest you accept it all, at least expose yourself to different viewpoints.

Luetin09
dolldivine
The Gaming Goose
KiteTales
dangerousanalysis

Secondly….

I have to mention something that is bothering me regarding the words some people are using to describe these robots.

These robots are called WatchKnights. Based on the information we’ve been given, it can be concluded that these robots have been constructed as defenders of the city/realm. They stand watch in the city, and in the cutscene (spoiler), they are shown to be capable fighters.

When you put it that way, these robots sound pretty awesome. The problem is that some people continually use words, and focus on certain traits with the intention of demeaning any positive qualities they may have.

For example, throughout this thread people have often referred to them as “fem-bots”, “sex-bots”, dominatrix, etc. These words are all designed to ignore what they are, Watch Knights, and reduce them to nothing more than eye-candy.

Moreover, the focus on certain traits these robots have, and then forming a conclusion about their meaning, ability, or validity, or worse, the designers intention is concerning for me.

This would be akin to saying that Jodie Foster is nothing more than a porn actress because she’s been topless in some scenes. What is often referred to as kitten-shaming, is the idea that what a woman deserved to be shamed if they choose to engage in, or wear what something that others don’t approve of Wiki

In this case, there are some who feel it is ok to discount everything these robots are designed for, based on their physical characteristics, and/or outfit.

As I have stated before, we need to agree that these robots are indeed sexualized. They have features and outfits that are stereotypically associated with beauty, strength, health, etc. The problem is that some are not able to understand, or entertain the idea that what is true for them, may not be true for others.

What one person may see as highly sexualized, even bordering on pornographic, another may not think twice about it. This subjective difference means that no matter how many “buzzwords” you use, or how many times you mention high heels and nipples, that person simply won’t see what you’re seeing, and visa versa.

So, where does that leave us with the WatchKnights?

Well, in my opinion it is really up to the individual to determine what spin they want to put on these characters. You can choose to focus on the positive, or negative aspects of these characters, and that is your choice. What I would encourage you to do however is, regardless of what position you take, force yourself to look at the bigger picture.

If you focus on one one aspect, and ignore the context, you will not be in a position to come to a reasonable conclusion. That said, here are a list of traits that I have seen here. I haven’t put them under any category, so you can decide if they are positive or negative.

- Large mechanical robots
- Wearing high heel boots
- Designed for battle
- Capable of projecting other forms
- Exaggerated female proportions
- Tasked with defending the city/realm
- Beautifully designed with amazing detail
- Possible weak points at joints
- Visible representation of “areola”
- Serious expression
- Carrying formidable weapons
- Capable fighters
- Questionable hackability

Can you come up with more?

Idk, first time I saw them I just thought oh they look kitten and hey they are female. Fits nicely considering the Queen is a Mesmer and Lyssa is a god of Beauty as well as illusions. Tbh I didn’t even notice all the details and things people are mentioning. It’s probably best you don’t think about it too deeply. I mean its not like people are thinking to themselves " look at that! the perfect woman!’ I didn’t and im sure others feel the same.

Thryfe.2576:

Idk, first time I saw them I just thought oh they look kitten and hey they are female. Fits nicely considering the Queen is a Mesmer and Lyssa is a god of Beauty as well as illusions. Tbh I didn’t even notice all the details and things people are mentioning. It’s probably best you don’t think about it too deeply. I mean its not like people are thinking to themselves " look at that! the perfect woman!’ I didn’t and im sure others feel the same.

darn filter. they look awesome*

I also wanted to add a thought regarding this “how practical are these robots” discussion.

I have no problem discussing this, but if we’re going to discuss how practical, or impractical these robots are, then we must do so in the context of the game.

In a game where Norns go shirtless, Asura build floating platforms in cities, towns are built in volcanoes, laboratories that require jumping to get through, sharks live under your workspace, etc….it seems a little strange to suddenly be focusing on high heels.

Thats not to say we shouldn’t have a fun discussion about these things, but we need to be very careful to not cross the line and start claiming sexism. These are not practical robots anymore than Robocop, C-3P0, or the many other humanoid robots in media.

They are robots designed with the intention to be interesting to look at. As well, if we want to talk about impractical robots, we really should be discussing the Golems….when has one of those not malfunctioned?

Onshidesigns.1069:

bhagwad.4281:

Onshidesigns.1069:

What is a nipple anyways? How are they a bad thing? If God created them, they can only be good! If evolution created nipples, it just basic anatomy! Since when is sexulzed art bad?

What is a prick anyways? How are they a bad thing? If God created them, they can only be good! If evolution created pricks , it just basic anatomy! Since when is sexulzed art bad?

See what I did there? And it’s not bad. If it’s indeed sexualized, let them admit it instead of pretending it’s consistent with the story or some such other nonsense.

You clearly have no answers to my questions. Because your views are rooted in extreme beliefs that have no place in modern society.

The ideal female and male forms should not be something people should be embarrassed about. It’s represents humanity at it’s best.

Some say not everyone looks that way. I say you don’t know what your spirit looks like after you die.

Lol. What? I have no objections to nudity male and female. But when there’s only female nudity, I question the motives of the designers. That’s obvious. How does the “no place in a modern society” stuff come in?

I think you just projected your attitudes onto me.

bhagwad.4281:

Lol. What? I have no objections to nudity male and female. But when there’s only female nudity, I question the motives of the designers.

Thryfe.2576:

Idk, first time I saw them I just thought oh they look kitten and hey they are female. Fits nicely considering the Queen is a Mesmer and Lyssa is a god of Beauty as well as illusions. Tbh I didn’t even notice all the details and things people are mentioning. It’s probably best you don’t think about it too deeply. I mean its not like people are thinking to themselves " look at that! the perfect woman!’ I didn’t and im sure others feel the same.

This deserves to be repeated. Those robots are somehow linked to Lyssa for sure. Their theme is to take on illusions to look like anything, they use purple/pink lightnings when they are forced to fight in their normal form.

The fact the creators made them look like that is a reference to Lyssa herself.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I also wanted to add a thought regarding this “how practical are these robots” discussion.

I have no problem discussing this, but if we’re going to discuss how practical, or impractical these robots are, then we must do so in the context of the game.

In a game where Norns go shirtless, Asura build floating platforms in cities, towns are built in volcanoes, laboratories that require jumping to get through, sharks live under your workspace, etc….it seems a little strange to suddenly be focusing on high heels.

Thats not to say we shouldn’t have a fun discussion about these things, but we need to be very careful to not cross the line and start claiming sexism. These are not practical robots anymore than Robocop, C-3P0, or the many other humanoid robots in media.

They are robots designed with the intention to be interesting to look at. As well, if we want to talk about impractical robots, we really should be discussing the Golems….when has one of those not malfunctioned?

When we talk about practicality we are doing so in the context of the game. So in-game, it’s the Norn’s nature to go shirtles, and asuras are these super tech science dudes so that’s internally consistent. It would weird for example if the Norns were to suddenly build a floating city.

So we’re talking about internal consistency – what we call willing suspension of disbelief as long as the fantasy world plays by its own crazy rules whatever they are.

High heels are not consistent with a scenario of an engineer building robots for defence. The boobs, heels and butts had to be deliberate design choices. As in someone had to sit down and say “Hmm…I’m going to put these in even though they serve no purpose whatsoever”. Since it’s a fact that by default no one starts out thinking in terms of high heels and extra wide hips.

So it’s perfectly valid to raise questions. It seems a lot of people here are eager to stifle this whole discussion. Just to be clear – no one is complaining about nudity, sexuality as such. The problem for me is that these are being used to specifically target young male gamers and I find that just a bit insulting that Anet thinks I’m that shallow.

It’ll be nice if we also had bots with sizeable pricks as well. Then I don’t think anyone would object. But we only get female nudes and not males. Why?

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

bhagwad.4281:

Lol. What? I have no objections to nudity male and female. But when there’s only female nudity, I question the motives of the designers.

Fair example. Though they should have put him in high heels (that’s a joke btw). Or if not, with a massive erection just to balance things out. But if I remember correctly, he doesn’t have anything between his legs. So not really a male after all.

bhagwad.4281:

When we talk about practicality we are doing so in the context of the game. So in-game, it’s the Norn’s nature to go shirtles, and asuras are these super tech science dudes so that’s internally consistent. It would weird for example if the Norn’s were to suddenly build a floating city.

You’re not talking about the same thing. What you’ve done is used the appeal to antiquity fallacy. You’re basically saying that because one set of established rules have been around longer, they are therefore true/accepted/good.

bhagwad.4281:

So we’re talking about internal consistence – what we call willing suspension of disbelief as long as the fantasy world plays by its own crazy rules whatever they are.

Exaclty. We agree.

bhagwad.4281:

High heels are not consistent with a scenario of an engineer building robots for defence. The boobs, heels and butts had to be deliberate design choices. As in someone had to sit down and say “Hmm…I’m going to put these in even though they serve no purpose whatsoever”. Since it’s a fact that by default no one starts out thinking in terms of high heels and extra wide hips.

And here is where I disagree.

Again, there is no difference between this design choice, and the choice for Norn to go topless in freezing temperatures. It is no different from Asura creating floating platforms that require crazy jumps to move around cities. It is no different than wearing a dress to fight a dragon.

bhagwad.4281:

So it’s perfectly valid to raise questions. It seems a lot of people here are eager to stifle this whole discussion. Just to be clear – no one is complaining about nudity, sexuality as such. The problem for me is that these are being used to specifically target young male gamers and I find that just a bit insulting that Anet thinks I’m that shallow.

It’ll be nice if we also had bots with sizeable pricks as well. Then I don’t think anyone would object. But we only get female nudes and not males. Why?

Your conclusions are unsupported. You are making assumptions and generalizations.

I find it a bit insulting that you would assume that young male gamers are so out of control and immature that they “get off” on feminine robots. I find it insulting that you assume that the designers created this robot for the purpose of praying off the hormones of young males.

Let me spin this another way. I applaud ANet for including designs that treat me like an adult. Amongst the plethora of cutesy, fuzzy, sanitized designs in this game, ANet finally included a mature design. I thank ANet for assuming that I am mature enough to view the design without getting all bent out of shape at the implied areola, or the shape of it’s robot butt.

bhagwad.4281:

Fair example. Though they should have put him in high heels (that’s a joke btw). Or if not, with a massive erection just to balance things out. But if I remember correctly, he doesn’t have anything between his legs. So not really a male after all.

So, you’re saying implied areola, are the same as a “massive erection?” Are you also saying that it’s not male because it doesn’t have male parts, therefore it doesn’t count in this discussion? You really wanna use that logic?

I’ll give you a moment to think that over.

Thryfe.2576:

It’s probably best you don’t think about it too deeply.

I don’t think not thinking about things (and in consequence, not communicating about things) are good ways to deal with conflicts and issues. When people get emotional over stuff, they do so for reasons. You may not agree with those reasons, but that doesn’t make them go away.

I want to live in a world with as little conflict as possible, and that means that people’s issues need to be taken seriously and addressed, whether I agree with their assessment or not – only then we can create in a society that is based on understanding, common ground and consensus that allows more people to live in non-conflicted ways.

bhagwad.4281:

So we’re talking about internal consistency – what we call willing suspension of disbelief as long as the fantasy world plays by its own crazy rules whatever they are.

High heels are not consistent with a scenario of an engineer building robots for defence.

I do agree with this. Actually, I remember specifically pointing out to people in the past how impressed I was that characters (including female characters) in GW2 were wearing sensible shoes, and GW2 was a nice break from the heeled boots of action heroines we see in comics and movies and most games and which to me make zero sense.
GW2, so far, has decidedly not given us any such context, which is why the watchkinghts’ heels stand out so much.

bhagwad.4281:

It’ll be nice if we also had bots with sizeable pricks as well. Then I don’t think anyone would object. But we only get female nudes and not males. Why?

Eh, the Cliffside Colossus is wearing a loincloth, so you can’t really see his manhood or buttcheeks (if I remember correctly, next time I will have a closer look) but he is chained up, helpless, almost completely naked, and as a player you approach him from a very clear “upskirt” angle. If he was a female character, he’d tick all the sexism boxes of a “damsel in distress”. But for some reason, he’s a guy, and such goes unnoticed.

I have talked to many, many people in my life, trying to open their minds towards gender bias, pretty much as an active feminist. But it’s now 2013 and I’m suddenly in the position that I feel I also want to open the minds of feminists towards a wider perspective. There’s no “right side” and “wrong side” here and people aren’t either outspoken feminists or women-haters. I think everyone should at least try and be as fair as possible, and that means critically calling into question from the gender stereotypes you grew up with, as well as the views you may have developed in response to them. I haven’t stopped being a feminist… I have grown to also be an -ist to support everybody who finds themselves unfairly pre-judged (be it for gender, ethnicity, sexual preferences, or anything else really).

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When we talk about practicality we are doing so in the context of the game. So in-game, it’s the Norn’s nature to go shirtles, and asuras are these super tech science dudes so that’s internally consistent. It would weird for example if the Norn’s were to suddenly build a floating city.

You’re not talking about the same thing. What you’ve done is used the appeal to antiquity fallacy. You’re basically saying that because one set of established rules have been around longer, they are therefore true/accepted/good.

bhagwad.4281:

So we’re talking about internal consistence – what we call willing suspension of disbelief as long as the fantasy world plays by its own crazy rules whatever they are.

Exaclty. We agree.

bhagwad.4281:

High heels are not consistent with a scenario of an engineer building robots for defence. The boobs, heels and butts had to be deliberate design choices. As in someone had to sit down and say “Hmm…I’m going to put these in even though they serve no purpose whatsoever”. Since it’s a fact that by default no one starts out thinking in terms of high heels and extra wide hips.

And here is where I disagree.

Again, there is no difference between this design choice, and the choice for Norn to go topless in freezing temperatures. It is no different from Asura creating floating platforms that require crazy jumps to move around cities. It is no different than wearing a dress to fight a dragon.

bhagwad.4281:

So it’s perfectly valid to raise questions. It seems a lot of people here are eager to stifle this whole discussion. Just to be clear – no one is complaining about nudity, sexuality as such. The problem for me is that these are being used to specifically target young male gamers and I find that just a bit insulting that Anet thinks I’m that shallow.

It’ll be nice if we also had bots with sizeable pricks as well. Then I don’t think anyone would object. But we only get female nudes and not males. Why?

Your conclusions are unsupported. You are making assumptions and generalizations.

I find it a bit insulting that you would assume that young male gamers are so out of control and immature that they “get off” on feminine robots. I find it insulting that you assume that the designers created this robot for the purpose of praying off the hormones of young males.

Let me spin this another way. I applaud ANet for including designs that treat me like an adult. Amongst the plethora of cutesy, fuzzy, sanitized designs in this game, ANet finally included a mature design. I thank ANet for assuming that I am mature enough to view the design without getting all bent out of shape at the implied areola, or the shape of it’s robot butt.

Huh? I think you misunderstand what the fallacy means. Please show me where I’ve said or implied that “It’s always been done this way, therefore it’s correct”. In the very next paragraph you say you agree with me. So…you agree with a fallacy now?

Norns going topless fits in with lore. Asura’s building floating cities fits with the game designer’s own explanations of their world. Internal consistency. For example, just because star wars and star trek are fantasy worlds with their own crazy rules doesn’t mean that Kirk can one day start using the Force…because well…it’s fantasy right?

Internal consistency. So Asuras and floating cities – ok. Norns topless – ok. High heels on robots…? Not ok. No consistency. Wearing a dress to fight a dragon is fine if you’re a spellcaster. But if you shout “For Great Justice!” in light armor, that’s stupid.

Internal consistency.

Actually I’m giving young games more credit than you think I am. I’m saying that even though game designers are trying these tactics, they don’t work. So there’s nothing insulting there. And unless you’re a game designer, I don’t see how you can find it insulting.

And finally, by all means create naked robots. Male and female. Also, I would like to know the thought process that went into designing a killer robot with high heels.

I mean…was it random?

bhagwad.4281:

But if I remember correctly, he doesn’t have anything between his legs. So not really a male after all.

I would like to point out that the watchknights don’t have v-kittens, either.
If that means that they don’t count as representation of the female gender, then why are we discussing gender issues in this thread?

I just looked at them and asked “Why do they have buttocks, and why do they have nipples?”. Then sighed and continued ticking off the monthly content achievements. Then again if you compare it to some of the light armors (on female Humans, Norns and Sylvari) then butt-crack bots aren’t really out of place for this game.

I’ll be eagerly awaiting a male counterpart with a similarly beatifully sculpted behind.