Guild Wars 2

I thought the concern is that we’re only days away from Skynet becoming self aware.

Those of you who don’t see the overt sexualization in the watchnights need to open your eyes. Creating a robot using the female anatomy, including all the nude details, is one thing. I’m not protesting that. But when it’s a nude female robot with high heels, a supermodel figure, enormous balloon breasts, and a bum designed to draw the eye PLUS the fact that there are no male nude watchnights—that is clearly SEXUALIZATION, not just nudity.
It’s disturbing, it’s sexist, and it degrades women. I agree with the thread creator. If men were regularly paraded around video games in thongs and nipple pasties, with all the sexual aspects of their bodies made 3X as large as normal, while the female characters all had covering armor and more normalized builds, male players would throw a fit.

bhagwad.4281:

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?

We need to step back for a moment because this is one of those conversations where we are mixing things up to suit our argument. I want to take this back to basics.

The arguments are that the design of these WatchKnights are both impractical in that high heels are not conducive to fighting (for humans at least), and therefore adding them was done so only to make them sexualized.

Now. We need to break this down into two parts.

1. Are high heels on a fighting robot, inconsistent with the realism of the rest of the game?

My argument is no. The reason is because high heels are just as impractical as not wearing a shirt when you live in the snow, or building floating platforms that you can barely jump to, just to get to a crafting station.

I will admit that it is new, and different, but it is no more or less impractical than many other design choices in this game.

2. Does the inclusion of these sexualized robots make the game sexist?

I would again argue no. The reason as pointed out by a few, there are other examples of sexualized characters in the game. They’re all sexualized to different degrees, but it is by far one sided.

This idea that everything has to have an equal at all times is honestly just not true. Just because we have feminine robots, doesn’t mean we have to have masculine ones. Just because leader of the Sky Pirates is female, doesn’t mean we have to have a male antagonist as well.

For example, if there is a show called…say, Powerpuff girls that feature three female superheroes, I don’t expect that they have to add Powerpuff boys into the show just to keep everyone happy. There is nothing wrong with a story that features one gender/race/sexual preference. What we need to do is make sure that we don’t skew one one of those to a disproportionate level.

So, bring it back to GW2. It is okay that there are only female robots, because we have males in other parts of the game keeping things equal. No one complains about there being no king, because we have male leaders in other parts of the game. No one complains that Mai (leader of the Sky Pirates) was a woman, because we have male antagonists as well in other parts of the game.

Are people actually attracted to the watch knights? I don’t find them sexy at all. Is this really what people find appealing these days?
http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gw2-mini-watch-knight-queens-jubliee-achievements.jpg

and it degrades women

This is the part where I say, “You don’t speak for me.” You may be offended as an individual but you may not be offended on my behalf.

Weindrasi.3805:

Those of you who don’t see the overt sexualization in the watchnights need to open your eyes. Creating a robot using the female anatomy, including all the nude details, is one thing. I’m not protesting that. But when it’s a nude female robot with high heels, a supermodel figure, enormous balloon breasts, and a bum designed to draw the eye PLUS the fact that there are no male nude watchnights—that is clearly SEXUALIZATION, not just nudity.
It’s disturbing, it’s sexist, and it degrades women. I agree with the thread creator.

It is very sad that you see all those things as degrading to women. It is sad to me that you don’t see towering feminine robots, tasked with protecting the queen and her people as empowering.

Lily Miranda.5407:

Are people actually attracted to the watch knights? I don’t find them sexy at all. Is this really what people find appealing these days?

Yes. I’ll be honest, they are attractive, but let me explain.

I don’t find them attractive in the sense that I wish my girlfriend looked like a giant metal robot, and given the chance I would make sweet, sweet, love to it.

I find them attractive from the perspective that they emulate qualities that I find attractive. For example, they are confident and powerful looking. They have pleasing details and shapes. They have an aura of sexuality, without looking/acting like an object (I wouldn’t hit on one in real life).

There is nothing wrong with finding features in fictional characters attractive. I’m sure I’m not the only one who had a crush on Betty from Archie, or Thelma from Scooby Doo. These characters have designs that some people can appreciate.

The problem is when people then shame people for having these feelings. As we’ve seen in this thread, the idea that young males are sitting at home, walking around the WatchKnights with one hand on their keyboard and the other on a sock, is insulting to all males (and females).

When I was recently in Italy, I saw a lot of artistic representations of nude people in various poses. I was able to view them, and appreciate the beauty of them, without it being some creepy male fantasy. The reason is because I understand the difference between sexuality and sex….if that makes sense.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

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?

We need to step back for a moment because this is one of those conversations where we are mixing things up to suit our argument. I want to take this back to basics.

The arguments are that the design of these WatchKnights are both impractical in that high heels are not conducive to fighting (for humans at least), and therefore adding them was done so only to make them sexualized.

Now. We need to break this down into two parts.

1. Are high heels on a fighting robot, inconsistent with the realism of the rest of the game?

My argument is no. The reason is because high heels are just as impractical as not wearing a shirt when you live in the snow, or building floating platforms that you can barely jump to, just to get to a crafting station.

I will admit that it is new, and different, but it is no more or less impractical than many other design choices in this game.

2. Does the inclusion of these sexualized robots make the game sexist?

I would again argue no. The reason as pointed out by a few, there are other examples of sexualized characters in the game. They’re all sexualized to different degrees, but it is by far one sided.

This idea that everything has to have an equal at all times is honestly just not true. Just because we have feminine robots, doesn’t mean we have to have masculine ones. Just because leader of the Sky Pirates is female, doesn’t mean we have to have a male antagonist as well.

For example, if there is a show called…say, Powerpuff girls that feature three female superheroes, I don’t expect that they have to add Powerpuff boys into the show just to keep everyone happy. There is nothing wrong with a story that features one gender/race/sexual preference. What we need to do is make sure that we don’t skew one one of those to a disproportionate level.

So, bring it back to GW2. It is okay that there are only female robots, because we have males in other parts of the game keeping things equal. No one complains about there being no king, because we have male leaders in other parts of the game. No one complains that Mai (leader of the Sky Pirates) was a woman, because we have male antagonists as well in other parts of the game.

The PowerPuff Girls did have a male counterpart. They were called the RowdyRuff Boys.

WatchTheShow.7203:

The PowerPuff Girls did have a male counterpart. They were called the RowdyRuff Boys.

I think you still get my point.

TwoBit.5903:

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This x1000000000

My gripe with the Watchknights is that their inclusion of T&A is just lazy design. I did do an eyeroll when I first saw them. There are so many ways to show femininity without resorting to T&A. I am tired of watching the mentality of “Do we want it to be a woman? Just give it boobs!” everywhere. It’s everywhere. I’m tired of having this shoved down my throat. It’s equivalent to those teenage girls who go into FPS matches and scream “I’M A GURL GAMER! LOOK AT ME! I’M A GUUURL AND I PLAY GAMES!” when it’s like “you have a hole between your legs okay great me too.” Yes watchknights, we know you are supposed to be a woman, stop flaunting your sexy butts at us. We know.

Normally, that kind of design just makes me shake my head and move on. But the added insult here is that all of these features are entirely unnecessary to the robot. Having boobs or giant hips from a practicality and logic standpoint doesn’t make sense (inb4 “it’s fantasy!” and “it’s magic!” – please just don’t), nor does having stilettos on a robot (gag).

Sure, we can put boobs and a nice butt on things. I don’t care, I’m a butt-woman myself. But lazily slapping on some T&A on a thing that doesn’t even need these things in any logical situation at all bugs me to the max. If they came up with a design that incorporates femininity without having to resort to lazy boobs and butt addition, I would have been very impressed and much more happy with the model, whereas right now the Watchknights just sit in my mind as yet another thing that a creator needed to show was a woman, so they put some cones on its chest and gave it a big pelvis.

I will praise their tallness and long legs. It makes them intimidating and reminds me of Bayonetta who has the longest legs in the world. But I think they could have opted for something else other than lazy, impractical T&A.

That being said, nobody here is saying the art team did a bad job – despite my negative opinion, the work done on the watchknights was wonderful and the art team did a great job. I still really like their butts.

fizzypop.6458:

WatchTheShow.7203:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

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

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable? You do realize these robots transform into other creatures to fight ya? But, even if they didn’t what does wearing high heels have to do with their abilities or presence?

Women choose to wear heels all the time, and I don’t think that makes them any less of a women.

Now….lets look at this from another perspective. When you fight, or play sports, you don’t typically stand flat footed. Humans distribute their weight on the balls of their feet so they can quickly move.

That is why soccer cleats have more spikes at the toes, and only a few at the heels. So, from a fighting perspective, these “high heels” aren’t really an issue.

In the end, it’s just a design choice. It’s meant to make them look taller, and more sleek (just like real high heels). I don’t think the intention was to make them some porn-bot with the intention of being someone secretary, and bending over to pick up dropped Skritt bottles.

No no no no no no no no. NO. Until you have worn high heels yourself, you are not allowed to say high heels do not affect ones abilities. Comparing them to soccer cleets? I would pick soccer cleets any day of the week. First, high heels make you very, VERY wobbley. Extremely unstable. Try walking, running, or even going up stairs on your tippy toes. Without killing yourself. That’s on a hard surface. If you step into the grass or dirt, your high heel sinks 100% into the squishy ground and you come tumbling down. Don’t walk over a grate, or an uneven surface. Forget trying to walk on a gravel road too. High heels are notorious for having no grip to them. Don’t stand on something smooth or wet cuz your feet will come right out from under you. Running in high heels? Nope. Forget it. If I were being chased by a dog and all I had on were heels, the heels would get kicked off first and I would go barefoot. Last but not least, they are uncomfortable. I can’t wear them for more than an hour before my feet cramp up and hurt.

haha I love this. I can’t believe some people. Running in heels really? They obviously haven’t watched last week’s episode of true blood. Seriously, that’s exactly what it looks like when two women are chasing each other in heels.

I was thinking the same thing. She really should have taken off her heels before trying that grated floor.

Kiriwar.7382:

My gripe with the Watchknights is that their inclusion of T&A is just lazy design. I did do an eyeroll when I first saw them. There are so many ways to show femininity without resorting to T&A.

I’m not meaning to sound like a jerk here, but you described what you believe to be true about the WatchKnights, but you never really gave any examples of how you would have improved them.

I personally would like to hear your ideas. How could these been designed to show femininity differently?

Kiriwar.7382:

TwoBit.5903:

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This x1000000000

And they can (and do) convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips. Does that mean that they can’t conveny femininity by giving things boobs and hips? Absolutely not.

There are plenty of ways that femininity is displayed in the game without relying on boobs or hips. It’s totally OK for them to use boobs and hips. There is no taboo on the female form.

People getting up and arms about anything that is sexualised or anything in the game which uses focuses on boobs and hips are being unreasonable. The game does not set a trend for demeaning women, the whole ceremony is about a female queen for crying out loud!

Learn to accept diversity. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean other people won’t. Not everything has to be the way you want it.

There are multiple ways to convey femininity, and they’ve used one here. They didn’t just use one throughout the entire game. If this was the only thing they did, go ahead, preach. It’s not. It’s just one and you don’t like it. There are others out there.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

My gripe with the Watchknights is that their inclusion of T&A is just lazy design. I did do an eyeroll when I first saw them. There are so many ways to show femininity without resorting to T&A.

I’m not meaning to sound like a jerk here, but you described what you believe to be true about the WatchKnights, but you never really gave any examples of how you would have improved them.

I personally would like to hear your ideas. How could these been designed to show femininity differently?

Sorry, I rewrote that post in a hurry because my first one got an error and I lost some of my content! Here’s some things that I would consider (sorry I kind of go on a tangent):

-Depending on each culture there’s a lot of symbolism regarding both genders, even just using certain colours. I don’t condone ‘pink = girl’ and ‘blue=boy’ but you know how when you look at things that aren’t human you sometimes just ‘feel’ they are either feminine/masculine by the colour choices? Like people generally tend to see pastel, light colours as feminine and bold, dark colours as masculine. But anyway, back to symbolism, we often think of things like flowers and butterflies being feminine, so we could have used some of that motif – going back to the butts thing, I think the design on the butts is great! If they used that around the whole robot, I think it would have a distinctly feminine feel to it because of its intricacy.
-I recall someone saying that mesmers tend to have long and flowy robes, I wouldn’t suggest putting clothes on the robot but maybe some longer, curved metal plates to simulate such clothing. It could probably function as armour too, but give a graceful appearance. Kind of like tassets.
-Their faces are incredibly scary. I’m not sure if it was intentional to make them intimidating, it’s sure working, but just seeing a face can be much more beautiful and sexy than looking at a nude body. If they gave them womanly faces it would obviously contribute to making them look female without T&A but I am unsure of this decision because their scary faces right now give them the quality of being effing terrifying sentinels that you don’t want to mess with.
-Poses also of course. I think they already use the female staff stance. It’s feminine but I don’t really like it imo, it seems too vulnerable. They could probably use a different one that is both feminine and strong. I recall a picture I saw while browsing google, it was a knight fully armoured and you could not tell their gender offhand. But just the way they stood, it was a very confident stance, you just -knew- it was a woman. A lot of the picture’s comments were asking the creator if it was a woman too. We dunno if it was but regardless of the gender, the pose let us think it was a woman without showing us anything else regarding gender.
-Regarding the Chronomancer’s design from GW1 (http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-06/gwe-concept-chronomancer1.html) , yeah I know it has boobs but if you just get rid of the boobs you could tell the difference between them because of small details – the man is much more bulky, and the woman is more… sleek? sorry I can’t think of the better word atm but I hope you guys know what I mean

There’s probably a lot more things I can think of but it’s escaping my mind right now

awesomesauce.5980:

Kiriwar.7382:

TwoBit.5903:

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This x1000000000

And they can (and do) convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips. Does that mean that they can’t conveny femininity by giving things boobs and hips? Absolutely not.

There are plenty of ways that femininity is displayed in the game without relying on boobs or hips. It’s totally OK for them to use boobs and hips. There is no taboo on the female form.

People getting up and arms about anything that is sexualised or anything in the game which uses focuses on boobs and hips are being unreasonable. The game does not set a trend for demeaning women, the whole ceremony is about a female queen for crying out loud!

Learn to accept diversity. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean other people won’t. Not everything has to be the way you want it.

There are multiple ways to convey femininity, and they’ve used one here. They didn’t just use one throughout the entire game. If this was the only thing they did, go ahead, preach. It’s not. It’s just one and you don’t like it. There are others out there.

Yes I know I already stated I was okay with boobs and hips but my problem with it was that it was additionally unnecessary and impractical to the subject, the robot watchknight, which was why I did not like their approach to showing us how it took the female form.

awesomesauce.5980:

Kiriwar.7382:

TwoBit.5903:

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This x1000000000

And they can (and do) convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips. Does that mean that they can’t conveny femininity by giving things boobs and hips? Absolutely not.

There are plenty of ways that femininity is displayed in the game without relying on boobs or hips. It’s totally OK for them to use boobs and hips. There is no taboo on the female form.

People getting up and arms about anything that is sexualised or anything in the game which uses focuses on boobs and hips are being unreasonable. The game does not set a trend for demeaning women, the whole ceremony is about a female queen for crying out loud!

Learn to accept diversity. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean other people won’t. Not everything has to be the way you want it.

There are multiple ways to convey femininity, and they’ve used one here. They didn’t just use one throughout the entire game. If this was the only thing they did, go ahead, preach. It’s not. It’s just one and you don’t like it. There are others out there.

It’s not unreasonable when it’s entirely one sided. These robots make no sense. Their purpose is supposed to be to show the enduring spirit of humanity, but I don’t consider the enduring spirit of humanity to be tall sexy ladies posing next to halberds. They’re all sexy ladies, for no good reason. If half of them had been male then that would have fulfilled their purpose, and most likely people wouldn’t have had a problem because it’s at least even.

I really don’t understand how people don’t see this. This is a thing, and no matter how much you try to claim it isn’t a thing or just brush it away as inconsequential it is still a thing.

Holy cow…this topic.

I like the robots.

Kiriwar.7382:

-snip-.

Sounds reasonable.

The Watchknights are sort of a gold/bronze/yellow colour, with intricate patterns that almost represent vines.

However….do you perhaps think that using stereotypical designs and colors such as pink, butterflies, flowers, and the like are more detrimental to both genders?

Kiriwar.7382:

-I recall someone saying that mesmers tend to have long and flowy robes, -snip-

If you look at the WatchKnights, they have forearm, thigh, and boots that appear to resemble form fitting armour. They have a long, graceful appearance by using pleasing curved metal plates.

I’m not sure how long, flowing robes are feminine. There are lots of long robes for males in the game as well, and throughout history many males wore long, flowing robes.

Kiriwar.7382:

-Their faces are incredibly scary.-snip-

Why would you not want your knights to be intimidating? Look at masks from ancient cultures and you will notice that most of them are designed to evoke fear into the enemy.

What you seem to be implying that femininity is defined by how “womanly” your face looks. I’m not even sure what that means. How do you define “womanly face?” To what standards do you feel best represent womanly and femininity?

Kiriwar.7382:

-Poses also of course. I think they already use the female staff stance. It’s feminine but I don’t really like it imo, it seems too vulnerable. They could probably use a different one that is both feminine and strong. I recall a picture I saw while browsing google, it was a knight fully armoured and you could not tell their gender offhand. But just the way they stood, it was a very confident stance, you just -knew- it was a woman. A lot of the picture’s comments were asking the creator if it was a woman too. We dunno if it was but regardless of the gender, the pose let us think it was a woman without showing us anything else regarding gender.

Well, we need to be somewhat reasonable here. ANet reuses the assets they have available to them, and because of the short release schedule of these Living World updates, it doesn’t seem practical, or economical to re-motion capture a stance for one character, in the short term at least.

That said….again, I’m very confused. Why do you think it looks vulnerable? They are standing with their backs straight, their heads high. They are shifting their weight in a way that doesn’t seem hesitant or unsure. And when they fight, they fight like any other creature in the game.

Kiriwar.7382:

-Regarding the Chronomancer’s design from GW1 (http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-06/gwe-concept-chronomancer1.html) , yeah I know it has boobs but if you just get rid of the boobs you could tell the difference between them because of small details – the man is much more bulky, and the woman is more… sleek? sorry I can’t think of the better word atm but I hope you guys know what I mean

Yes, but what you’re doing here is making boobs taboo. Boobs…ahem, breasts are a biological fact of being a human female. There is no shame in having them, nor is there any shame if they’re larger, or smaller.

Sure, they could have created smaller, slimmer, less muscular designs and not put breasts on them, but why?

I don’t think we have any reason to treat breasts like a dirty secret. Women have breasts. To argue that you can only be feminine if your breasts are within a certain range, or perkiness, or nipple size/shape, or whatever is not fair. You are not feminine or not based on your breasts.

Angelina Jolie recently had a double mastectomy, do you feel she is more, or less feminine now?

Kiriwar.7382:

There’s probably a lot more things I can think of but it’s escaping my mind right now

I applaud your efforts, but from my perspective, all you did was replace one set of gender stereotypes, with another set. In my eyes you didn’t really explain why your choices are more feminine than the current design.

It appears to me, and I don’t mean to be rude, that you are defining feminist qualities based on your own preconceived notions. You seem unwilling to accept that femininity isn’t defined by how small or large your features are, how “womanly” your face is, or how curvy your butt is.

There is no perfect woman that defines all women. They are all different, and they are all beautiful in their own way. To say that one version is better, or worse than another is insulting and damaging to everyone. And certainly women don’t need to wear certain colors, flowers, or butterflies to be considered more feminine.

P.S. I am wearing a MLP shirt and I’m 35 years old….what does that make me?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

However….do you perhaps think that using stereotypical designs and colors such as pink, butterflies, flowers, and the like are more detrimental to both genders?

I was going to point out the same, thanks.

Teddy Bear = boy
Teddy Bear with flower = girl

Bugs Bunny = boy
Pink version of Bugs Bunny + eyelashes and hair-bows = girl

Tagging on flowers or butterflies so people can identify a figure as “not male” is something that is being done a lot, and it bugs me. I don’t think that this is the way to go when designing characters.

I think we will see more regarding the watchknights with the next update? Isn’t this living story 4 weeks with another story update after 2 weeks?

Maybe they will get dismantled if more Aetherblades are hacking them again and if they aren’t save because enemies can easily gain access and control them.

bhagwad.4281:

People here are saying that those who dislike the watchknights are getting morally superior/offended. I say the reverse is true. It seems that some people here are hell bent on making others shut up. Accept that others have a different viewpoint, and if you want to argue about it, let’s do that.

I don’t think anyone is telling anyone to shut up. I think both sides are trying to provide points and counter points.

The only time when people are asking people to “shut up” is when they start throwing around words like, sexism, patriarchy, male power fantasy, etc. Those are not helpful to the conversation, and I’m happy to see for the most part they’ve disappeared from the discussion.

I don’t think stereotypes (at least the ones we’re discussing) are bad inherently, nor do I think they should be restricted to gender, I think playing on these things to give a tinge of gender distinction is fine. Male mesmers have butterfly motifs too? Sure. But it doesn’t mean we have to stop and completely avoid using butterflies to show femininity as well just because it’s a ‘stereotype.’

If we had to give every female in the game a butterfly motif and -no other option-, then I’d consider it a problem. My stance is that I don’t find anything wrong with using symbols and etc. typically used for men or women – others might not agree with me.

That being said, I’m not going to say ‘slap a bow on it and it’s a girl,’ because then I’ll get into a giant angry debate about pink science kits for girls and nobody wants to hear that.

Edit: To clarify, no, I’m not saying to show something is female, we have to show it in the kitchen, because the connotation with that is demeaning. There’s nothing demeaning about butterflies, rocket turrets or coffee, so I opt for those things that do not have explicit connection/“belong” to either gender, they’re just -associated- more closely to a gender and can be used with either.

So using the physical features of a woman is sexist, giving them all cooking equipment is progressive?

I officially don’t understand feminism anymore.

Willisium.5081:

So using the physical features of a woman is sexist, giving them all cooking equipment is progressive?

I officially don’t understand feminism anymore.

The physical features of a woman do not make a thing sexist, it is the form in which they are represented, and the degree to which they are represented, within context, that makes a thing sexist.

And when asked for an alternative means of expressing that they are females, the example offered is “give them something a stereotypical woman would have, like a bow or a kitchen utensil”? I’m sorry but I’ve been in this discussion since the beggining and have tried to be fair in my responses, but its starting to look like the issue is less about gender equality and more about disliking the female form being on display at all.

Willisium.5081:

So using the physical features of a woman is sexist, giving them all cooking equipment is progressive?

I officially don’t understand feminism anymore.

I don’t think anyone does, not even the feminists. I mean, I know what it used to be about and I was all for that . It’s not about that anymore. It’s about this . This is a step backwards.

Why can’t people just label themselves ‘humanists’ and be done with it? Or better yet, ‘humans’ ?

Personally, I think the Watchnights are fine. I think the Crystal Giant is fine. I think depictions of the human form, whether nude or not, are fine. I also believe one should be far more concerned about the concepts of hate, oppression, violence, etc., rather than worrying about nudity. I mean, all of you play a game in which you continuously kill everything around you with reckless abandon; other players included. Yet, you are worried about mechanical nipples?!?

watchknights are like ED-209…neither can use a set of stairs

maybe queen J has body image problems. she’s living her fantasy vicariously thro her fembots

ii heard male norns approve

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

1. Are high heels on a fighting robot, inconsistent with the realism of the rest of the game?

My argument is no. The reason is because high heels are just as impractical as not wearing a shirt when you live in the snow, or building floating platforms that you can barely jump to, just to get to a crafting station.

I will admit that it is new, and different, but it is no more or less impractical than many other design choices in this game.

I’m going to make an assumption here, and please feel free to call me on it if I’m wrong… but you’ve never worn 4" or higher heels have you?

There is “impractical” as in a race born and raised in an extremely northern mountain range finding the weather hundreds if not thousands of kilometers south of their homelands warm enough for a t-shirts and shorts (think Inuit going to see a balmy NorCal winter, yeah there is snow, but it’s 30-40 degrees F warmer than what they would call a “real winter”), and there is impractical that will snap your ankles like a twig when you first try and pivot.

Now, you can argue that since the WKs are robots, their ankles are stronger than a humans, and I give you that… but it wouldn’t affect the pathetic grip that heels that high have. Look at any combat boot worn in the last 5000 years of human warfare, one of the constants is good traction. You have features like natural rubber soles, good grip profile, and a flat sole to keep as much on the ground as possible. Heels on the other hand, have a tiny spike at the back (which will sink into anything softer than concrete), and a very small patch of sole under the toes only. Combined, you are looking at an 80-90% reduction in traction… an angry Asura could push the WKs around like toys as they skidded over the ground.

About the only practical advantage high heels could have in a combat setting is 4" more height to see by, which if you played the robot card earlier is useless as you could make the neck 4" longer and have a better overall combat platform.

I am just worried about the possible Skynet take over of Tyria using these Watchknights.

Amun Ra.6435:

I am just worried about the possible Skynet take over of Tyria using these Watchknights.

oh come on, the Queen’s been a WK for the last year Anise holds the real power. :P

When I first saw the Watchknights I immediately thought of Maria the robot in Metropolis though that one didn’t have the high heels…

high heels = taller = better aerial view of city = better vigilance …WATCHknights

Shiren.9532:

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?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

I agree with the person who made this thread. I was actually offended by their design when I first saw them, being a female myself. The reason: Why do they have high heels and huge breasts? The breasts of these “warriors” are function-less, just filled with gears.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Shiren.9532:

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?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

Except there is no factual evidence that this is harmful at all. If it were, people would have equal reaction to ALL the “objectification” in games. It’s really about what you don’t like & other people are ok with. People call it immature because it makes them sound right.

I agree with the person who made this thread. I was actually offended by their design when I first saw them, being a female myself. The reason: Why do they have high heels and huge breasts? The breasts of these “warriors” are function-less, just filled with gears.

Why is the David, the Thinker & Allegory of Sculpture naked? it’s art. you didn’t ask why it has a face or a hat. how are breast any less functional? For all intents & purposes it should be like a Golem.

This is a huge fuss about nothing.

Personally, I find Queen Jennah a bit concerning. She had the watchknights built and probably in her own idealized image (I actually find them ugly and a little gross). Her “Champions” out in the world are forced to wear pink in her honour and during duels they’ll kill innocent bystanders (friendly npcs minding their own business) with a bloodthirsty vengeance. Her jubilee is a Colosseum styled battle royale. Even if the watchknights were sabotaged, they’re still built to battle people for her amusement as Logan demonstrated and the gauntlet is working as she intended, besides. The weapons (skins) the emissaries are selling out have a sovereign’s head — probably hers but she probably couldn’t afford a good artist after the expenses of the Pavilion, balloon rides, and watchknights — on them. Then take into account that all of this was probably funded by and built on the backs of the lowly peasants who will never get entry into her Pavilion/Colosseum.

I’ve decided that Queen Jennah’s a closet-tyrant.

DarksunG.9537:

Except there is no factual evidence that this is harmful at all. If it were, people would have equal reaction to ALL the “objectification” in games. It’s really about what you don’t like & other people are ok with. People call it immature because it makes them sound right.

I didn’t say it was harmful, I said that it isn’t healthy, as in: It’s not healthy to the medium as a whole. It makes computer games look bad, especially to female gamers (but also to male gamers). It reinforces this perception of videogames being sexist towards women, which they kinda are.

These types of games (MMO’s) are played by men and women alike, it’s pretty evenly split these days. So it would be nice if games became less focused on the male demographic with this sort of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

BlueSoda.6297:

I agree with the person who made this thread. I was actually offended by their design when I first saw them, being a female myself. The reason: Why do they have high heels and huge breasts? The breasts of these “warriors” are function-less, just filled with gears.

You’re offended by high heels and large breasts? Why?

DarksunG.9537:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Shiren.9532:

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?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

Except there is no factual evidence that this is harmful at all. If it were, people would have equal reaction to ALL the “objectification” in games. It’s really about what you don’t like & other people are ok with. People call it immature because it makes them sound right.

I agree with the person who made this thread. I was actually offended by their design when I first saw them, being a female myself. The reason: Why do they have high heels and huge breasts? The breasts of these “warriors” are function-less, just filled with gears.

Why is the David, the Thinker & Allegory of Sculpture naked? it’s art. you didn’t ask why it has a face or a hat. how are breast any less functional? For all intents & purposes it should be like a Golem.

This is a huge fuss about nothing.

I’ll agree when Anet brings out nude models of men with pricks. But I’m guessing they won’t do that. Hmm….I wonder why.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

DarksunG.9537:

Except there is no factual evidence that this is harmful at all. If it were, people would have equal reaction to ALL the “objectification” in games. It’s really about what you don’t like & other people are ok with. People call it immature because it makes them sound right.

I didn’t say it was harmful, I said that it isn’t healthy, as in: It’s not healthy to the medium as a whole. It makes computer games look bad, especially to female gamers (but also to male gamers). It reinforces this perception of videogames being sexist towards women, which they kinda are.

These types of games (MMO’s) are played by men and women alike, it’s pretty evenly split these days. So it would be nice if games became less focused on the male demographic with this sort of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

What evidence to do you have to support the claim that this game is focused on the male demographic and is pandering to the lowest common denominator? Please post examples.

bhagwad.4281:

I’ll agree when Anet brings out nude models of men with pricks. But I’m guessing they won’t do that. Hmm….I wonder why.

You’re still comparing implied areola with male genitalia huh? Interesting.

gwawer.9805:

high heels = taller = better aerial view of city = better vigilance …WATCHknights

…could they not have just been four whole inches taller? If this was really the point, why not give them receptors with sub-knights to go out into the world and monitor the city, and send feedback to the main unit? There’s lots of canon ways to explain the design away, but 1) these have never been stated by devs/in-game and are (imo: poorly) constructed fanon so far, 2) we are not talking about the in-game logic of their design. I believe the thread was made as a way to point out the real-life social/cultural/psychological implications of the image in context of the rest of the game/industry/society. That context being that the nudity is striking; every other female form in GW2 gets the dignity of at least underwear/clothes (statues of the gods) or being androgynized (golems). Topless men, in the context of western culture, are not highly sexualized, except perhaps on the cover of romance novels where they (along with their covered female protagonist) strike a pose with long hair and are waved away as effeminate (think Fabio). Men can walk around and work out without their shirts on and no one harasses them. Women without tops are exposing a body part that has been sexualized by western culture over the years, for better or worse. So in the context of our culture, yes, showing a woman’s breasts is different than showing a man’s pectorals. Should it be? I don’t know/care, but give me some topless male robots or, more on par imo, some attention drawn to the scrotum/codpiece, and I’ll summon the energy for that larger cultural debate, haha.

I’m not opposed to watchknights/robots having idealized body images of women (though there are studies about why that is harmful, I’m used to it and am trying to make a more timely/specific critique), I’m opposed to them having ornamentation that draws unnecessary attention to what would be erogenous zones (in this case the breasts, and to a lesser degree, the bum), ornamentation that presents them as butt-thrustingly naked women in high heels. All that, plus them being strung up around the city as ornamentation is an unsettling mix of violence/lack of agency/sexualization for me, not saying it is for everyone. Just asking the devs to think about that. And to address a weird tangent that I saw earlier upthread, I think the distinction between nipples and areolas in this case is beside the point shrug

Some good points on all sides, though Which reinforces my belief that GW2 really attempts to foster a friendly/positive atmosphere.

bhagwad.4281:

I’ll agree when Anet brings out nude models of men with pricks. But I’m guessing they won’t do that. Hmm….I wonder why.

Try apples & apples: When it comes to depicting men as confident, tough, successful, mysterious & strong, that objectification is rampant. Doesn’t make it instantly evil.

I didn’t say it was harmful, I said that it isn’t healthy, as in: It’s not healthy to the medium as a whole. It makes computer games look bad, especially to female gamers (but also to male gamers).

Not healthy, as in: neither here nor there? ok.. then why have any response whatsoever? That doesn’t really make sense. Neutral is the essence of unremarkable. From everything else you said it sound like you meant it as detrimental. As for making them look bad, that’s a matter of opinion unless it’s doing damage

DarksunG.9537:

bhagwad.4281:

I’ll agree when Anet brings out nude models of men with pricks. But I’m guessing they won’t do that. Hmm….I wonder why.

Try apples & apples: When it comes to depicting men as confident, tough, successful, mysterious & strong, that objectification is rampant. Doesn’t make it instantly evil.

So, this is cool because it speaks to recent academic arguments about objectification. Namely, that things can/should be objectified without it being inherently problematic. This is one of my favorite links on the subject because it presents different back and forths between scholars: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/.

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

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.

Nah, Sarkeesian’s videos are pretty accurate – it has a reason nearly every single “counter video” has laughably bad arguments and tends to meander around itself. Even the better ones tend to drown in sexist arguments.

The damaging part is the guys who are so angry that a woman DARES to criticize media, and consequently sent her thousands of death/rape threats.

And you guys keep damaging the conversation with your meaningless rage about her. You know why she got 150k money? Because you people kept attacking her with such absurd fury that most of the sane gamers figured that the mere fact the angry people were this mad proved that Sarkeesian had a point Otherwise you lot wouldn’t have stooped so low to to kitten /death threat on this extent.

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. If you want a look at objectification based on facts & a bit of research & not pop-culture-critic style commentary, watch some http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

DarksunG.9537:

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. He purposefully over exaggerates the positive qualities of men & games & under exaggerates the flattening of male "characters"especially when it comes to the disposeability of men (how many games do you kill huge number of women & are huge numbers of women EXPECTED to die?)
& then says women are “things” men want, when pretty even “save the princess” stories are based around characters that actually care about women. He treats all games as Duke Nukem & AoD Beach volleyball. It’s an old smoke screen but it doesn’t hold up to real factual scrutiny. He uses labels to, ironically, create the same argument he rallies against “it sounds good to say, but it’s not true.”

I think the label of objectification doesn’t hold up to most modern uses. we toss it around to everything we find offensive. I might like my female Norn to have a metal bikini, but that does NOT make her less of a character than when I put plate armor on her, & it doesn’t make my male characters have any more character than her

Wow… you actually just used Damsel in Distress game devices to argue that women are NOT the goal that men are attempting to acquire? How did that even happen?

I have never felt objectified as a man playing a strong character able to slaughter hundreds of my foes without any concern for my well being. Because that is an ideal. I don’t think many women have ever said the same thing about being a helpless princess who is easily and constantly captured by the same gross guy waiting to be rescued by some guy who she’s not actually even in a relationship with, he’s just around a lot.

Kal Spiro.9745:

DarksunG.9537:

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. He purposefully over exaggerates the positive qualities of men & games & under exaggerates the flattening of male "characters"especially when it comes to the disposeability of men (how many games do you kill huge number of women & are huge numbers of women EXPECTED to die?)
& then says women are “things” men want, when pretty even “save the princess” stories are based around characters that actually care about women. He treats all games as Duke Nukem & AoD Beach volleyball. It’s an old smoke screen but it doesn’t hold up to real factual scrutiny. He uses labels to, ironically, create the same argument he rallies against “it sounds good to say, but it’s not true.”

I think the label of objectification doesn’t hold up to most modern uses. we toss it around to everything we find offensive. I might like my female Norn to have a metal bikini, but that does NOT make her less of a character than when I put plate armor on her, & it doesn’t make my male characters have any more character than her

Wow… you actually just used Damsel in Distress game devices to argue that women are NOT the goal that men are attempting to acquire? How did that even happen?

I have never felt objectified as a man playing a strong character able to slaughter hundreds of my foes without any concern for my well being. Because that is an ideal. I don’t think many women have ever said the same thing about being a helpless princess who is easily and constantly captured by the same gross guy waiting to be rescued by some guy who she’s not actually even in a relationship with, he’s just around a lot.

1: You play Mario to save the princess? no you don’t.. you play it to win. The princess is a cute little story. that’s like saying you play Mario because you aspire to be an Italian plumber… this “prince is an object” stuff is laughable.
2:

able to slaughter hundreds of my foes

that is closer to objectification. saying the people you kill are obstacles in the way to freeing the princess who is, for some reason, more important then they are. (if you really buy the idea that the story is SOOO important & objectifying)

DarksunG.9537:

Kal Spiro.9745:

DarksunG.9537:

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. He purposefully over exaggerates the positive qualities of men & games & under exaggerates the flattening of male "characters"especially when it comes to the disposeability of men (how many games do you kill huge number of women & are huge numbers of women EXPECTED to die?)
& then says women are “things” men want, when pretty even “save the princess” stories are based around characters that actually care about women. He treats all games as Duke Nukem & AoD Beach volleyball. It’s an old smoke screen but it doesn’t hold up to real factual scrutiny. He uses labels to, ironically, create the same argument he rallies against “it sounds good to say, but it’s not true.”

I think the label of objectification doesn’t hold up to most modern uses. we toss it around to everything we find offensive. I might like my female Norn to have a metal bikini, but that does NOT make her less of a character than when I put plate armor on her, & it doesn’t make my male characters have any more character than her

Wow… you actually just used Damsel in Distress game devices to argue that women are NOT the goal that men are attempting to acquire? How did that even happen?

I have never felt objectified as a man playing a strong character able to slaughter hundreds of my foes without any concern for my well being. Because that is an ideal. I don’t think many women have ever said the same thing about being a helpless princess who is easily and constantly captured by the same gross guy waiting to be rescued by some guy who she’s not actually even in a relationship with, he’s just around a lot.

1: You play Mario to save the princess? no you don’t.. you play it to win. The princess is a cute little story. that’s like saying you play Mario because you aspire to be an Italian plumber… this “prince is an object” stuff is laughable.
2:

able to slaughter hundreds of my foes

THAT is objectification. saying the people you kill are objects in the way to freeing the princess who is, for some reason, more important then they are. (if you really buy the idea that the story is SOOO important & objectifying)

Ok… you need to go back and learn what objectify means, because you obviously have no idea.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Ok… you need to go back and learn what objectify means, because you obviously have no idea.

was gonna say the same to you. According to feminists(which is EXTREMELY one sided, but for the sake of argument):

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum’s list:

reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

So that applies to enemies you slaughter more than to the princess. please learn your definitions before you attack someone.

Zefiris.8297:

Nah, Sarkeesian’s videos are pretty accurate – it has a reason nearly every single “counter video” has laughably bad arguments and tends to meander around itself. Even the better ones tend to drown in sexist arguments.

Where is your evidence to support this? If you’re going to claim they’re “laughable” and sexist, you had better back that up with something more than a vague statement.

Zefiris.8297:

The damaging part is the guys who are so angry that a woman DARES to criticize media, and consequently sent her thousands of death/rape threats.

Sorry, but this is a fallacious argument and holds no water in this discussion.

Zefiris.8297:

And you guys keep damaging the conversation with your meaningless rage about her. You know why she got 150k money? Because you people kept attacking her with such absurd fury that most of the sane gamers figured that the mere fact the angry people were this mad proved that Sarkeesian had a point Otherwise you lot wouldn’t have stooped so low to to kitten /death threat on this extent.

Another inaccurate and fallacious argument full of assumptions.

Just so you know, the reason I didn’t respond anymore than this is because I’m fairly certain you have your mind made up and to try and counter your claims would only serve to drag this conversation down.

I’m confident that those who prefer critical thought, will spend time looking into the entire story.