Guild Wars 2

Brutalistik.6473:

Can someone lock this thread already? This silly argument has gone long enough for the fact its has now 9 pages.

This is very sad if this thing upsets a community to the extent they need to give descriptive details and showing images to defend their argument when overall it’s not a big deal.

We get it
Section A

• does not like the model, but wants to criticize Anet saying shame on them for putting this out for a assumption of a certain audience. That’s ludicrous…

Section B

• Does not see a problem whats wrong with the image because it’s not their first time seeing something like this before. They just know its a new model that happens to have female anatomy and nothing more.

Section C

• Plays the game focusing on getting more gold and karma not caring about the model or anything. They just play the game to have fun and not to stare at something for more then a second wondering whats wrong with it.

I guess I’ll fall into Section D then.

Section D
See that the shape of the model is a great tactical decision in the art of war. because if you could distract your opponent even for just a few second that a lone is an advantage.

Meriem.3504:

They still don’t need areolas.

You are correct, they don’t need areolae.

But, and I don’t mean to sound rude here, they also don’t need to be designed with your specific version of what you deem to be appropriate.

I understand if you don’t like that design choice, and that is your prerogative, but who are you to say what a design does, or doesn’t need? I noticed in a subsequent post by you that when you start adding certain “parts” it makes things sexual.

There is a big difference between sexualized and sexual. A mother feeding her baby in public is not sexual. A statue/painting of a woman on the side of a Greek building is not sexual. A female/male nude drawing is not sexual.

This distinction needs to be kept in mind when talking about art.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Meriem.3504:

They still don’t need areolas.

You are correct, they don’t need areolae.

But, and I don’t mean to sound rude here, they also don’t need to be designed with your specific version of what you deem to be appropriate.

I understand if you don’t like that design choice, and that is your prerogative, but who are you to say what a design does, or doesn’t need? I noticed in a subsequent post by you that when you start adding certain “parts” it makes things sexual.

There is a big difference between sexualized and sexual. A mother feeding her baby in public is not sexual. A statue/painting of a woman on the side of a Greek building is not sexual. A female/male nude drawing is not sexual.

This distinction needs to be kept in mind when talking about art.

I don’t mean to sound mean when the say the following things. I said in posts, it is my opinion or I * feel * this way. I don’t think I can make it much more clearer that it is my opinion.

Also I also explained my reasoning which appears you either did not read and/or understand.

Sitkaz.5463:

1. Just because a woman thinks something isn’t sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist. If your wife/gf/friend/mom/whoever says, “I don’t have a problem with high heels on a robot,” that doesn’t make it A-OK anymore than a woman saying it isn’t OK makes it automatically not OK. This argument comes up a lot in feminist-related things, and it’s really not an argument. It’s just opinion: a girl thinks it’s ok. Maybe even an unofficial poll of all the girls you know says it’s ok. That’s great, but so what.

The problem is that many times what is, and isn’t sexist is also a matter of opinion. One of my major issues with feminism is that it is really an ambiguous term. So many people have a different idea of what feminism means, and this often leads to disagreements about what does and doesn’t fall under the “cloud” of the ideology.

So, what ends up happening is you get people who claim something is sexist, and then you have people who claim that same thing isn’t. Who is right?

The official definition of sexism is:

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexist adj. & n.

In terms of the Watchknights, we can easily argue that despite the sexualized nature of the design, there are in no way discriminated against. As for the stereotyping of of social roles based on gender, well this one is strange for me as well.

You have robots, designed with feminine traits, that are tasked with defending the city from hostile threat. They are towering robots that are capable fighters, and are designed to have a presence in the city.

So, despite their sexualized nature, they are in no way promoting stereotypes that I can see.

Sitkaz.5463:

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.
.

You’re right here. This is the appeal to antiquity fallacy. While it’s fair to mention the comparison between what societies deem to be art, and sexual material, we can’t say that because it’s been done that way, it makes it ok.

So, what we need to do is take the design in context and ask ourselves if the design, in the context of the game, is promoting any particular stereotype, or is giving any message that promotes negativity towards a specific gender, race, religion, etc.

My opinion is no.

I have written a lot here as to why, but I will summarize what I’ve said. While these robots have feminine traits, they are by no means presented in a sexual manner. Their role in the game is by no means that of derogatory, or demeaning. The fact that they have features that some find offensive, is not the same thing as being sexist.

There are many cultures that have different ideas about what is considered sexually explicit. For example, today on a popular game site there was a story showing to what degree some countries will censor cartoons that in most other places don’t even raise an eyebrow.

We need to be very careful not to let our emotions cloud the true meaning behind something. When we do this we often forget to remain objective and rational. We see implied areola on a robot in a video game, and become convinced it must be sexist, overly sexualized, or even pornographic.

We need to look past our initial emotional reaction and approach these topics with some critical thinking.

Meriem.3504:

Forgive for me saying but you do need to read. I said in posts, it is my opinion or I * feel * this way. I don’t think I can make it much more clearer that it is my opinion.

Also I also explained my reasoning which appears you either did not read and/or understand.

I read. I understand it is your “feeling” and your opinion. That doesn’t mean I don’t have something to say about it. You shared your feelings, and opinion, and I shared mine. Welcome to the forums!

I also read your reasoning…I just didn’t agree.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Meriem.3504:

Forgive for me saying but you do need to read. I said in posts, it is my opinion or I * feel * this way. I don’t think I can make it much more clearer that it is my opinion.

Also I also explained my reasoning which appears you either did not read and/or understand.

I read. I understand it is your “feeling” and your opinion. That doesn’t mean I don’t have something to say about it. You shared your feelings, and opinion, and I shared mine. Welcome to the forums!

I also read your reasoning…I just didn’t agree.

Saying I need to keep a distinction when I already have and explained why does not sound like you disagree, it sounds like I failed to do this overall which leads me to believe you did not read my post.

You said who am I say this or that. I already stated it is my opinion so why this statement?

In short you are being redundant with some points.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Meriem.3504:

Saying I need to keep a distinction when I already have and explained why does not sound like you disagree, it sounds like I failed to do this overall which leads me to believe you did not read my post.

You said who am I say this or that. I already stated it is my opinion so why this statement?

In short you are being redundant with some points.

No, not just you…..you know you and I aren’t having a private conversation here right?

Also, just for the future. If you don’t want people to skip what you’re saying, try not quoting an entire wall of text, putting one sentence, and then further down expanding on your point by quoting someone who is quoting to what you said.

It’s REALLY hard to go back, consolidate all your points, quote them all, and address them all. My advice is pick a post you want to reply to, quote the parts you want to address, and create a clear and concise reply in one post. That way anyone coming along can see all your thoughts in one spot.

Or not…I’m not the boss of you.

If you are responding to my post, I read it as you are talking to me. If you wish to talk in general I would suggest not quoting someone. That is at least how I understand it works with debates on the forums.

And yes I could of deleted at least part of that wall of text but I always mess it up and I only said one thing anyways : P

I personally find them rather ugly looking :/ I honestly wish they would quit with the robots but if they were to be golems/robots I’d have preferred them to look like knights in armour but that’s my opinion I guess.

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexist adj. & n.

Would you mind explaining to me then, why nobody, not one person has ever come to the forums, male or female, to complain about why every male character in this game (with the possible exception of Charr) are pretty much the vision of adonis and stereotyping males as big musclebound warriors with perfectly cut bodies or why males haven’t complained that it’s damaging to men who can’t live up to this perfect vision?

Sexism works both ways.

I agree with some of the points brought up about the Watchknight’s visage, however, some of these reasons people are pushing seems to stem from people’s personal neurosis and lack of self esteem about their image and trying to use it to bolster their argument. If it’s crushing to your psyche to not live up to what a female character (or even male for that matter) looks like in a video game, you have much bigger self issues at work.

Dikeido.8436:

Brutalistik.6473:

Can someone lock this thread already? This silly argument has gone long enough for the fact its has now 9 pages.

This is very sad if this thing upsets a community to the extent they need to give descriptive details and showing images to defend their argument when overall it’s not a big deal.

We get it
Section A

• does not like the model, but wants to criticize Anet saying shame on them for putting this out for a assumption of a certain audience. That’s ludicrous…

Section B

• Does not see a problem whats wrong with the image because it’s not their first time seeing something like this before. They just know its a new model that happens to have female anatomy and nothing more.

Section C

• Plays the game focusing on getting more gold and karma not caring about the model or anything. They just play the game to have fun and not to stare at something for more then a second wondering whats wrong with it.

I guess I’ll fall into Section D then.

Section D
See that the shape of the model is a great tactical decision in the art of war. because if you could distract your opponent even for just a few second that a lone is an advantage.

I had always assumed that this was why women’s fantasy armor is always so devoid of anything like physical protection: they get a +4 Distraction bonus to AC.

RoyHarmon.5398:

Dikeido.8436:

Brutalistik.6473:

Can someone lock this thread already? This silly argument has gone long enough for the fact its has now 9 pages.

This is very sad if this thing upsets a community to the extent they need to give descriptive details and showing images to defend their argument when overall it’s not a big deal.

We get it
Section A

• does not like the model, but wants to criticize Anet saying shame on them for putting this out for a assumption of a certain audience. That’s ludicrous…

Section B

• Does not see a problem whats wrong with the image because it’s not their first time seeing something like this before. They just know its a new model that happens to have female anatomy and nothing more.

Section C

• Plays the game focusing on getting more gold and karma not caring about the model or anything. They just play the game to have fun and not to stare at something for more then a second wondering whats wrong with it.

I guess I’ll fall into Section D then.

Section D
See that the shape of the model is a great tactical decision in the art of war. because if you could distract your opponent even for just a few second that a lone is an advantage.

I had always assumed that this was why women’s fantasy armor is always so devoid of anything like physical protection: they get a +4 Distraction bonus to AC.

No our skin is as hard as iron except for are private parts so those must be armored!

I am far too lazy to read the full topic. I’m not offended at all, but the design does strike me as silly. Less so because of the gold-plate lingerie/robot nipples, and more because of COMBAT HEELS.

Muchachowitz.6057:

I am far too lazy to read the full topic. I’m not offended at all, but the design does strike me as silly. Less so because of the gold-plate lingerie/robot nipples, and more because of COMBAT HEELS.

:)

I would rather have combat heels in battle than a plush Charr backpack

Static.9841:

Sexism works both ways.

And in many ways the dudes get the short end of the stick. Especially when it comes to armor designs. Just look at the Phoenix armor. The female version is, albeit revealing, a fairly creative outfit whereas the dude version is potato sack number who knows anymore. Want to trade, ladies?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Static.9841:

Would you mind explaining to me then, why nobody, not one person has ever come to the forums, male or female, to complain about why every male character in this game (with the possible exception of Charr) are pretty much the vision of adonis and stereotyping males as big musclebound warriors or why males haven’t complained that it’s damaging to men who can’t live up to this perfect vision?

Sexism works both ways.

I would love to know the answer to that as well. So many people seem to get all bent out of shape when females are shown in a way that they deem offensive or sexist, but men seem to always be fair game.

That is why I often say that we should be focusing on gender equality for both genders, not just one or the other.

The short answer is that men are idealised to be something most men want to be (according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Women are often idealised to be something men want to look at/own (again, according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Read up on the “male gaze” for a full answer here.

There are certainly grounds for discussing the presentation of male characters in video games as harmful, but it’s strange how people usually only want to bring it up when other people are discussing the presentation of women and the female form, as a way of shutting the latter down. There is no reason both cannot be discussed in equal terms, but ultimately power fantasies, while potentially negative, are still empowering for men, and sexual fantasies tend to be limiting for women.

Male human characters can have a fairly diverse range of body types, from the skinny scholar to the sculpted gladiator, and Anet wasn’t afraid to make the norn range from chunky to huge. They also have a range of faces from cute and young to older and wizened. With female characters, we had to fight tooth and nail to get some non-hourglass huge-boobed female human builds added to the game at the last minute in beta, and even then we couldn’t get any true buff ladies added to the human roster (the new types were literally added after a thread about the topic took off and a dev who cared posted to say he was bringing the matter to the artists). There is also one token old-looking face that had barely any effort put into it at all – again added at the last minute, and only because we cried out for some older faces. For the norn, their entire body type is different to their male counterpart to ensure that, yet again, they are attractive when it’s okay for the men not to be.

So there are representation issues in GW2, no matter how progressive it has been on certain fronts. If you are concerned about the representation of men, by all means, create a forum thread on it. Nobody’s stopping you. People talking about the watchknight issue are not stopping you. It doesn’t have to be either/or. I have actually engaged in a lot of discussion online about the problems with the stereotypical presentation of ‘masculinity’ when it’s brought up. Have you?

I see them as a steampunk nod – which often does have shapely mechanics.

Well the artists at Anet can be proud, there is something satisfying than people talking about your creation for more than 9 pages.

Its not a female, its just a machine.

It does not resemble a woman in any way shape or form, most woman are not even shaped that way.

It is not a woman, therefore its not sexist. I would be offended if you think its a woman.

Its just a game, its not even a woman. IT IS A ROBOT

There is nothing wrong with the Watchknights. I found this forum through a post titled “Watchknights’ chests….”. I assumed this was about the loot they dropped.

Does the model bother me? No.
Why? Because this game is already full of half-naked CG, I simply stopped paying attention to the models. Tyria is populated by strippers anyway.

I can see how some people could be offended by the design of the Watchknights, but the game is full of that same design everywhere… Watchknights were only worth a single giggle (when the game remembers to render them).

Thanks Crazylegs, you bring up some good ideas.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

The official definition of sexism is:

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexist adj. & n.

In terms of the Watchknights, we can easily argue that despite the sexualized nature of the design, there are in no way discriminated against. As for the stereotyping of of social roles based on gender, well this one is strange for me as well.

You have robots, designed with feminine traits, that are tasked with defending the city from hostile threat. They are towering robots that are capable fighters, and are designed to have a presence in the city.

So, despite their sexualized nature, they are in no way promoting stereotypes that I can see.

I’d say you’re right that the robots themselves aren’t discriminated against. But are women discriminated against due to the presence of the robots? Ie. Does the huge presence of sexualized female design (and no one seems to be arguing that there isn’t a huge presence of sexualized design in games generally, that I can see) promote stereotypes of women as sexualized creatures, possibly to the detriment of attention to other attributes? It’s arguable.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Sitkaz.5463:

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.

You’re right here. This is the appeal to antiquity fallacy. While it’s fair to mention the comparison between what societies deem to be art, and sexual material, we can’t say that because it’s been done that way, it makes it ok.

So, what we need to do is take the design in context and ask ourselves if the design, in the context of the game, is promoting any particular stereotype, or is giving any message that promotes negativity towards a specific gender, race, religion, etc.

My opinion is no.

I have written a lot here as to why, but I will summarize what I’ve said. While these robots have feminine traits, they are by no means presented in a sexual manner. Their role in the game is by no means that of derogatory, or demeaning. The fact that they have features that some find offensive, is not the same thing as being sexist.

I really like what you’ve said here but I notice you’ve contradicted what you said earlier. You said “…despite the sexualized nature of the design…” but now you say “they are by no means presented in a sexual manner.” I can see how both might be true, eg. the design is sexual but the aren’t used in a sexual manner because they fight rather than acting sexy or having sex, but you can probably see how the division might not be clear to everyone. To some, their sexualized design presents them in a sexual manner, so they are indeed promoting the stereotype of woman as sex object.

I know I said I wouldn’t dive into the debate but I found your reply thoughtful and interesting so it pulled me in.

Oh look, this thread again.

The one that never happens when things are semi-accurate representations of male anatomy. (unless it’s genitals of course. everybody gets mad about genitals!)

You know, all thre threads that go “OH MY, Look at those pecs and abs, that’s extremely sexist and I should make a thread about it.”

“Oh my look at how the new Braham armor skin reveals half of the chest of those player characters!”

Get over it. Sometimes people are sexy. Sometimes, as an extension, representations of people are sexy. I’m hella sexy. Right now I’m not wearing a shirt. AND I EXIST!

Threads like this one are indicative of not only an extremely sexist double standard, but a general lack of ability to separate your giving a kitten in to appropriate proportions for appropriate parts of your life.

It’s a kittening 9 foot tall battle robot that pretends to be giant cats and horse people and other stuff. Is this really where you want to spend your time? Really?

Faowri.4159:

The short answer is that men are idealised to be something most men want to be (according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Women are often idealised to be something men want to look at/own (again, according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Read up on the “male gaze” for a full answer here.

I wanted to expand on this if you don’t mind.

While I agree with you that some developers are creating characters that men want to be, I also think that the industry often creates male characters that they think we should be.

I personally don’t want to be a muscle-bound, jarhead, rage filled, emotionless, violent, space marine, but so many games promote this idea that to be a man, is to go out and subject yourself to violence, and heartache, all without ever protesting, or expressing emotion. You are just expected, as a man to be strong, confident, and do your duty.

I feel this can have a potentially negative impact on how men learn what it means to be a man.

Faowri.4159:

There are certainly grounds for discussing the presentation of male characters in video games as harmful, but it’s strange how people usually only want to bring it up when other people are discussing the presentation of women and the female form, as a way of shutting the latter down. There is no reason both cannot be discussed in equal terms, but ultimately power fantasies, while potentially negative, are still empowering for men, and sexual fantasies tend to be limiting for women.

I agree, we should be discussing these subjects. I do think the conversations are happening, I just don’t think they’re often taken very seriously. When we do hear about males and games, it’s often linked to violence.

Based on my observations, it appears that there are a lot of people discussing what impact games have on male players, but it is quite rare for them to get the exposure that conversations about females get.

I think much of this is a result of this general idea that as a man, you are expected to just deal with things. If you don’t like how a video game makes you feel, suck it up or people will call you names and call you any number of derogatory terms. You’re called overly sensitive, or a “girl” if you express your emotional response to games.

This is often why I feel the only time you really hear anyone discuss the other side is in conversations about women, because it’s an opportunity to have your voice heard, in a conversation where people are listening. Unfortunately, people are often responded to with terms like, “Sure thing dudebro!” or “Another privileged white male” or sarcastically, “Oh what about teh menz?!”

Faowri.4159:

So there are representation issues in GW2, no matter how progressive it has been on certain fronts. If you are concerned about the representation of men, by all means, create a forum thread on it. Nobody’s stopping you. People talking about the watchknight issue are not stopping you. It doesn’t have to be either/or. I have actually engaged in a lot of discussion online about the problems with the stereotypical presentation of ‘masculinity’ when it’s brought up. Have you?

Yep, I have, but not here. I never felt it was appropriate to bring it up on this forum until now, but it’s nice to see people discussing it.

PopeUrban.2578:

Onshidesigns.1069:

PopeUrban.2578:

Oh look, this thread again.

The one that never happens when things are semi-accurate representations of male anatomy. (unless it’s genitals of course. everybody gets mad about genitals!)

I wouldn’t be mad about male or female genitals. I used a nude mod on skyrim because it was more realistic when looting bodies.

So wait… you would… realistically… loot underpants?

How much do used underpants go for in Skyrim these days? XD

No one was wearing any underpants in the skyrim mod.

Static.9841:

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexist adj. & n.

Would you mind explaining to me then, why nobody, not one person has ever come to the forums, male or female, to complain about why every male character in this game (with the possible exception of Charr) are pretty much the vision of adonis and stereotyping males as big musclebound warriors with perfectly cut bodies or why males haven’t complained that it’s damaging to men who can’t live up to this perfect vision?

Sexism works both ways.

I agree with some of the points brought up about the Watchknight’s visage, however, some of these reasons people are pushing seems to stem from people’s personal neurosis and lack of self esteem about their image and trying to use it to bolster their argument. If it’s crushing to your psyche to not live up to what a female character (or even male for that matter) looks like in a video game, you have much bigger self issues at work.

i specifically recall someone posting about… i think its andrew? the tavern innkeep in one of the human personal stories because they wanted to play as his bodyshape not the ones currently available (or something like that)

- but yeh; it happens less wierdly

Sitkaz.5463:

I really like what you’ve said here but I notice you’ve contradicted what you said earlier. You said “…despite the sexualized nature of the design…” but now you say “they are by no means presented in a sexual manner.” I can see how both might be true, eg. the design is sexual but the aren’t used in a sexual manner because they fight rather than acting sexy or having sex, but you can probably see how the division might not be clear to everyone. To some, their sexualized design presents them in a sexual manner, so they are indeed promoting the stereotype of woman as sex object.

I know I said I wouldn’t dive into the debate but I found your reply thoughtful and interesting so it pulled me in.

Ya, I’m having a lot of trouble trying to explain what I mean when I say sexualization vs. sexual.

Let me give an example that might help.

Imagine that you’re looking at a photo of a nude woman, taken in a field of flowers. This image is sexualized in the sense thakittens purpose is to focus on, an accentuate the female figure. Now, imagine a poster for a bikini model hanging in a mechanics shop. While it’s still sexualized, it’s purpose is to be sexual, meaning to evoke a sexual response.

Where that line is drawn can differ from person to person, but at some point one has a different meaning than the other.

In the case of the Watchknights, they are indeed sexualized (in that they focus on female features), but they’re not sexual (in that they’re not designed to evoke a sexual response). To further support this, I have mentioned that the characters themselves are not put into situations in which they are required to be sexual.

So, for me, the Watchknights are sexualized, but they’re presented in a way that doesn’t reduce women to objects. They have purpose, meaning, and value. They also have cost me a lot of silver in the arena, so they’re not exactly projecting a helpless and incapable female.

We all need a new design direction…

Sorry, couldn’t help it…

Wayfinder.8452:

We all need a new design direction…

Sorry, couldn’t help it…

This would have been freaking awesome! Why couldn’t the watchknights have been like that if they wanted them to be scary and yet “feminine”?

aspirine.6852:

What kind of topic did I stumble into now….

*walks away slowly

Give me a hand with my Ice Shower Golem 5000 I think many of the posters in this thread could use a ice cold shower. A few could even use a visit from my Hammer tosser 700 Golem, but I don’t think Anet would appreciate the mess it makes. Now where did I put my bag of power supplies.

Faowri.4159:

Women are often idealised to be something men want to look at/own (again, according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Read up on the “male gaze” for a full answer here.

That’s interesting to say when most cosplayers I see are female. And not conservatively dressed ones at that.

[…]

Your ideas about added character models make all perfect sense in a world where Anet has unlimited resources.
What makes you think another old-looking facial option when the current one basically never gets used, instead of a pretty one that might make certain races a bit less same-facey, is a good idea?

Calling an artist who transform the heel into some pneumatic jumping thingies to give the bot some airborn fighting, and then turn the nipples into minimissle silos or they are the anker for the boobs which spring forward like a trick punching glove.

if this design gets aprooved we can send it to anet to change it for the rest of the month.

bhagwad.4281:

This would have been freaking awesome! Why couldn’t the watchknights have been like that if they wanted them to be scary and yet “feminine”?

That kind of scary design would give off an evil ruler vibe lol. Which would be an amusing plot twist if Jennah started to act all paranoid, sent away the Shining Blades and began wearing big black capes.

I think the watchknights were meant to be security devices that resemble statuesque pieces of art that you’d see in a museum. That reflects humanity’s pride of their refined culture which is unique among the races. Charr are all about hard practicality, norn are rough and tumble, sylvari are too new and the asura idea of refinement is mathematical rather than artistic.

Jamais vu.5284:

That’s interesting to say when most cosplayers I see are female. And not conservatively dressed ones at that.

Women choosing what to wear on their own bodies is pretty different to designing a character with no agency of its own to be sexualised. Besides which, do you not stop to think that the reason female cosplayers have such a gigantic pool of skimpy costumes to pick from is because, I don’t know, the media is a little oversaturated with them?

You seem to be implying that I have a problem with sexy costumes/designs. I don’t. It should always be optional, though, when it comes to player characters wearing it, and if it’s part of the story then it should serve the narrative. Everything has its time and place. For me, the watchknights fit neither.

Your ideas about added character models make all perfect sense in a world where Anet has unlimited resources.

Funny how there always seem to be enough resources to give male/gender-neutral/less humanoid characters diversity, but never female. Odd, that.

@Crazylegs: Thank you for the considered reply Breath of fresh air to have some civil discussion on the matter.

Faowri.4159:

Women choosing what to wear on their own bodies is pretty different to designing a character with no agency of its own to be sexualised.

There are a few different levels going on here.

First, when designing background characters, it makes sense to depict them in a way that is representative of the population around them. Because they’re not actual sentient beings, but we’re trying to give the illusion they are, it makes sense to dress them as though they’re integrated into the world around them.

Secondly, the Watchknights are not sentient beings that have a choice. They are robots. We design all kinds of robots in media and real life that suit our needs. This is a totally different subject concerning robots, but as of yet, robots are not capable of understanding what it means to be sexualized (consciously), so to argue that it’s a “victim” of sorts doesn’t really make sense in my eyes.

Faowri.4159:

Besides which, do you not stop to think that the reason female cosplayers have such a gigantic pool of skimpy costumes to pick from is because, I don’t know, the media is a little oversaturated with them?

I’m not sure this totally applies to GW2. The armor sets are fairly even with only a very few exceptions.

Faowri.4159:

Everything has its time and place. For me, the watchknights fit neither.

That is fair.

For me, I think they fit very well in the context of the story. Strong, towering female robots, that are capable of defending the queen and her people. They are designed to have a strong female presence and beauty that reflects Queen Jennah and the designs around her.

:)

How this can explode into 10 pages of discussion eludes me. :U

Escthiil.3210:

How this can explode into 10 pages of discussion eludes me. :U

Because there a lot of people who need to take more cold showers or start listening to the logical nature of their brains more often.

Faowri.4159:

So there are representation issues in GW2, no matter how progressive it has been on certain fronts.

(snip & paste)

Funny how there always seem to be enough resources to give male/gender-neutral/less humanoid characters diversity, but never female. Odd, that.

Very well said, all of it. Thanks for expressing it better than I could have.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I personally don’t want to be a muscle-bound, jarhead, rage filled, emotionless, violent, space marine, but so many games promote this idea that to be a man, is to go out and subject yourself to violence, and heartache, all without ever protesting, or expressing emotion. You are just expected, as a man to be strong, confident, and do your duty.

I feel this can have a potentially negative impact on how men learn what it means to be a man.

Also very well said, and definitely a subject that should be brought up more often (as long as it’s not used to derail/silence the subject of problematic portrayals of women).

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Escthiil.3210:

How this can explode into 10 pages of discussion eludes me. :U

Because there a lot of people who need to take more cold showers or start listening to the logical nature of their brains more often.

Honestly, the people who need to take cold showers are those complaining about others objecting to the watchknights.

If you read the thread you’ll see far more heated reactions from people getting all worked about the OP’s original post than those agreeing with him/her.

Hi, everyone. Just wanted to pop in here with another note.

If you disagree with the OP, that’s perfectly fine. However, attempting to silence or shut down discussion by frequently posting and reposting your opinion, and continuing to harp on your points in an attempt to convince people they’re irrational, simply because you disagree with the OP is not fine. If you disagree with the OP—go ahead and post, have a polite conversation, but please don’t try to bully people into agreeing with you.

This kind of behavior is drowning out other voices. We have seen at least one person decide to leave the thread because of it.

If this continues, those who are engaging in this tactic in this thread will receive a suspension.

Thanks for your attention.

Good art is always controversial. It’s purpose is to get reactions and start discussions. Whoever came up with the design is an absolute genius.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Good art is always controversial. It’s purpose is to get reactions and start discussions. Whoever came up with the design is an absolute genius.

Yeah. Starry night by Van Gogh really got people worked up. All that controversial content.

bhagwad.4281:

Yeah. Starry night by Van Gogh really got people worked up. All that controversial content.

Picking examples as a counter argument only works when there no other examples that are actually relevant.

Warning artistic statue nudity in links (GASP think about the children!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/town-sculpture-david-put-pants-article-1.1257671
http://www.kvue.com/news/Naked-Aphrodite-stirs-SAMA-ad-controversy-175709981.html

These are from about 10 seconds of Google searching. I’m sure there are plenty more examples of great works of art that have sparked controversy, in the past or today.

DoctorOverlord.8620:

bhagwad.4281:

Yeah. Starry night by Van Gogh really got people worked up. All that controversial content.

Picking examples as a counter argument only works when there no other examples that are actually relevant.

Warning artistic statue nudity in links (GASP think about the CHILDREN!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/town-sculpture-david-put-pants-article-1.1257671
http://www.kvue.com/news/Naked-Aphrodite-stirs-SAMA-ad-controversy-175709981.html

These are from about 10 seconds of Google searching. I’m sure there are plenty more examples of great works of art that have sparked controversy, in the past or today.

In this case, all I need is one example to disprove the parent’s hypothesis that (and I quote) “Good art is always controversial.”

Note the “always” part of the assertion. And see how just one counter example blows the argument to shreds.

bhagwad.4281:

DoctorOverlord.8620:

bhagwad.4281:

Yeah. Starry night by Van Gogh really got people worked up. All that controversial content.

Picking examples as a counter argument only works when there no other examples that are actually relevant.

Warning artistic statue nudity in links (GASP think about the CHILDREN!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/town-sculpture-david-put-pants-article-1.1257671
http://www.kvue.com/news/Naked-Aphrodite-stirs-SAMA-ad-controversy-175709981.html

These are from about 10 seconds of Google searching. I’m sure there are plenty more examples of great works of art that have sparked controversy, in the past or today.

In this case, all I need is one example to disprove the parent’s hypothesis that (and I quote) “Good art is always controversial.”

Note the “always” part of the assertion. And see how just one counter example blows the argument to shreds.

It’s not even that. It’s that it’s controversial by modern sensibilities, not when it was made.

bhagwad.4281:

In this case, all I need is one example to disprove the parent’s hypothesis that (and I quote) “Good art is always controversial.”

Note the “always” part of the assertion. And see how just one counter example blows the argument to shreds.

Since you want to get into semantics, you actually can’t disprove the original quote because what is ‘good’ in art is purely a subjective matter of taste.

Perhaps the original poster only considers a piece of art worthwhile unless it is controversial. That would mean they would not consider Starry Night to be a good piece of art which is something left for discussion in an art appreciation class. For what it’s worth, I know artists who dislike Van Gogh’s work but that’s neither here nor there, it’s all a matter of opinion when one is talking about art or perception.

Which probably relates back to this thread in a way that I don’t have time to explore.

Perhaps I should have said “Good art always makes people think”. Something along those lines. But the point I really wanted to make was that some artists want to spark debate. One way is to do something controversial. For instance, there’s an artist who uses real, deceased human bodies as his art. People who passed on had signed an agreement to donate their bodies for use in his art. I don’t remember his name, but if that’s not controversial, I don’t know what is. And you know what? Some of his artwork is quite interesting.

Moderator.5349:

Hi, everyone. Just wanted to pop in here with another note.

If you disagree with the OP, that’s perfectly fine. However, attempting to silence or shut down discussion by frequently posting and reposting your opinion, and continuing to harp on your points in an attempt to convince people they’re irrational, simply because you disagree with the OP is not fine. If you disagree with the OP—go ahead and post, have a polite conversation, but please don’t try to bully people into agreeing with you.

This kind of behavior is drowning out other voices. We have seen at least one person decide to leave the thread because of it.

If this continues, those who are engaging in this tactic in this thread will receive a suspension.

Thanks for your attention.

Thank you and I was wondering if that was something that could be addressed or not.

Great read in this thread

bhagwad.4281:

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Escthiil.3210:

How this can explode into 10 pages of discussion eludes me. :U

Because there a lot of people who need to take more cold showers or start listening to the logical nature of their brains more often.

Honestly, the people who need to take cold showers are those complaining about others objecting to the watchknights.

If you read the thread you’ll see far more heated reactions from people getting all worked about the OP’s original post than those agreeing with him/her.

That’s why I left it unspecific who needs to take the cold shower, think both sides need to cool their heads down. I honestly don’t understand this need to claim everything is objectifying women whenever possible, it trends to cause nothing but trouble.

Willisium.5081:

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

Yes.

Yes.

And yes.

With nipples and sculpted butts and bulges.

It’s art.

And more bikini armor for men please. I want my women wholly covered and my men running around in impractical outfits that leave vital areas wide open. (Though to be fair, ANET has been pretty good with avoiding the Female Bikini Armor crap… though I’m still irritated that the Vigil female armor for some reason has bare parts on the chest and thighs.. Whhhyyy ANET… it was PERFECT except for that, URGH)