Guild Wars 2

Just let people copy armor skins between armor weights. As in, transfer a medium armor skin onto heavy armor. Put a heavy armor skin on light armor. etc. It seems so simple.

• There is no further financial investment in art resources
• The people who want skimpy stuff get three times more variety from existing skimpy stuff
• The people who don’t want more skimpy stuff don’t have to worry about anet dedicating resources to creating new skimpy stuff
• anet gets to sell conversion stones in the store
• We can kick the can down the road a few months

If I want to dress in drag I have every right to.

nenosronhir.3658:

the issue here is a) complicated by this catering to the male gaze, and b) the fact there are women expressing that they aren’t comfortable with adding more/similarly revealing outfits.

if more players want more revealing outfits, why should women that don’t feel comfortable with those have an upper say in it, especially having in mind that their less revealing outfits will not be taken out of the game?

Kate Soulguard.7132:

Just let people copy armor skins between armor weights. As in, transfer a medium armor skin onto heavy armor. Put a heavy armor skin on light armor. etc. It seems so simple.

• There is no further financial investment in art resources
• The people who want skimpy stuff get three times more variety from existing skimpy stuff
• The people who don’t want more skimpy stuff don’t have to worry about anet dedicating resources to creating new skimpy stuff
• anet gets to sell conversion stones in the store
• We can kick the can down the road a few months

That is a poorly thought out band-aid solution if I’ve ever seen one.

1. If I’m wearing Heavy armor and I wanted to have a more revealing armor option I don’t want to look at Light or Medium armor for an answer. I want a more revealing HEAVY ARMOR. Same goes if I’m in Medium or Light, I don’t want an armor from outside my armor type as a “solution”.
2. This would be abused excessively in PvP, Currently you can look at a player and get an idea of what class they are by their armor type, and adjust your strategy accordingly. With this, Heavy armor classes would transmute Light armor to trick people into believing that a light armored class was headed their way, and as such blind side them with Warrior or Guardian abilities.
3. This does NOT add options. We are asking for more options, not the same options we already have.

Panda.1967:

Kate Soulguard.7132:

Just let people copy armor skins between armor weights. As in, transfer a medium armor skin onto heavy armor. Put a heavy armor skin on light armor. etc. It seems so simple.

• There is no further financial investment in art resources
• The people who want skimpy stuff get three times more variety from existing skimpy stuff
• The people who don’t want more skimpy stuff don’t have to worry about anet dedicating resources to creating new skimpy stuff
• anet gets to sell conversion stones in the store
• We can kick the can down the road a few months

That is a poorly thought out band-aid solution if I’ve ever seen one.

1. If I’m wearing Heavy armor and I wanted to have a more revealing armor option I don’t want to look at Light or Medium armor for an answer. I want a more revealing HEAVY ARMOR. Same goes if I’m in Medium or Light, I don’t want an armor from outside my armor type as a “solution”.
2. This would be abused excessively in PvP, Currently you can look at a player and get an idea of what class they are by their armor type, and adjust your strategy accordingly. With this, Heavy armor classes would transmute Light armor to trick people into believing that a light armored class was headed their way, and as such blind side them with Warrior or Guardian abilities.
3. This does NOT add options. We are asking for more options, not the same options we already have.

Some examples of how heavy armor can be revealing. But still be protective.

Heavy armor does not need to be full coverage. The goal shouldn’t be to withstand hit. It’s to block incoming attacks. So we need heavy armor with less coverage designed for increased speed.

This is a good example of revealing heavy armor made for speed.

^ Actually, from a real life protection standpoint, that armor would be laughably ineffective. It exposes a large portion of the upper torso and the upper thighs, both of which are areas where a deep enough wound could prove fatal.

But I agree that this is a game, and if players want heavy armor that still shows skin and curves while providing the same protection as a full suit of plate mail, so be it. I just want both the chainmail bikini AND the full plate mail suit in there, and let players decide which they want to wear.

Honestly, I think that GW2 has done quite a good job of providing a wide range of armor appearances that cater to both sides. There are some VERY revealing outfits, it’s true, but there are also options that look realistic from an armor standpoint. If need be, mix and match your armor pieces to get the exact look you want. That’s what Transmutation stones are for.

Zaxares.5419:

^ Actually, from a real life protection standpoint, that armor would be laughably ineffective. It exposes a large portion of the upper torso and the upper thighs, both of which are areas where a deep enough wound could prove fatal.

But I agree that this is a game, and if players want heavy armor that still shows skin and curves while providing the same protection as a full suit of plate mail, so be it. I just want both the chainmail bikini AND the full plate mail suit in there, and let players decide which they want to wear.

Honestly, I think that GW2 has done quite a good job of providing a wide range of armor appearances that cater to both sides. There are some VERY revealing outfits, it’s true, but there are also options that look realistic from an armor standpoint. If need be, mix and match your armor pieces to get the exact look you want. That’s what Transmutation stones are for.

The problem however is that the options for Medium and Heavy are severely lacking. Most of the armor sets for both medium and heavy are near carbon copies of the Male version. For Medium there are 2-4 armor sets that show a noticable amount of skin and 4-7 for Heavy… “Mix and match” doesn’t really accomplish as much as you’d think when your options are as slim as they are.

Quite Honestly, I’d be 100% content if they started converting GW1 armors over to GW2.

Simon.3106:

@ Mirta.5029

A typical, modern day girl who desires fame and looking sexy. Try your best to look sexy as long as you want, but by the time you hit 30, you’re out of the box while the younger, hotter, and sexier girls will replace you, and those girls will be calling you something like “grandma” because they think they’re hot. Then it happens to them and so on and so forth.

A common example: Cindy Crawford.

I mean, that woman is in her late 50s but gosh she’s beautiful. They have sites, magazines, you name it, dedicated to appreciating women’s (and men’s!) beauty who are in their late years!

Zaxares.5419:

^ Actually, from a real life protection standpoint, that armor would be laughably ineffective. It exposes a large portion of the upper torso and the upper thighs, both of which are areas where a deep enough wound could prove fatal.

But I agree that this is a game, and if players want heavy armor that still shows skin and curves while providing the same protection as a full suit of plate mail, so be it. I just want both the chainmail bikini AND the full plate mail suit in there, and let players decide which they want to wear.

Honestly, I think that GW2 has done quite a good job of providing a wide range of armor appearances that cater to both sides. There are some VERY revealing outfits, it’s true, but there are also options that look realistic from an armor standpoint. If need be, mix and match your armor pieces to get the exact look you want. That’s what Transmutation stones are for.

Few people in ancient times were a full set of armor.

The goal of partial armor is not to protect vital points. It for blocking/deflecting attacks. No one armored or not just lets themselves get hit.

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind it if the male armor had some more revealing examples. I was looking through armor sets earlier, and noticed how many of the female versions looked a lot better than the female version (and not just because of the character wearing them), and came to the conclusion that aiming for full coverage on male armor severely limits the creative shapes of the armor. Most female armor, especially, light, has incredible, beautiful cuts and shapes, while the male version is bland and details are just slapped on. This isn’t the case with all sets, of course, and some sets look better on males, but in general the female versions that don’t cover as much as the male versions are better looking.

On a whole another matter, when it comes to heavy armor, I find armor that looks like it would actually protect the best looking.

Tuomir.1830:

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind it if the male armor had some more revealing examples. I was looking through armor sets earlier, and noticed how many of the female versions looked a lot better than the female version (and not just because of the character wearing them), and came to the conclusion that aiming for full coverage on male armor severely limits the creative shapes of the armor. Most female armor, especially, light, has incredible, beautiful cuts and shapes, while the male version is bland and details are just slapped on. This isn’t the case with all sets, of course, and some sets look better on males, but in general the female versions that don’t cover as much as the male versions are better looking.

On a whole another matter, when it comes to heavy armor, I find armor that looks like it would actually protect the best looking.

There is a bit of cross-over though, in that some of the male light armor does look decent while the female counterpart looks ridiculous and tacky for what it’s trying to do (personally, I can’t stand the faux-dresses with the open front as it looks more like a butt cape but I just have to make due ).

But for some examples you’re right…and the annoying part about the male light armor having more bland choices is…Asura and Charr all use that ‘version’ be they male or female. It really limits good choices on a character who is sometimes too small to notice those nice details and so discourages even wanting a choice…or creates the situation where most of the armor just looks bad and ‘stretched’.

Also…

Onshidesigns.1069:

-snip-

I want that feather armor on my mesmer! If not, I’d reroll her as a Guardian for that armor T_T

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Leo G.4501:

Men have pecs (although I’m sure some players might enjoy making less muscled/husky males). As for being sexist and a double standard, it is to you because you’re not seeing the other side of the coin.

Women like options. Currently, they have options. They can wear ‘dresses’, they can wear very revealing things, and they can wear full coverage.

Can my male wear a suit?

Can my male wear a loincloth?

You’re the blind one because you think options are degrading to women but reverse the double standard that in the process of giving female avatars more options, males are stifled for options.

You do realize that that is what double standard means, right? Men can’t wear a loincloth, women get to run around in armor showing their underwear. That is exactly the double standard I was talking about. A double standard applies to both genders across the board. Its just more bothersome from the female side, due the inherit sexualization of the outfits.

Let’s do this. You’ve been spamming this discussion for far too long, and it’s about time someone hops in to end your reign of feminism.

Before I start, here’s a tiny thing you need to know about me: I’m not a feminist. I’m a gender egalitarian to the likes of CAFE. Whilst feminism is the equality of women in relation to men with the assumption that men have it better, and not the other way around, gender egalitarianism is equality on both sides of the coin with the assumption that neither have it better, or a rational and balanced assessment of whether one side actually indeed has it better. And quite funnily, you actually mention here that women have it worse.

Now let’s do this. You are upholding a double standard yourself, with faint knowledge of what a double standard actually is. You’ve been criticising the suggestion heavily, for you feel that skimpy armour objectifies women. You call Winged armour offensive, and I may agree with you on that to some degree, but in contrast to yourself, I don’t criticise the armour because I realise that others may very much enjoy it. That’s awesome for them, and quite honestly doesn’t affect me.

In the same breath, you say there’s a supposed double standard because men don’t get sexy armour. This is utter abuse of the concept of ‘double standard’. It’s not a double standard, it’s sexist. A double standard has to do with moral principles, and the dimorphism in armour has nothing to do with morals at its core. The double standard you’re upholding yourself, though, is claiming that you’re in favour of skimpy armour for men, while furiously against skimpy armour for women.

In short, you very much like Tarzan, but a female version of Tarzan would be unforgivable. Where is the logic in that? Can you honestly believe this? Truly, I’ve been baffled reading through your posts, and your double standard is rendering me speechless. I have no single witty way of explaining how very shallowminded your viewpoint is. “Sexism is only sexism if it negatively affects women” is what I’m getting at, and it’s disgusting.

Let’s review two armour sets:
Male: http://argos-soft.net/GW2ArmorGallery/img/gladi_2_0_10_0_t.jpg
Female: http://argos-soft.net/GW2ArmorGallery/img/cultmadi_2_1_10_0_t.jpg

I honestly can’t see how anyone could possibly tell me that the male version of this armour is inappropriate., even though it’s showing boob. How so? It’s somehow acceptable in society for men to be topless. Which, hey, is awesome for men who do indeed like to walk around topless. It looks rugged, and totally like something an actual gladiator could have worn in Ancient Rome. Then we have the female armour set, which reveals approximately the same amount of skin and less boob. Guess what? This armour is sexually objectifying. It puts women in a bad light, and should be unacceptable because it’s an inefficient piece of gear to wear in battle. Moreover, it’s extremely sexually provoking.

That is a double standard, and you’re upholding it yourself.

My honest opinion? I really like both armour sets. Problems arise, however, when we review the female gladiator and male assassin sets. Both of these sets cover much more than the former examples. (Hey, guess what, a female armour set covers much more than a male armour set in this instance, gasp)

Truly, I’d love a more egalitarian approach to armours. If an armour is skimpy for men, it should be approximately equally skimpy for women. If an armour is skimpy for women, it should be approximately equally skimpy for men. The dimorphism in Winged armour is a good example of how it shouldn’t be done. Instead, the ritualist armour from GW1 is an incredibly good example:

Male: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ritualist_Kurzick_armor_m.jpg
Female: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ritualist_Kurzick_armor_f.jpg

Dare tell me that the male armour is appropriate whilst the female armour isn’t. Actually, I already know your answer. “The female armour is inappropriate because the top piece wouldn’t keep in place. It defies all laws of physics.” Well, sure. I guess there’s some merit to that. So I have a different suggestion. Let’s remove the top piece and turn them into shoulder pieces, just like the male variant. Equality, no? There’s a thought experiment for you to chew on; whether it’s acceptable for a woman to walk around topless much like a man. My opinion? Yeah, I think it should be acceptable. Why not, after all? But we’re a long way from achieving such equality, and putting topless women in video games isn’t yet very acceptable in modern society.

I also know another argument you’re going to throw at me: “Inefficient armour shouldn’t be in games! You can move very well in functional armour!” Let’s tackle that. I’m not sure if you’ve ever played GW1, but if you did, you would know that GW1 was a game of cosmetics. Rather than gathering stats-based armour, you’d strive for the most cosmetically appealing armour. GW2 isn’t very different in that regard. The entire GW series never intended to be all about functional armour, it intended to be about armour that looks amazing. “But, surely, functional armour can look amazing as well?” Sure. Functional armour can look divine. But so can non-functional armour in a different manner entirely. And because GW has always been about cosmetics, ANet will try to make awesome armour first of all, and whether or not it’s functional is merely a second thought. If you don’t like that, and I hate to say this, you’ve run into a core concept of the game that you don’t like and won’t change. That’s all right, though. I really dislike some core things about the game, too. But they don’t keep me up at night.

Summarily, we just need more gear. And I wouldn’t at all mind revealing gear, so long as the male and female counterparts get the same treatment. Besides, running a sylvari ranger, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of my character’s awesome skin textures. This is, after all, a fantasy game. And if you don’t like revealing gear? Well, ArenaNet has already provided you with heaps of non-revealing gear, and they will continue to produce more sets that show only little skin.

Rubykuby.3427:

Let’s do this. You’ve been spamming this discussion for far too long, and it’s about time someone hops in to end your reign of feminism.

Spamming would imply that I was merely cluttering the forum with posts that have no relevance to the topic. What I’m actually doing is voicing the opposite opinion to most of the people in this thread, and I’m quite vocal about it. But that is not spamming. I simply engage in discussion. And since I’m in the minority of people arguing against skimpy outfits, that means most of the posts are directed against me, and thus you’ll see more replies from me as well.

Rubykuby.3427:

And quite funnily, you actually mention here that women have it worse.

They do, if we look at the portrayal of women in games in general. Starting from that point of view, they do have it worse.

Rubykuby.3427:

You call Winged armour offensive, and I may agree with you on that to some degree, but in contrast to yourself, I don’t criticise the armour because I realise that others may very much enjoy it. That’s awesome for them, and quite honestly doesn’t affect me.

Those are two separate issues. Being in favor of people enjoying the content, does not mean you can’t criticize the portrayal of women in games in general. One does not eliminate the other. In fact, I’d almost say that you have some sort of a responsibility to point out sexism when ever it rears its ugly head, regardless if people enjoy it.

Rubykuby.3427:

In the same breath, you say there’s a supposed double standard because men don’t get sexy armour. This is utter abuse of the concept of ‘double standard’. It’s not a double standard, it’s sexist. A double standard has to do with moral principles, and the dimorphism in armour has nothing to do with morals at its core. The double standard you’re upholding yourself, though, is claiming that you’re in favour of skimpy armour for men, while furiously against skimpy armour for women.

The position I take is not a double standard, allow me to explain. I observe that there is a clear difference between the way males and females are portrayed. One is dominated by functional outfits, the other by a lot of sexy outfits (granted, GW2 has plenty of none sexy outfits, I am aware of that).
What I propose is gender equality. So either both genders have skimpy outfits available to them, or not at all. Its the persistent idea that women always have to run around in these silly bikini outfits that I object to. That is not a double standard in itself.

Rubykuby.3427:

In short, you very much like Tarzan, but a female version of Tarzan would be unforgivable. Where is the logic in that?

That is not my position. If most of your argument is beating on this strawman, feel free to do so, but that is not the opinion I hold.

Rubykuby.3427:

Truly, I’ve been baffled reading through your posts, and your double standard is rendering me speechless. I have no single witty way of explaining how very shallowminded your viewpoint is. “Sexism is only sexism if it negatively affects women” is what I’m getting at, and it’s disgusting.

If you misunderstand the posts, I’m sure it is pretty baffling.

The so called double standard is in your mind. Revealing armor on male character just does not make much money for MMO developers. So most of the male armor in games is focused big bulky armor.

But revealing armor does make money on women characters, because males and many women players want it.

It’s not sexisum, it just business!

@Malafide Before you continue, stop using bullets. Debates don’t work that way, and I refuse to further respond if you’re going to use that tactic. Two to three bullets are permissible, but quoting every paragraph is madness.

Rubykuby.3427:

@Malafide Before you continue, stop using bullets. Debates don’t work that way, and I refuse to further respond if you’re going to use that tactic. Two to three bullets are permissible, but quoting every paragraph is madness.

Its impossible to follow the conversation otherwise. There’s so many accusations and false assumptions being thrown about, quoting is the only way to make sense of any of it. Keep in mind that I condense a lot of the posts that I’m quoting. It’s only 2 or 3 lines usually.

And in reply to your second post:

Rubykuby.3427:

Actually, I already know your answer. “The female armour is inappropriate because the top piece wouldn’t keep in place. It defies all laws of physics.” Well, sure. I guess there’s some merit to that. So I have a different suggestion. Let’s remove the top piece and turn them into shoulder pieces, just like the male variant. Equality, no?

See, here is a clear misunderstanding. I don’t so much object to fantasy armor in a fantasy game. I object to outfits that make no sense, simply for the sake of showing more skin. Its a dumb reason to make female clothing more dumb. Why would anyone make excuses for that?

There are plenty of armors in MMO’s with ginormous shoulder pieces that wouldn’t work in any practical sense. I’m fine with that. It’s dumb, but it’s fantasy. But when outfits are impractical, simply for the sake of making a female character look more sexy, I think we should call an artist out on that. We should tell them, this is dumb, clothes don’t work that way, just dress her normally.

I don’t think artistic liberties need to be sacrificed. But I do think when designing these outfits, an artist needs to wonder why they are sacrificing functional armor design. If its simply for the sake of showing more cleavage, I’d say, get over the fact that ladies have breasts already. Just make a good looking armor.

Rubykuby.3427:

There’s a thought experiment for you to chew on; whether it’s acceptable for a woman to walk around topless much like a man. My opinion? Yeah, I think it should be acceptable. Why not, after all? But we’re a long way from achieving such equality, and putting topless women in video games isn’t yet very acceptable in modern society.

There’s Age of Conan. But lets be honest, man-boobs aren’t considered sexual in our society. When a man walks around bare chested in real life during the summer, people could care less. If its a lady, that’s a different story. What matters is not that the clothes are exactly the same, and expose the same parts of the body. What matters is the manner in which the gender is portrayed. And clearly in video games, men are portrayed as burly heroes, while women are portrayed as sexy things to look at. Men wear an armor that protects them, women wear an armor that best shows off their curves. I think that is a fact that is pretty hard to deny.

Rubykuby.3427:

I also know another argument you’re going to throw at me: “Inefficient armour shouldn’t be in games! You can move very well in functional armour!”

As I explained above, inefficient fantasy armor can perfectly be in a fantasy game. That is not the position I hold. But some posters incorrectly claimed that real armor was sluggish to move in, and that’s simply not true. So the rest of your argument is pretty much irrelevant in that regard, because it does not address an opinion I hold. I’m not against none-functional armor. I’m against armor that reinforces this gender stereotype of women as bikini models.

Rubykuby.3427:

I’m not sure if you’ve ever played GW1, but if you did,

-cough-

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/king-and-queens-horrorween-2010-t10455789.html

Or type my name in youtube.

I’m all for more options. But I think men and women both have a responsibility to point out blatant sexism in videogames. This female stereotype hurts the image of the videogame medium. How can videogames ever be taken serious as an art form, when we present female characters so immaturely?

Mad Queen Malafide why are you fighting something that will never change. Women will always be looked at as the more attractive of the two sexes because of their curves. While what make men attractive to women is different. This is a fact of life that will not change.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I’m all for more options. But I think men and women both have a responsibility to point out blatant sexism in videogames. This female stereotype hurts the image of the videogame medium. How can videogames ever be taken serious as an art form, when we present female characters so immaturely?

You haven’t seen much vintage artwork?

Onshidesigns.1069:

Mad Queen Malafide why are you fighting something that will never change. Women will always be looked at as the more attractive of the two sexes because of their curves. While what make men attractive to women is different. This is a fact of life that will not change.

That is complete nonsense. We have male models don’t we? And anyone who saw the movie Casino Royale could tell that the movie was catering a lot more to the female audience (or just to the audience that likes an attractive man) than any Bond movie before that. Our culture changes constantly, and the idea that women are more attractive is purely a subjective matter. And it will most definitely change constantly, as it has for the last couple of years.

Onshidesigns.1069:

Mad Queen Malafide why are you fighting something that will never change. Women will always be looked at as the more attractive of the two sexes because of their curves. While what make men attractive to women is different. This is a fact of life that will not change.

That is actually not quite true. Not only do beauty standards for both men and women change over the span of centuries, so do the social standing of men and women. And social standing has a lot to do with what qualities are looked upon. Modern societies originally came about from patriarchal communities that settled down to cultivate land instead of hunting. Because men came to be owners of property (much due to the fact that women could do farming, freeing men to hold authority. World is a strange place, isn’t it?), women became objectified. If our society had been based on hunting and gathering instead, the gender roles would likely have been reversed, communities being matriarchal and men being objectified.

Point being, things change, and these things aren’t set in stone.

@Malafide I’ll prove you wrong on not being able to debate decently without bullet points. Also, I still want your opinion on the gladiator and assassin armour.

First things first: You say there’s inherent sexism in the portrayal of women in video games. That’s quite a bold statement, I dare say, especially when there’s no physical evidence to back up that claim. As a matter of fact, I put some minor research into the topic a few months back, and was left with a feeling of “meh”. Granted, the primary source of information was the infamous FeministFrequency on Youtube with her “Women VS Tropes in Video Games” series. If you’re in for a watch, watch her damsel in distress video and a response video, both of which I’ll link right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

So there’s this concept that the video game industry is inherently sexist towards women, and you take that viewpoint without giving me any evidence or statements to support that viewpoint. This leaves me with only little to argue, but I’ll give it a go. I think it is safe to say that, in video games, women have more sexually appealing armour and looks than men do in general. The question is whether this is sexist and/or degrading. If you want my opinion on this, it’s going to be a tad complicated. Some games perform better than others, and the complexity of the subject is mind-dazzling. Overall? I think the way women are portrayed in video games is acceptable, but not ideal. And that’s a very moderate opinion to have, truly.

But the problem is the feminist assumption that in case of sexism, women always get the short end of the stick. Like I’ve said before, I’m a gender egalitarian, and assume both genders have it equally bad until proven otherwise. But clearly, male characters don’t walk around with a gigantic sex appeal? That’s debatable, actually. Most male characters are muscular, and per today’s standards, being muscular as a man is a major sex appeal. But muscles clearly don’t make up quite enough for the amount of sex appeal female characters tend to have to endure.

So, with GirlWritesWhat as source for this one, men make up sex appeal differently entirely. While women’s sex appeal is judged on the basis of their physical appearance, men’s sex appeal is largely judged on the basis of their status and abilities. A man in a suit is not attractive because suits are divine to look at, not at all. A man in a suit is attractive because suits indicate wealth. Similarly, muscular men aren’t attractive because muscles are awesome, but because muscles indicate strength, and strength enhances the man’s abilities. Video games know this, and portray men as apt or wealthy as possible, with lesser regard for physical appearance. Therefore, men in video games aren’t completely clad because it protects them better, but because it’s more imposing and gives the illusion of better performance.

Norn men don’t look very attractive if we dress them down into their undies, apart from perhaps their bulks of muscles. What makes norn men attractive is their incredible aptness. Norn men appear unshakable in combat, and like an opponent to fear. They don’t simply “look” attractive, they are attractive through the manner in which they appear to act.

So women are judged solely on physical looks, and men are judged solely on their wealth and aptness. Video games know both of these things, and make women’s bodies sexy and visible, and buff men’s bodies beyond realism, paired with gear that makes them look powerful. Both suffer from sexism in that regard.

But feminist theory will have you believe that women have it worse, because inversely, men always have it better in their patriarchy. Weeeell, that’s not exactly true, but true to some extent. Because feminism has taught us that the way men are presented [in video games] is better, we as society value and appreciate aptness and wealth more. And on a practical level, that makes sense entirely. Surely, someone who is wealthy and can get things done is more beneficial to society than someone who merely looks good.

But the problem is this: The standards of men set in video games are ridiculously high. The expectations of the average male character in video games are simply crushing and unrealistic. Men do, indeed, suffer from sexism in this regard. A man IRL simply can’t be half as buff as the average video game character, let alone half as apt. Now is the time for a good quote: “Men’s weakness is their facade of strength; women’s strength is their facade of weakness.” ~Warren Farrell

Men can’t be half as strong as their ‘facade’ shows them to be, and women are in fact much stronger than the weaknesses they’re portrayed with. Except feminism tells us that being portrayed as weak isn’t beneficial, while in fact it’s a major feat over men.

The problem with the status quo is that men and women who don’t fit the picture feel out of place, and that’s a shame. Does this mean, however, that there is no place for the stereotypical strong men and attractive women? I wouldn’t dare claim that. There must, however, be more space for men and women who don’t fit into those boxes. And I believe ANet did an awesome job with sylvari on this. My male sylvari looks quite frail and effeminate (not using the terms interchangeably; don’t harass me for assuming that frail equals effeminate), while female sylvari can look amazingly imposing (Heavy Twilight Arbor armour, per example). And yes, male sylvari can look incredibly imposing, and female sylvari can look as attractive as you’d like them to be. Which, quite frankly, is fantastic. It’s a win for everybody.

But you hold on to a weird belief that women are the only ones severely victimised. But here’s some common logic: Equality is somewhere in the middle. If women have too much skimpy armour, that means they have more skimpy armour in relation to men. Which points out that men are penalised by not having such armour. So women need more proper armour, and men need more skimpy armour to even out the balance and achieve equality. To merely focus on women and ignore men entirely is a blind and foolish thing to do.

Notwithstanding, this game has a severe lack of skimpy armour. While light armour users have a fair amount of choice, medium armour users have next to no choice at all. And if skimpy armour caters to their preferences, I see no reason not to let them. And to calm your wrath; skimpy armour on women doesn’t reinforce sexism in video games. So long as women are presented with awesome covering armour, too, there should be no problem. For, truly, video games present an exaggeration of an ideal picture in individual expression (source: Extra Credits & Jane McGonigal), which in and of itself is an appreciable form of art. It becomes a problem, however, when the ideal picture doesn’t match the player’s. In which case, alternatives must be created. And fortunately, GW2 has been quite able to provide on these alternatives, though I’d like to see more.

Verily, being against “bikini model” armour as you state it is denying others of their exaggeration of personal expression. Truthfully, so long as everybody gets their own slice of exaggerated personal expression, all should be well.

Wait a minute, are you saying that when women receive most of the skimpy outfits, its men that are being victimized? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying.

Regarding gladiator armor, it’s pretty much what is expected of a gladiator armor really. Both male and female are exposed, but not in a sexualized way. For the assassins armor however, the under-boob is clearly a different case. The difference is the focus on cleavage.

Also, I disagree that there is a status quo regarding genders in videogames. Male characters are portrayed in various different ways, but usually not that sexualized. With female characters however, there is a lot of focus on sexyness… sometimes even to a pretty offensive degree. Example:

Rubykuby.3427:

Verily, being against “bikini model” armour as you state it is denying others of their exaggeration of personal expression. Truthfully, so long as everybody gets their own slice of exaggerated personal expression, all should be well.

Speaking of exaggeration, that would be what you are doing. Being against it in no way denies other people the option to personal expression. I didn’t call for a ban on sexy outfits (which many people seem to assume), I simply pointed out that some armors are pretty offensive to some of us. It reinforces the gender stereotype. And you’d think people would have gotten over this sort of stereotyping by now. There’s several games that portray women in a normal way. Why do so many MMO’s have so much trouble doing this?

Just want to make two points:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

See, here is a clear misunderstanding. I don’t so much object to fantasy armor in a fantasy game. I object to outfits that make no sense, simply for the sake of showing more skin. Its a dumb reason to make female clothing more dumb. Why would anyone make excuses for that?

There are plenty of armors in MMO’s with ginormous shoulder pieces that wouldn’t work in any practical sense. I’m fine with that. It’s dumb, but it’s fantasy. But when outfits are impractical, simply for the sake of making a female character look more sexy, I think we should call an artist out on that. We should tell them, this is dumb, clothes don’t work that way, just dress her normally.

It’s unclear of what the artistic direction is for the various armors unless you ask the artist themselves. You’re just assuming it’s to simply sexualize women when that may not be the sole or only goal. For some women, after all, expressing themselves through their clothing is a form of empowerment. I can’t say it’s the same for men in a lot of cases, but the opportunity should be there.

What matters is not that the clothes are exactly the same, and expose the same parts of the body. What matters is the manner in which the gender is portrayed. And clearly in video games, men are portrayed as burly heroes, while women are portrayed as sexy things to look at.

I’ve gotten out of touch with most games in the past few (round to about 3) years and while it is important to examine how genders are portrayed in video games…the thing is…in GW2, women are portrayed well.

• There’s plenty of armor for full coverage.
• They have access to all opportunities in the game.
• You don’t exclusively save women, so it’s not like they appear as inept or weak in any way.
• They have, likely, more options to enhance their appearance. They can wear make up or not, they can enhance their bust or shrink it, they can be thin or not-so-thin, they have lots of hair options from long to short.
• And most importantly, women are portrayed as higher authority.

On the last point, we could probably count just how many women in power there are and if that position is of importance to the story and compare that to men. While Queen Jenna or the Mother Tree might not be portrayed much as being literally powerful (but don’t let how they are portrayed in the game fool you, I hear Queen Jenna is a hax powerful Mesmer in the books), two of the three orders are headed by women (Riel Darkwater of the Order of Whispers, Almorra Soulkeeper founded and leads the Vigil) both of which have huge military power in Tyria. Of the members of Destiny’s Edge, it had more male members until Snaff’s untimely death, but now female (Caithe, Zoja and Eir who is the leader) and male (Rytlock, Logan and Garm) are balanced…kind of…The Charr are built around the concept of gender equality while the Asura are based on intelligence as a measure of power and status.

Yeah, I’m going to say women in GW2 are portrayed as pretty darn good. Having a set of armor that shows a bit of underboob or adding some more than shows more midrif or leg isn’t going to somehow undo all the above I just typed.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Wait a minute, are you saying that when women receive most of the skimpy outfits, its men that are being victimized? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying.

Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. There are two sides to the coin: Women being portrayed as sexy, and men not being portrayed as such. Narrowminded people assume the either side of the coin is flawed (and feminists will always assume that the women’s side is disadvantageous). Rational people, however, will review both sides simultaneously in relation to one another. When people complain there’s “too much sexism against women” in video games, that means something is happening to female characters that doesn’t happen often to male characters in comparison. This in turn indicates that men are inherently considered unfit for whatever is happening to women, and may be considered unequal treatment. This is a lot of backwards engineering, I know, but trust me, I’m an engineer.

Am I saying that only men are being disadvantaged? No. I’m saying that men and women are equally disadvantaged by the same phenomenom, even if the phenomenom is only prominently visible on one side of the coin.

Also, you lost me when you said that the assassin’s armour is sexualised, and the gladiator armour isn’t. Don’t they both show exactly the same amount of skin in the very region you’re criticising? Again, you’re upholding a double standard here that penalises the gender you’re trying to support. But fret not, feminists do this all the time.

Also, you’re forgetting that stereotypes aren’t necessarily evil. Hipsters were pretty cool people before they became stereotypical for that matter. Imagine if you will that I’m a hipster at heart, and suddenly hipster becomes the stereotype. That means I am now penalised for being who I truly am at heart, because others join the hipster fad merely because it’s a wildcard. Now, I’m not a hipster, but the same goes for the stereotype you’re fighting against. If someone truly likes skimpy armour for whatever reason, then let them. Just because skimpy armour is currently a stereotype doesn’t mean that it’s evil per se. Moreover, you’re contradicting yourself heavily anyway. You’re fiercely against skimpy armour for it offends you, but you don’t want a ban as it were. What do you want?

And as the person above me pointed out, women are put in an extremely good light in GW2. Zojja, Caithe, Eir, Queen Jennah and Faolain are extremely good female characters in their own rights. And extra props to Faolain for being an evil female character. As a matter of fact, I recall an extremely masculine female character from the human story line, which was pretty interesting. That, and in the sylvari storyline, masculinity and femininity are all over the place regardless of gender, which is incredibly intriguing. Claiming that women are portrayed poorly in GW2 of all games is pretty foolish, I’m afraid to say, merely because some armour sets happen to match an existing stereotype. For that matter, GW2 is more sexist towards men for not having nearly enough effeminate armour sets whilst women do indeed get masculine armour sets. But I digress.

Know what… Nero and Dante are hot, so cool and totally attractive. I would date Dante if he was not fictional. Seriously, video games, movies and tv series have ruined my expectations for the opposite sex and I will die alone because no one will ever fullfil what the medias have shown me…

Or I realise that media does not equal real life and enjoy the very good looking men in movies and games and settle for someone, perhaps less attractive, strong and awesome, but sweet and kind. Just like most guys will have to settle for a girl not half as hot as the game avatars. As long, as we all understand media does not reflect real life… what is the harm?

We are attracted to perfektion… regardless of gender, is perfection achieveable outside of a fictional universe? No, not really. Is it ok to pretend in a game and fantazise based on movies and series? Yes, yes it is.

Whats attractive on men is different from whats attractive on women… know whats super sexy on both genders though? Self confidence. Knowing who you are, what you can and cannot do, accept it and just enjoy being whoever you are.

Skimpy clothing is not lack of confidence… it is confidence in its purest form.

Is Eir any less of a strong character because her armor is sort of skimpyish? Don’t think so. Leo is making a fairly good point.

So Ivy in Soul Calibur is just a confident character, but misunderstood?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130205172929/villains/images/0/0c/Ivy_Valentine_Soul_Calibur_4_by_Francision.jpg

When we look at this above image, what we’re really looking at is sexism towards men, for not being able to dress the same way? I would say its exploitation really, but maybe opinions differ.

I’m not saying GW2 in its entirety is sexist towards women btw, lets be clear on that. It’s just that I think the assertion of a sexy outfit == female empowerment, is a misconception of the greatest degree.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Wait a minute, are you saying that when women receive most of the skimpy outfits, its men that are being victimized? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying.

Regarding gladiator armor, it’s pretty much what is expected of a gladiator armor really. Both male and female are exposed, but not in a sexualized way. For the assassins armor however, the under-boob is clearly a different case. The difference is the focus on cleavage.

Also, I disagree that there is a status quo regarding genders in videogames. Male characters are portrayed in various different ways, but usually not that sexualized. With female characters however, there is a lot of focus on sexyness… sometimes even to a pretty offensive degree. Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TCdA1wJBm4

Rubykuby.3427:

Verily, being against “bikini model” armour as you state it is denying others of their exaggeration of personal expression. Truthfully, so long as everybody gets their own slice of exaggerated personal expression, all should be well.

Speaking of exaggeration, that would be what you are doing. Being against it in no way denies other people the option to personal expression. I didn’t call for a ban on sexy outfits (which many people seem to assume), I simply pointed out that some armors are pretty offensive to some of us. It reinforces the gender stereotype. And you’d think people would have gotten over this sort of stereotyping by now. There’s several games that portray women in a normal way. Why do so many MMO’s have so much trouble doing this?

because all of those games that have males without their shirt on are totally not sexualizing them!
And what do you mean “normal” way? What’s so wrong with the female body that we have to hide it so much?
(Also Gloria in that video is wearing an acrobatics suit. A thing you can see in a circus? Allows easy movement. Men wear it too. Nothing sexual about it.)

So Ivy in Soul Calibur is just a confident character, but misunderstood?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130205172929/villains/images/0/0c/Ivy_Valentine_Soul_Calibur_4_by_Francision.jpg

When we look at this above image, what we’re really looking at is sexism towards men, for not being able to dress the same way? I would say its exploitation really, but maybe opinions differ.

I’m not saying GW2 in its entirety is sexist towards women btw, lets be clear on that. It’s just that I think the assertion of a sexy outfit == female empowerment, is a misconception of the greatest degree.

and you’re saying that feeling attractive and wanted doesn’t make you feel powerful?

@Malafide Yes, it is sexist towards men for not being able to dress in the same way. And yes, it is a misrepresentation of the female sex. She is, however, not representative for the female sex at all. While such characters used to be more common, they are now in a minority. But you’re forgetting that such characters have their place in game universes, just as much as dumb “ME SMASH” male characters have a place in game universes. Except people don’t play the gender card when it concerns “ME SMASH” characters, but do play the gender card when it concerns oversexualised females.

And you’re forgetting that there is some merit to the empowerment through dressing. You yourself may not experience anything when you dress differently, but others may very much feel empowered. Just like Shakespeare means nothing to ample people, but a lot to some others.

That, and you’re doing what a lot of typical feminists do: Deciding what is good for other women. “I’m a feminist, I know what is right for women”. That’s ludicrous. This happened primarily to stay-at-home mums who were penalised by feminism for choosing to be caregivers, rather than ‘empowered women’, but also happens in many other instances, such as this one.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

So Ivy in Soul Calibur is just a confident character, but misunderstood?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130205172929/villains/images/0/0c/Ivy_Valentine_Soul_Calibur_4_by_Francision.jpg

And what would this be from the very same game?

http://blog.al.com/techcetera/2008/08/rock4.JPG

Leo G.4501:

And what would this be from the very same game?

http://blog.al.com/techcetera/2008/08/rock4.JPG

Do you think that character is presented in a sexual way? I realize he’s not wearing much, he is a sort of primal character, so he dresses in furs. But do you think there is implied sexuality? Because that is the difference.

Also, do Rock’s boobs get bigger with each new installment of the franchise?

Because after the most recent Soul Calibur, Ivy’s design started getting so ludicrous, that even a lot of men started arguing that perhaps they had taken it a bit too far.

Rubykuby.3427:

That, and you’re doing what a lot of typical feminists do: Deciding what is good for other women. “I’m a feminist, I know what is right for women”. That’s ludicrous. This happened primarily to stay-at-home mums who were penalised by feminism for choosing to be caregivers, rather than ‘empowered women’, but also happens in many other instances, such as this one.

If I were making a decision for other women, that would be true…. but I’m not. I have never stated that I knew what was better for women. I merely criticized the presentation of women in games. Why do so many of you constantly attack me on a perceived goal to limit other players in their choices, when I have never expressed any such intention in any of my posts?

Mirta.5029:

(Also Gloria in that video is wearing an acrobatics suit. A thing you can see in a circus? Allows easy movement. Men wear it too. Nothing sexual about it.)

Did you watch the whole video? I posted it not so much because of the outfit, but because of the obligatory fly by of the camera across her crotch, butt and boobs. Do you see men represented in this way in videogames?

If you can’t see that Gloria in that video is presented in a sexist way, then there really is no hope for any of you of understanding why women might be offended by the way they are repeatedly presented in videogames. Because it has rarely been that blatantly offensive.

Zeefa.3915:

Know what… Nero and Dante are hot, so cool and totally attractive. I would date Dante if he was not fictional. Seriously, video games, movies and tv series have ruined my expectations for the opposite sex and I will die alone because no one will ever fullfil what the medias have shown me…

Or I realise that media does not equal real life and enjoy the very good looking men in movies and games and settle for someone, perhaps less attractive, strong and awesome, but sweet and kind. Just like most guys will have to settle for a girl not half as hot as the game avatars. As long, as we all understand media does not reflect real life… what is the harm?

We are attracted to perfektion… regardless of gender, is perfection achieveable outside of a fictional universe? No, not really. Is it ok to pretend in a game and fantazise based on movies and series? Yes, yes it is.

Whats attractive on men is different from whats attractive on women… know whats super sexy on both genders though? Self confidence. Knowing who you are, what you can and cannot do, accept it and just enjoy being whoever you are.

Skimpy clothing is not lack of confidence… it is confidence in its purest form.

Is Eir any less of a strong character because her armor is sort of skimpyish? Don’t think so. Leo is making a fairly good point.

True, so true. Now let’s make clothing like Nero or Dante take place in GW2 and I will be happy :P

I’m all for that. Bring out the open jackets and exposed male chests, if equality is what we want.

late post but , hilarious , envisioning a sexy charr with bikini , , go figure , lol

@Malafide This is ridiculous. You criticise sexualised female armour, but welcome sexualised male armour gladly. It’s one or the other. You either want sexualised armour for both, or sexualised armour for neither. Not doing so merely reinforces just what double standard you hold.

Nonetheless, I’ve repeatedly asked you what you actually want. You come here moaning about supposed misrepresentation of women in video games to the extent that it becomes offensive, but offer no alternative of your own. I’ve offered my alternative, and that is to treat men and women exactly the same when it comes to armour, rather than upholding sexual dimorphism. Now it’s your turn, because I think everybody’s lost it with you by now.

How else can you explain your need to say “that’s not what I meant”; the collective ignorance of the crowd, or your own lack of direction? If we’re to believe Wikipedia’s core principles, the crowd is smarter than the individual, and therefore you’re being unclear. Notice how I use sources, and you do not other than pictures here and there.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Do you think that character is presented in a sexual way? I realize he’s not wearing much, he is a sort of primal character, so he dresses in furs. But do you think there is implied sexuality? Because that is the difference.

yes, he is presented in a sexual way. He is a big strong man with muscles (that are unrealistic – keeping such figure for a man is unhealthy and takes a lot of effort) and is wearing almost nothing. This is an eye candy directed at women and normally it works.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Mirta.5029:

(Also Gloria in that video is wearing an acrobatics suit. A thing you can see in a circus? Allows easy movement. Men wear it too. Nothing sexual about it.)

Did you watch the whole video? I posted it not so much because of the outfit, but because of the obligatory fly by of the camera across her crotch, butt and boobs. Do you see men represented in this way in videogames?

If you can’t see that Gloria in that video is presented in a sexist way, then there really is no hope for any of you of understanding why women might be offended by the way they are repeatedly presented in videogames. Because it has rarely been that blatantly offensive.

Gloria is not presented in a sexist way. Gloria is presented in a sexual way. A way that makes people want to do everything she demands them to do. A way that makes her feel and look powerful. Did you play the game? Gloria is a very strong character. Most of the women in Devil May Cry are actually the tougher bosses. Men are normally the ones given for easy fights.

The reason they attack you Malafide is that they realise there’s a growing voice of dissent in gaming that isn’t happy with the portrayal of women in the industry.
And that means the industry might some day soon grow up and stop appealing to the kitten fantasies of men. They’re afraid this stuff they get such a lizard-brain kick from will be taken away.

#1ReasonToBe made a large impact thankfully, as did the recent Street Fighter X Tekken Cross Assault scandal.
This is to say nothing of Anita Sarkeesian’s KickStarter appeal and how the inherently sexist nature of male gamers was thrown into the limelight thanks to the reprehensible behaviour of certain large segments of the community.

We’re getting there, slowly but surely, but MMOs are some of the worst offenders. They have been pandering to the male gaze for a long time now, to such an extent that the audience can’t recognise objectification for what it is.

If gamers want their hobby to be taken seriously, they need to encourage the industry to stop with the soft core porn and get respectable.

Zeefa.3915:

Or I realise that media does not equal real life and enjoy the very good looking men in movies and games and settle for someone, perhaps less attractive, strong and awesome, but sweet and kind. Just like most guys will have to settle for a girl not half as hot as the game avatars. As long, as we all understand media does not reflect real life… what is the harm?

We are attracted to perfektion… regardless of gender, is perfection achieveable outside of a fictional universe? No, not really. Is it ok to pretend in a game and fantazise based on movies and series? Yes, yes it is.

What you’re talking about is the portrayal of perfect beauty, which is something also found in Hollywood movies, and is the same for both genders. It is fine to fantasize about perfect ideal men and women. But you have to realize that that is very different from the presentation of the gender as a whole.

Presenting a gender as pretty is one thing. Presenting them in their underwear, with a heavy focus on their intimate areas, is a whole different beast.

Mirta.5029:

Did you play the game? Gloria is a very strong character. Most of the women in Devil May Cry are actually the tougher bosses. Men are normally the ones given for easy fights.

When we say that someone is a strong character, what we mean is that they are well written characters. Not that they have lots of hitpoints and devastating attacks.

For example, most of the characters in the game Heavy Rain are strong characters. They are well written as characters. Of course Heavy Rain also makes the mistake of again having the female main character have a pointless shower scene, so it loses some points there. Its pretty clear that videogames still have a long way to go as an art form.

The new Tomb Raider kind of tries the “strong female character” approach, but then occasionally trips when ever it feels the need for a pointless cleavage shot during many of the cut scenes.

Other examples of sexism towards women, are for example the persistent unlockable bikini outfits for female characters, that almost every game with unlockable outfits has (even in the game Fatal Frame, the main characters of which I do believe are minors). Oddly enough you never see unlockable underwear outfits for men. Men must feel terribly offended by their repeated underwear-lacking portrayal /sarcasm.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Leo G.4501:

And what would this be from the very same game?

http://blog.al.com/techcetera/2008/08/rock4.JPG

Do you think that character is presented in a sexual way? I realize he’s not wearing much, he is a sort of primal character, so he dresses in furs. But do you think there is implied sexuality? Because that is the difference.

Also, do Rock’s boobs get bigger with each new installment of the franchise?

Because after the most recent Soul Calibur, Ivy’s design started getting so ludicrous, that even a lot of men started arguing that perhaps they had taken it a bit too far.

How else can you sexualize a man then?

I guess they could give him a form-fitting cod piece that gets bigger and bigger with each game that flops around his legs when he moves…I don’t think it’d make it past a T-rating though.

Mungrul.9358:

The reason they attack you Malafide is that they realise there’s a growing voice of dissent in gaming that isn’t happy with the portrayal of women in the industry.
And that means the industry might some day soon grow up and stop appealing to the kitten fantasies of men. They’re afraid this stuff they get such a lizard-brain kick from will be taken away.

#1ReasonToBe made a large impact thankfully, as did the recent Street Fighter X Tekken Cross Assault scandal.
This is to say nothing of Anita Sarkeesian’s KickStarter appeal and how the inherently sexist nature of male gamers was thrown into the limelight thanks to the reprehensible behaviour of certain large segments of the community.

We’re getting there, slowly but surely, but MMOs are some of the worst offenders. They have been pandering to the male gaze for a long time now, to such an extent that the audience can’t recognise objectification for what it is.

If gamers want their hobby to be taken seriously, they need to encourage the industry to stop with the soft core porn and get respectable.

LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

Get your facts straight. First, nobody is attacking Malafide. We’re merely pointing out just how flawed her viewpoint really is. As a matter of fact, I’ve purposely kept my gender hidden throughout this discussion as not to receive ad hominem arguments or let others’ perception of me change the way the written word is read.

Leo G.4501:

How else can you sexualize a man then?

I guess they could give him a form-fitting cod piece that gets bigger and bigger with each game that flops around his legs when he moves…I don’t think it’d make it past a T-rating though.

It probably wouldn’t, but then again you hardly ever see it. There are only few examples of games that sexualize men, and I’m not even sure about those, because they are kind of borderline. The ones that come to mind are Metalgear Solid and again Devil May Cry. But this again shows how absurd the whole deal is. If men received the same treatment, there would be an outcry. You are basically reinforcing my point.

You would never see a game where the camera does a close up flyby of a codpiece. Men are rarely portrayed sexually, but women constantly are.

BTW, the subject of the damsel of distress is not what we are discussing here. I take no position on that topic. But let me go on record that if you post a video of Thunderfoot, you are kind of undermining yourself. That guy is a lunatic with a scary religious agenda that is very anti women. For the love of Grenth, stay clear of anything Thunderfoot posts.

Mungrul.9358:

The reason they attack you Malafide is that they realise there’s a growing voice of dissent in gaming that isn’t happy with the portrayal of women in the industry.
And that means the industry might some day soon grow up and stop appealing to the kitten fantasies of men. They’re afraid this stuff they get such a lizard-brain kick from will be taken away.

For me? I honestly don’t care. The gaming industry growing up or whatever I don’t care about either. I think part of the problem is how it seems people want to uphold gaming as an art form over entertainment. A game can be a masterpiece of art but be boring as kitten and it won’t sell.

This is likely why I find less and less desire to play games as the years go on. Actually, I still like playing older games because they’re fun. Has nothing to do with fantasizing about the characters, but the gameplay. It’s what makes the difference between Final Fantasy IX and all the Final Fantasies after. I could play through FFXII and the sexy Viera bunny girls were appealing, but I will never play it again or how many times I’ve replayed FFIX for it’s fun, story and character development…and it didn’t have any female characters one would describe as ‘sexy’ by way of how all the characters themselves are designed.

Ah, more reading comprehension fail. I wasn’t referring to Sarkeesian’s videos. I was referring to the disgusting behaviour of the gaming community during the Kickstarter campaign.

Maybe, perhaps, that behaviour was caused by Anita’s inherent idiocy, rather than reigning misogyny?

Oh no, it’s veering off topic

As for male cod pieces in video games, I think that’s passing some sort of line. I’m going to guess that showing a camel toe on a female is crossing the same line. Having a woman with cleavage shouldn’t seem more inappropriate than a man’s bare chest.

I wear perhaps the most exposed non-cultural medium chest armor available to male characters, from Twilight Arbor set. I wouldn’t mind showing more. Bring it!

Rubykuby.3427:

Maybe, perhaps, that behaviour was caused by Anita’s inherent idiocy, rather than reigning misogyny?

If you think that, well you’ve just confirmed my suspicions.

A lot of the vitriol directed towards Sarkeesian during the Kickstarter campaign was hateful, poisonous, chauvanistic and bigoted to say the least.
This was as plain as day to anyone with half a brain and a healthy respect for humanity.
It was as bad as the horrible images that went the rounds when The Internet became obsessed with Jade Raymond, producer of the first Assassin’s Creed.

I regard anyone who behaves in such a manner as less than human.

To perpetuate and engender the continuation of this situation is comparable to supporting Apartheid as far as I’m concerned.