Guild Wars 2

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

This is a pretty big misconception. Suppose male characters would be consistently be portrayed wearing a cod piece, and not much more. Would you not agree that that is a pretty offensive stereotype? It doesn’t matter if “some” people approve of the stereotype. What matters is that it is an offensive stereotype.

There is a big difference between two genders being depicted differently, and one being depicted in a bad light, while the other is depicted normally. So your comparison really doesn’t apply.

I have a quote to prove you wrong. This quote should also prove why Logan Thackeray is sexualised.

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.

Conclusively, “being put in a bad light” is highly subjective.

You also mention that the debate on whether something is sexist is personal opinion. That’s bullkitten. Who taught you that? Sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. If there is an obvious different treatment of one gender in relation to the other, one may call such sexist. But truthfully, the genders aren’t treated quite so differently when we consider only the ends, and not the means.

And no, women aren’t just portrayed as objects of desire. Are you nuts? GW2 has enough women who are portrayed as individual characters who have nothing sexualised about them. Which is great! But sexualisation isn’t forbidden. It’s still a valid tool for making a female character, much like it’s valid to sexualise male characters. Men – and I’ll stress this again – are sexualised through different means entirely, though.

You also claim you defend the side of women, and that was my point entirely. There is no such thing as a unified female opinion. Women have individualised, so shared interest on the basis of gender simply doesn’t exist anymore.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

What? This makes no sense, and akin to the following: Female vocals in Pop songs differ from male vocals in Pop songs. Not because the voices sound different, and not because the tones have a higher pitch, but because the general musical composition of both vocals differ heavily. This is sexist. Some women do not like the way female vocals work in Pop songs, and want more masculine vocals of female singers.

This is a pretty big misconception. Suppose male characters would be consistently be portrayed wearing a cod piece, and not much more. Would you not agree that that is a pretty offensive stereotype? It doesn’t matter if “some” people approve of the stereotype. What matters is that it is an offensive stereotype.

There is a big difference between two genders being depicted differently, and one being depicted in a bad light, while the other is depicted normally. So your comparison really doesn’t apply.

First off, I took a poll on my server about who thinks females are portrayed badly. (The voters were females.) 97/100 said they think it is fine. That is not “some”. Second I asked MEN what they thought about the cod piece. 100% of them said they would be fine with it. Finally, woman aren’t depicted in a bad light. Someone like… Eir! Strong, courageous, and she isn’t hit on by any of the norn. Is that a bad light?

Let me give you a key example:

Clothing: Some clothing the women wear is revealing, but that’s that’s only for the Norn. WHY? Because they are hunters, and they have a warm/cold region in Wayfarer foothills. And for stuff like Seraph guards, the woman usually wear the same as man. Just they have to make it fit them. The Charr really just wear the same armor, for the way females and males are different is small. Usually the voice. The Asura differences for male and female are maybe just the voice and eyelashes. They can wear the same armor from what Ive seen. Human armor is made to be comfortable for male and female, that is why the armor for males are different from females. Finally, the sylvari are easy to tell male and female apart, usually from voice or looks. They like Asura and Charr can wear the same armor because of the slight difference.

Derpula Stevens.8249:

I just read everything now, and still, I cannot see how it is FULLY ENTIRELY 100% on topic.

You do realize, discussing whether something is or isn’t on topic is also an example of something not on topic, yes?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

But surely you understand how the two are connected? Revealing armor for women is directly linked to how we perceive female characters in games in general.

Nope.

It can be linked in some examples or even the majority of examples, but that doesn’t make revealing armor and how they are perceived in a game intrinsically linked…because an example will come along that turns the example around or disproves it…like GW2.

I personally don’t think it’s fair to hold everything to each other’s mistakes and then blame the media as a whole. You can, but unless you’re talking to the individuals who make those mistakes the animosity seems misguided.

It’s reaching. Just like that Anita Sarkeesian video. I think the reason her video game commentary hasn’t gotten off to a good start is because she seems to categorize tropes and pit them against women…but tropes are just tropes, specifically the Damsel in Distress is a literary tool (accepted as cliche at this point) to tell a story. That has nothing to do with victimizing women. It’s a story telling tool. Period. It could be used to defame women’s reputation but I doubt Shigiru Miyamoto is trying to keep women down with Mario. Society will do that by themselves…which Sarkeesian is intentionally not discussing with her videos.

Same with revealing clothes (see? I’m trying not to use skimpy if that at all helps). The clothes aren’t shoving you in an alley to force horrible sexual things out of women/in-game avatars, the jerks that get off on that do. And whether or not someone is allowed to stare at the intense cuts in the clothing and how that accents the body, you let yourself be victimized by letting someone’s use of their eyes affect you in some way…that’s almost like not allowing someone to breath your air.

Rubykuby.3427:

Logan Thackeray is a highly sexualised character, despite barely showing any skin.

Let’s not reach in the other direction.

This is all interpretation (read: opinion). Nothing wrong with having an opinion such as disliking the depiction of women in a media as a whole (although it’s healthy to keep an open mind about women’s portrayal in said media). That’s just a person’s interpretation on things. I guess your (purposely exaggerated?) interpretation of Thackeray is that he’s sexualized by his actions and reactions in the story? Meh, probably not what the writer intended (probably just wanted to insert a large flaw in the character to make him seem more human while keeping in the theme around humans as a race vs the flaws/themes of the other races in that fictional world) but if you want to think of him as a sexualized character akin to the males in the Twilight books, be my guest. I don’t believe that…and yes, I added a joke of my own in that Thackeray joke thread too to keep with the spirit of it and because I found it funny…I even sexualized Queen Jenna in that joke! Satire!

Rubykuby.3427:

I have a quote to prove you wrong. This quote should also prove why Logan Thackeray is sexualised.

Quote: 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.

Conclusively, “being put in a bad light” is highly subjective.

You also mention that the debate on whether something is sexist is personal opinion. That’s bullkitten. Who taught you that? Sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. If there is an obvious different treatment of one gender in relation to the other, one may call such sexist. But truthfully, the genders aren’t treated quite so differently when we consider only the ends, and not the means.

And no, women aren’t just portrayed as objects of desire. Are you nuts? GW2 has enough women who are portrayed as individual characters who have nothing sexualised about them. Which is great! But sexualisation isn’t forbidden. It’s still a valid tool for making a female character, much like it’s valid to sexualise male characters. Men – and I’ll stress this again – are sexualised through different means entirely, though.

You also claim you defend the side of women, and that was my point entirely. There is no such thing as a unified female opinion. Women have individualised, so shared interest on the basis of gender simply doesn’t exist anymore.

Ruby what you have just said makes so much sense.
And I completely agree with you.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

This is a pretty big misconception. Suppose male characters would be consistently be portrayed wearing a cod piece, and not much more. Would you not agree that that is a pretty offensive stereotype? It doesn’t matter if “some” people approve of the stereotype. What matters is that it is an offensive stereotype.

No, I wouldn’t be offended.

I’m being serious. Not sure what stereotype that’s suppose to be…that men have balls and wear things on them?
[/quote]

@Leo G See, this is what I dislike. “Let’s not reach in the other direction”. When discussing sexes, one must always focus on women, and women only. So much mentioning the male gender is considered off-topic immediately. No, of course Logan wasn’t sexualised intentionally by the writer. And I don’t oppose Logan’s sexualisation. I think he’s a good character, sexualised or not, even though he’s a bit silly at times.

He is, however, idealised. He’s strong, independent, confident and caring [towards women/the Queen]. And these very ideals are one means of sexualising men.

Rubykuby, the example you bring up addresses sex-appeal. What men and women find attractive is highly subjective and indeed differs per person, and per gender.

But that is an entirely different matter from sexualization, as in, presenting a gender in an overly sexual way. Such as, dressing them in clothing that specifically exposes their private areas. So you could present both women and men as attractive, but that is not the same as presenting them sexual. Men and women are presented as attractive in games. But it is women that are mostly presented as objects of desire, often in very sexualized form. Finding examples of that is extremely easy:

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sandy/images/logos/bikini.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Bayonetta_box_artwork.png

Now, the videos by Anita Sarkeesian address common tropes and cliches. I don’t think she’s reaching, she’s clearly pointing out things that are very common in the way women are presented in works of fiction. And it is her opinion, and also mine, that breaking away from such tropes is an improvement for female characters, and the media they are represented in. Common tropes such as the sensual demon seductress are a very common cliche in movies and games. I don’t stand by all of Sarkeesian’s opinions, let that be clear (and I think she should engage in discussion). But she does have a point. We all recognize these tropes.

I’m equating sex appeal to sexualisation. Dressing revealingly (your definition of sexualisation, apparently) is women’s supposed sex appeal, and wealth and aptness are men’s supposed sex appeal. The standards of sex appeal are usually contemporary and dynamic.

Actually, I’ll give you the definition of sexualisation as per Wiktionary:
“The act or process of sexualising.”

To sexualise:
“To make sexual.”

Sexual:
“Of or relating to sexual orientations, sexual identity or preferences with respect to sexual intercourse.”

Which sounds pretty close to sex appeal, don’t it?

Also, this is a GW2 forum. Using sexualisation from other games to prove your point here is silly, especially if the game comes from a non-Western country.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

And also a proportional amount of women don’t. That doesn’t change anything about the gender stereotype that is being presented. And I think a majority of female gamers would actually be against this sort of stereotyping (and perhaps a minority of male gamers).

While we are at it, let’s start portraying men as having huge beer bellies, because a highly muscular figure is unrealistic.
How is presenting human body in its prettiest stereotyping?! You want your characters to be unattractive or something?

Folks, just drop the subject.

While I too would love to see more armor types, of every type you can imagine (skimpy, evil, historical, comical ect …) you just won’t get anywhere with these type of threads.

We live in an age of political correctness, where every angry self-entitled ninny feels they have the right not to be offended; in other words, they feel they have the right to dictate to others what is right and wrong, appropriate or inappropriate and so on. Of course when you point out the self-contradiction in this stance, in that others could be offended by what these self-appointed guardians of what is proper may say, do or wear … forget it, you’re just spitting in the wind. Because these holders of the one and only “truth” cannot be reasoned with. And there’s no end to them these days, there is literally an army of these finger-wagging school marm types around every corner. Yes, these self-esteem wrecks are everywhere, and they love to “remind” you what a racist, sexist, homophobic, patriarchal and unenlightened creature you are.

So don’t waste your time trying to reason with them, they don’t work that way.

Rubykuby.3427:

Which sounds pretty close to sex appeal, don’t it?

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make. I think we all understand that there is a pretty big difference between the meanings of the word sex appeal, and sexualization.

Sexualization, is deliberately adding a layer of implied eroticism to a person, character or gender.

Rubykuby.3427:

Also, this is a GW2 forum. Using sexualisation from other games to prove your point here is silly, especially if the game comes from a non-Western country.

Its entirely not silly. You stated that women were not being depicted in an overly sexual way in video games. So the best way to prove you wrong is exactly by showing you other examples outside of GW2.

Ision.3207:

Yes, these self-esteem wrecks are everywhere, and they love to “remind” you what a racist, sexist, homophobic, patriarchal and unenlightened creature you are.

So don’t waste your time trying to reason with them, they don’t work that way.

So basically you are stating that we can’t criticize the portrayal of a gender, because some people like that portrayal? What you are proclaiming is exactly what censorship is, but you are trying to apply it to people that disagree with your point of view. In other words, deny people the option for criticism. And then demonize them for their opinion, implying that they are forcing their opinion on others, rather than what people like me are actually doing: Bringing up a point of discussion. Discussion is healthy. Closed mindedness is not. To tell other people to just not go into discussion with someone, just because they challenge them in their point of view, is cowardice of an embarrassing level.

Fortunately a lot of people in this thread are not afraid to defend their point of view. And they do not just pop into a topic, just to try to rudely try and shut people up. If you are not interested in discussion, don’t go on to a forum.

That would be eroticising.

And I never said such a thing? I never said women aren’t presented in a sexual manner in video games, denying such would be moronic. What I do say, however, is that the amount of sexualisation has decreased immensely over time. Which, hey, is great. But the assumption that sexualisation in and of itself is bad is stupid. The supposed “tropes” you’re trying hard to smash aren’t inherently evil. They become distasteful when they’re misused, however. Tropes exist and stick around for good reasons. It becomes an issue when inexperienced people put their hands on tropes merely because they appear to be easy concepts, however.

There’s a place for everything.

Rubykuby.3427:

See, this is what I dislike. “Let’s not reach in the other direction”. When discussing sexes, one must always focus on women, and women only.

Well I was just mentioning the point because it was partially off subject. Has nothing to do with clothes :P

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Sexualization, is deliberately adding a layer of implied eroticism to a person, character or gender.

I think the point to take away from this discussion is that, to sexualize a man you often do it in a more subtle manner (when the target audience is women). Showing a man that’s confident and takes charge can very well be sexualizing them…or it might not be. There’s also doing it like Magic Mike did…didn’t watch the movie myself but it’s rated R so it’s not like it could be totally translated into a video game.

Then there’s also the point of fact if a game will sell or not. If it’s been shown that gamers enjoy seeing overtly sexualized males in video games sells, then it will be marketed. The reverse can be said too but I don’t think anyone’s arguing for exploitative games here…but whether a game is exploitative or not. Is Bayonetta a game exploiting women’s bodies to sell video games? Ha! No! That game was effing fun. I found the eroticism in it funny because of how hamfisted it was. The makes made the choices they made in that game for a reason.

I can agree with that. Tropes have their use, even if they are shallow writing tools. And I don’t think they are harmful. Although the portrayal of women in games would definitely be improved upon if such tropes were steadily eliminated.

And yes we have steadily started moving away from the sexualization of female characters in games, I agree with that. However, MMO’s seem to be lagging behind if you will. Not just in the presentation (sexy outfits and such) but also in the writing.

The recent Tomb Raider for example (obviously not an MMO) is a good example of a game attempting to present a strong female character… and also slightly struggling with it due to sexual undertones inherent to the Lara Croft character. Uncharted does a much better job, even though most of the women in that are love interests (but credit to them, they are a bit more complex than that).

Guild Wars seems to try and present women better as well, although sometimes stumbling on sexy outfits for both players and npc’s. And while there is in essence nothing wrong with a sexy female character. I do think there is a point where it becomes a bit embarrassing. I think we all have a limit to what we find acceptable, I just draw the line closer. Not because I’m a prude (so many people seem to assume I’m a prude for some reason), but because I recognize the stereotype and kick down the house of cards when I see it.

Also, regarding Bayonetta, I don’t really have issues with that game specifically. I could see it for the parody that it was. Everything was for comedy in that game. So I’m not really offended by that. I only used the Bayonetta image just as an example of the stigma of women in games (but Bayonetta is more of a parody of the stigma). If anything, Tomb Raider has been a lot worse for the portrayal of women in games than Bayonetta has. Dead or Alive and other fighting games are also pretty bad offenders.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I can agree with that. Tropes have their use, even if they are shallow writing tools. And I don’t think they are harmful. Although the portrayal of women in games would definitely be improved upon if such tropes were steadily eliminated.

You won’t eliminate tropes, you just create different tropes and overuse those.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

And yes we have steadily started moving away from the sexualization of female characters in games, I agree with that. However, MMO’s seem to be lagging behind if you will. Not just in the presentation (sexy outfits and such) but also in the writing.

Just wanted to comment, if one improves simply the writing, you improve the overall depiction with it. Doesn’t matter if a woman has sexy outfits, if you wrote a really good story that outlined why this woman is showing the sides of her buttcheeks in the particular outfit she’s wearing, it wouldn’t matter what she’s wearing!

Tropes aren’t shallow writing tools. If you’re familiar with literature, tropes are fantastic elements that can be subtly referenced and used extremely well. In this day and age, however, tropes are often victims of gangrape. People see a trope, think it’s awesome and simple to implement, and stuff it somewhere without any thought behind it. Extra Credits did an episode on this, but I can’t find it.

You say that Guild Wars stumbles with sexy outfits. You couldn’t be more wrong. I think Guild Wars has created an amazing game that, in addition to the many ways it has already presented characters, also implements the more sexualised presentation for whoever finds that attractive. And there is nothing wrong with that, don’t you get that? It has its place entirely, and ANet has so far been extremely resourceful.

You’re kicking at a stereotype that isn’t inherently bad, let alone overused in GW2. It’s good when implemented well, and I can’t see how GW2’s implementation is in any way harmful. It’s not front and centre, it’s not stuffed down your throat and it’s not demeaning. What more do you want? The complete eradication of sexualisation in video games? Yeah, right. That’s not going to work. Not because of horny teens who like to look at pixels on their screen, but because sexualisation can be implemented really well. Would sylvari be the same if none of their cultural armour showed any revealing skin (or well, fabric)? Would the “siren” trope be the same if the sirens weren’t sexually attractive?

Rubykuby.3427:

Tropes aren’t shallow writing tools. If you’re familiar with literature, tropes are fantastic elements that can be subtly referenced and used extremely well. In this day and age, however, tropes are often victims of gangrape. People see a trope, think it’s awesome and simple to implement, and stuff it somewhere without any thought behind it. Extra Credits did an episode on this, but I can’t find it.

Point taken, not all tropes are shallow. I think I was mostly thinking about the kinds of tropes regarding women that Sarcasean brought forward. Though breaking away from tropes is something that I think, in general, is an improvement for any writing.

Rubykuby.3427:

You say that Guild Wars stumbles with sexy outfits. You couldn’t be more wrong. I think Guild Wars has created an amazing game that, in addition to the many ways it has already presented characters, also implements the more sexualised presentation for whoever finds that attractive. And there is nothing wrong with that, don’t you get that? It has its place entirely, and ANet has so far been extremely resourceful.

I understand that sexualization isn’t always bad. Bayonetta is a good example of a game that mocks sexualization (though obviously not every gamer will catch on what it is doing). But when I say that Guild Wars stumbles, what I mean is that it is trying to get away from the gender stereotypes that a lot of MMO’s present, but it sometimes struggles along the way. There’s the sexy outfits that players can choose, which arguably are different in spirit to their male counter parts. And there’s the occasional misplaced thong for an npc (which may just have been an artist thinking he could get away with it). There’s also a bit of struggling with the writing, where the story attempts to present strong female characters, but often they come across as being a bit artificial and forced.

It’s a bit like teaching a dog not to wee on the rug, but occasionally it still lifts its leg. It’s trying to get away from the stereotypes, but its not quite there yet. It understands the rules, but still occasionally falls back into bad habits.

BTW, the writing is of course a very subjective matter. Where I’m not convinced by most of the main female characters (nor the male characters), other players might find them perfectly acceptable.

Rubykuby.3427:

You’re kicking at a stereotype that isn’t inherently bad, let alone overused in GW2. It’s good when implemented well, and I can’t see how GW2’s implementation is in any way harmful. It’s not front and centre, it’s not stuffed down your throat and it’s not demeaning.

That’s true. I will concede to that. Guild Wars isn’t forcing sexism upon its players. But I do think the stereotype of barely clad female characters is a bad stereotype for MMO’s. It sticks to the genre like an embarrassing smudge of paint.

Rubykuby.3427:

Would sylvari be the same if none of their cultural armour showed any revealing skin (or well, fabric)? Would the “siren” trope be the same if the sirens weren’t sexually attractive?

I’d like to think the Charr are a much better example of handling a difference race in a gender unbiased way. Maybe because they have no resemblance to humans. The Sylvari are a bit of a gray area, due to them clearly having female shapes (although lore-wise it is unclear why they would need them).

Leo G.4501:

Just wanted to comment, if one improves simply the writing, you improve the overall depiction with it. Doesn’t matter if a woman has sexy outfits, if you wrote a really good story that outlined why this woman is showing the sides of her buttcheeks in the particular outfit she’s wearing, it wouldn’t matter what she’s wearing!

I think you may be correct. But writing should never try to provide excuses for a woman being portrayed sexually. Good writing should be the goal, and not the other way around.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Point taken, not all tropes are shallow. I think I was mostly thinking about the kinds of tropes regarding women that Sarcasean brought forward. Though breaking away from tropes is something that I think, in general, is an improvement for any writing.

I think this is incorrect. Even the Damsel in Distress trope is a good tool that she even highlights in her video:

Double Dragon and the kidnapping of the girlfriend (not particularly the HD version). Why is it used in that context? Because the game isn’t story driven and focuses on the action. It’s good because it establishes the motivation that the guys you’re fighting are bad quickly given that the limitations of those systems or the studio that created the game may not have had the assets for a deeper narrative.

You could argue that that’s a bad use and I’d be against you. Double Dragon is a classic and there’s a reason why it was popular and sold so well. The use of a damsel isn’t intended to harm women or their value in any way.

(although lore-wise it is unclear why they would need them).

Well the writers gave the reason that, while the pale tree was growing, it was influenced by humans that lived near where it was planted, I believe. I think there was a centaur around too (I need to check in the lore section…you should read up on some things in there if you don’t already) but somehow the pale tree took interest in the human’s shape more.

I think you may be correct. But writing should never try to provide excuses for a woman being portrayed sexually. Good writing should be the goal, and not the other way around.

Well, if it were good writing, it wouldn’t really be an excuse You wouldn’t be able to tell one way or the other if it were engrained in the lore/story. You’d have to be reaching for conclusions at that point…but yeah, a good writer likely just wouldn’t use extraneous details like that without a purpose.

AAAaanyways, I really hope everyone will just relax and cool it with the discussion. MQM seems mature about the position taken so don’t see a reason to go off and try to pick apart posts or opinions. People who disagreed with the OP’s request have their reasons, be it how media exploits things or simply a misunderstanding with what was being requested. I think most of us got our points across. Cheers.

Quite honestly, many of the “Games are sexist towards women” stereotypes are blatant double standards in themselves… For example… Take any game that is called “sexist” for how they portray the female character, now replace them with a male in the same outfit, with the same lines, and the same personality… suddenly it’s not “sexist” it might be viewed as “weird” to some people though.

The cliche “Damsel in Distress is sexist” argument. There are games today that reverse the roles and have the main character as a female and the “damsel in distress” is a male. You rarely see them get called out for being sexist. However, a large number of games that have a female protagonist do get called sexist over the smallest of things. For example, Mirrors Edge has been called Sexist because the Protagonist (a female) spends most of the game running away from and past enemies rather than fighting them head on.

Quite honestly, the “games are sexist” arguments I see all over the place are rather frustrating… It’s more often than not over the smallest details… many times the reasoning revolves around a single scene in the game as well. If the scene truly is sexist call that scene sexist but not the game.

When it comes to outfits though, quite honestly I feel a lot of people overreact. There are outfits that are clearly sexist however, but those outfit’s don’t exist in this game and most of the people here aren’t asking for them either. A revealing fantasy outfit isn’t sexist, however…. a chain-mail bikini is. The revealing outfits currently in GW2 are about as sexist as a man walking around without a shirt on.

Panda.1967:

The revealing outfits currently in GW2 are about as sexist as a man walking around without a shirt on.

If by without a shirt, you mean showing lots of boobies and underwear. There are a few outfits that are a lot more revealing than what you describe. Whether that’s sexists or offensive is a subjective matter, and opinions will differ.

You have to understand that people are mostly offended due to the persistent sexist portrayal of women. It would be an entirely different situation if men were portrayed the same sporadically… but that doesn’t even happen, its really rare. While women are portrayed in skimpy outfits all the time. That’s why people are offended by it. So you can try and play the “if things were reversed” -card, but things are rarely reversed, which is what angers so many people.

I don’t think anyone would try and argue that the damsel in distress trope is sexist, but it IS kind of a cliche, and is kind of dumb. To compare it to a situation in which you’d simply replace the damsel with a man, is missing the point: You constantly see the damsel in distress EVERYWHERE. People wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it, if the stereotype wasn’t so incredibly persistent. Its always a lady that needs rescuing.

If you are going to argue against people finding this offensive, you have to understand just how often this stereotype pops up. And you have to realize that it’s never the man who needs rescuing (the only exception in a game that I can think of, is Primal, which does the exact reverse, but its really rare. You could also argue that Disney’s Beauty and the Beast tries the reverse). A lot of movies and cartoons use the Damsel in Distress trope. Think of April O’ Neil in TMNT, who got kidnapped every single episode. I can understand if people are starting to get annoyed by the helpless woman stereotype. Its been all over movies and cartoons throughout my childhood.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Panda.1967:

The revealing outfits currently in GW2 are about as sexist as a man walking around without a shirt on.

If by without a shirt, you mean showing lots of boobies and underwear. There are a few outfits that are a lot more revealing than what you describe. Whether that’s sexists or offensive is a subjective matter, and opinions will differ.

You have to understand that people are mostly offended due to the persistent sexist portrayal of women. It would be an entirely different situation if men were portrayed the same sporadically… but that doesn’t even happen, its really rare. While women are portrayed in skimpy outfits all the time. That’s why people are offended by it. So you can try and play the “if things were reversed” -card, but things are rarely reversed, which is what angers so many people.

I don’t think anyone would try and argue that the damsel in distress trope is sexist, but it IS kind of a cliche, and is kind of dumb. To compare it to a situation in which you’d simply replace the damsel with a man, is missing the point: You constantly see the damsel in distress EVERYWHERE. People wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it, if the stereotype wasn’t so incredibly persistent. Its always a lady that needs rescuing.

If you are going to argue against people finding this offensive, you have to understand just how often this stereotype pops up. And you have to realize that it’s never the man who needs rescuing (the only exception in a game that I can think of, is Primal, which does the exact reverse, but its really rare. You could also argue that Disney’s Beauty and the Beast tries the reverse). A lot of movies and cartoons use the Damsel in Distress trope. Think of April O’ Neal in TMNT, who got kidnapped every single episode. I can understand if people are starting to get annoyed by the helpless woman stereotype. Its been all over movies and cartoons throughout my childhood.

males almost everywhere are portrayed with a figure that a natural male could not get, are portrayed shirtless (while a woman will always get a bra at least). If you decide to say that sexualization of women is sexist then sexualization of men that happens just as often is too. Otherwise you’re just being biased.
April O’Neal is a reporter that is a friend of some very important heroes. How many reporters realistically can defend? They’re not martial artists and not soldiers. They’re reporters. And if said reporter can’t defend, but can influence the heroes who is the most likely person to fall victim so that the enemies could manipulate the other side? It’s nothing to do with being a woman. It’s more to do with fitting the story.

Mirta.5029:

April O’Neal is a reporter that is a friend of some very important heroes. How many reporters realistically can defend? They’re not martial artists and not soldiers. They’re reporters. And if said reporter can’t defend, but can influence the heroes who is the most likely person to fall victim so that the enemies could manipulate the other side? It’s nothing to do with being a woman. It’s more to do with fitting the story.

She used to not be able to defend herself.

In the more recent versions of the TMNT series, her incarnation sometimes trains with Master Splinter to learn martial arts along with other talents like boxing and kickboxing. According to the wiki, in the newest TMNT, Splinter senses some kind of ‘spirit’ in her so decides to train her right along side the other turtles to become a kunoichi (female ninja).

If you ask me, it’s a tad more contrived that a normal human reporter goes up against powerful ninja organizations with robots and aliens while the main protagonists are mutated turtles who trained as ninjas nearly all their life, have armored shells as default, likely enhanced strength from their mutation as well as other skills like being amphibious and great swimmers. How effective would a human, male or woman, be compared?

Not that I really care anymore, I just have thought about how the series has evolved over time since it is one of the hallmarks of my childhood. The damsel in distress trope gets a bad rap, IMO. The alternative in my book would be to dehumanize the woman (make her a mutated bird or something to keep with the theme of the show) so it’s not a woman getting kidnapped and give her an out that makes sense to escape (she could fly) or simply not have her in the series at all. Instead, they just rewrite the series over and over. Next, April will end up being Splinter’s master and help train the turtles. And feminists who are offended by the damsel in distress trope won’t care and never acknowledge this upset because they only concern themselves with the majority mindset

Woops, I went off the topic…

Normally I don’t care for revealing armor, but I want to make a male Norn Elementalist. There are only two chest pieces for the light armor classes that would allow the chest tattoos I like to be visible, and one of them (Tribal) was removed from PVE for who knows what reason.

Seriously, what is the point of the tattoo/fur pattern/bio-luminescence options when there are so few armor sets that let you actually showcase them?

Mirta.5029:

males almost everywhere are portrayed with a figure that a natural male could not get, are portrayed shirtless (while a woman will always get a bra at least). If you decide to say that sexualization of women is sexist then sexualization of men that happens just as often is too. Otherwise you’re just being biased.

I already addressed this issue much earlier in this thread. Portraying an ideal beauty is done for both genders equally. But that’s different from consistently portraying women in their underwear, which is something we don’t do to men at all. Men are not sexualized as often as women, the two are miles apart.

In respect to April o Neil, I agree that having her learn martial arts is very contrived. April fulfills two tropes about women in one: The smurfette principal (she’s almost the only female character in the show, apart from Irma, who is a stereotype of her own) and the Damsel in Distress (she gets kidnapped every episode, so men can save her). Both tropes are bad, because the writers don’t write women as actual characters.

The recent action-girl trope is also annoying. The recent Tomb Raider is guilty of this, where a pretty girl who is not convincing as an action hero, is placed into a position where she learns to kick butt. Often the writers struggle trying to give her an actual character, so instead they have characters around her die as an artificial plot device for character development. Most of the focus is still on the girl being pretty first and fore most, and being an interesting character is less important. There’s nothing wrong with a girl fulfilling the role of an action hero. But a lot of male writers have difficulty looking past the fact that she must be pretty. If you want to see a nice bit of pretentiousness, check out this video:

But girls can also be action stars without being a vapid empty barbie doll. The Uncharted series succeed in actually writing convincing female characters. And while they are love interests to the male protagonist, they are much more than that.

What makes the female characters in Uncharted so briljant in their writing, is the fact that they are not written out of the story as new love interests are introduced. They are not throw away love interests like in a Bond movie. And the interaction between the two female characters is a great source of comic relief as well. Uncharted 2 did this briljantly, where they show that Nate really has a soft spot for the more average Elena, even though Cloe is a much more sensual and attractive girl.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Mirta.5029:

males almost everywhere are portrayed with a figure that a natural male could not get, are portrayed shirtless (while a woman will always get a bra at least). If you decide to say that sexualization of women is sexist then sexualization of men that happens just as often is too. Otherwise you’re just being biased.

I already addressed this issue much earlier in this thread. Portraying an ideal beauty is done for both genders equally. But that’s different from consistently portraying women in their underwear, which is something we don’t do to men at all. Men are not sexualized as often as women, the two are miles apart.

In respect to April o Neil, I agree that having her learn martial arts is very contrived. April fulfills two tropes about women in one: The smurfette principal (she’s almost the only female character in the show, apart from Irma, who is a stereotype of her own) and the Damsel in Distress (she gets kidnapped every episode, so men can save her). Both tropes are bad, because the writers don’t write women as actual characters.

The recent action-girl trope is also annoying. The recent Tomb Raider is guilty of this, where a pretty girl who is not convincing as an action hero, is placed into a position where she learns to kick butt. Often the writers struggle trying to give her an actual character, so instead they have characters around her die as an artificial plot device for character development. Most of the focus is still on the girl being pretty first and fore most, and being an interesting character is less important. There’s nothing wrong with a girl fulfilling the role of an action hero. But a lot of male writers have difficulty looking past the fact that she must be pretty. If you want to see a nice bit of pretentiousness, check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwfGl3nvLM

But girls can also be action stars without being a vapid empty barbie doll. The Uncharted series succeed in actually writing convincing female characters. And while they are love interests to the male protagonist, they are much more than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuiYd5FPNKk#t=2m36s

What makes the female characters in Uncharted so briljant in their writing, is the fact that they are not written out of the story as new love interests are introduced. They are not throw away love interests like in a Bond movie. And the interaction between the two female characters is a great source of comic relief as well. Uncharted 2 did this briljantly, where they show that Nate really has a soft spot for the more average Elena, even though Cloe is a much more sensual and attractive girl.

Tomb Raider: I think this is a improvement, compared to the way Lara was portrayed in the older Tomb Raider games.

You bring up Bond girls. Isn’t Bond himself a unachievable stereotype for men to reach? So it’s not a big deal for the women to be the same.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

But that’s different from consistently portraying women in their underwear, which is something we don’t do to men at all. Men are not sexualized as often as women, the two are miles apart.

But even if men are put in their underwear, apparently that isn’t the same as sexualizing them as per your response to Rock. That seems pretty bias to me.

Both tropes are bad, because the writers don’t write women as actual characters.

Please stop saying this. Tropes are not bad. Tropes used badly are bad. There’s a big difference. You praise the Uncharted series but it’s going to be riddled with tropes just like anything, from Disney Deaths to Sexy Discretion Shot or even the infamous Damsel in Distress. Doesn’t make it wrong for using it nor does it make it right just because they used a trope to your liking.

And when it comes to a lot of the video game examples complained about, it’s akin to complaining about something that doesn’t exist (that something being a story/plot in the case of older games) or that the game itself can be categorize when every piece of fiction ever written can be.

AshBenzo.8923:

Please read the rest of my post before replying, so you don’t reply on something that I’ve covered.

I understand that there will be some who disagrees and some who do agrees. But there are lots of fully clothed armour types for those who don’t like the skimpy stuff but it would be really nice if there was more skimpy stuff for those who do like it. After all, this is an MMO and we should be able to dress our characters the way we want it to be. You shouldn’t hate someone for wanting to look like this, it isn’t your character.
All
we are asking is for more choices for those who do like them. And I’m sure, that there are way more people who prefer and don’t mind them then there are people who dislike them.

Guess whats the most popular human armor within the game? You guess it, the human cultural tier 3. Here it is
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/BokoCasso/j1.png
Doesn’t that prove anything?

Where did somewhat immature and whimsical, but also absolutely essential staples of fantasy fashion go?

This game is lacking Skimpy Armor and we need more. I’m not saying every single piece of gear should be skimpy, I’m saying there should be at least a few more.

I’m not saying that skimpy armor should just be for females, in fact there is a lot of males characters in which their armor is revealing. Such as, Kratos from God of Wars and Leonidas from Spartan total warriors.

I’d like to remind you that this game and other MMOs alike, where people carry a zoo in their pockets and fling fire from their fingertips, 200 foot tall boss being destroyed, wrecked and somehow held back by a single 3 foot tall Asura and all evil in the world mysteriously revives itself after time even when proclaimed defeated. There is enough applied magic and game-mechanic-elements that are more an offense to logic and immersion than presumably enchanted jockstrap providing the same protection as slightly less enchanted spiky armored greaves with skulls on their kneecaps.

One point I agree with is various Asian allegedly-free-games using skimpy armor to an atrocious extent as a marketing gimmick, but I’m not asking for that. I ask for choice in the matter.

Please remember to stay on topic and keep up a constructive and positive discussion on these forums.

Um…aren’t they skimpy enuf? Any skimpier and it would be on the verge of perversion. You know what? While we’re at it, let’s just make them completely nude, how’s that?

yes they are skimpy enough , I just want more of them. Quantity he means.
Not quality.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I already addressed this issue much earlier in this thread. Portraying an ideal beauty is done for both genders equally. But that’s different from consistently portraying women in their underwear, which is something we don’t do to men at all. Men are not sexualized as often as women, the two are miles apart.

In respect to April o Neil, I agree that having her learn martial arts is very contrived. April fulfills two tropes about women in one: The smurfette principal (she’s almost the only female character in the show, apart from Irma, who is a stereotype of her own) and the Damsel in Distress (she gets kidnapped every episode, so men can save her). Both tropes are bad, because the writers don’t write women as actual characters.

The recent action-girl trope is also annoying. The recent Tomb Raider is guilty of this, where a pretty girl who is not convincing as an action hero, is placed into a position where she learns to kick butt. Often the writers struggle trying to give her an actual character, so instead they have characters around her die as an artificial plot device for character development. Most of the focus is still on the girl being pretty first and fore most, and being an interesting character is less important. There’s nothing wrong with a girl fulfilling the role of an action hero. But a lot of male writers have difficulty looking past the fact that she must be pretty. If you want to see a nice bit of pretentiousness, check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwfGl3nvLM

But girls can also be action stars without being a vapid empty barbie doll. The Uncharted series succeed in actually writing convincing female characters. And while they are love interests to the male protagonist, they are much more than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuiYd5FPNKk#t=2m36s

What makes the female characters in Uncharted so briljant in their writing, is the fact that they are not written out of the story as new love interests are introduced. They are not throw away love interests like in a Bond movie. And the interaction between the two female characters is a great source of comic relief as well. Uncharted 2 did this briljantly, where they show that Nate really has a soft spot for the more average Elena, even though Cloe is a much more sensual and attractive girl.

1. So men in their underwear are not being sexualized…
2. Damsel in distress is bad even though it fits the character perfectly, having in mind their profession…
3. Them learning martial arts is also bad…
4. Having a strong female character is bad, because she is pretty…
Yeah, you do seem very bias to me.

Sexism IMO is about denial of choice and pigeonholing solely based on gender.

A female character or male character being dressed in a provocative way is not inherently sexist. However, if you were to make all of one gender forced to dressed in that way in this game or to forbid one gender from doing the same would be sexist.

In other words, the very act of conforming to gender roles or stereotypes is not sexist. Forcing people to conform to those choices is. The moment you say someone must be something because of their gender, then you are attributing a value based on gender, and beyond biological distinctions comes across as being sexist.

So in any case, promoting more choices and respecting them would be nice. Personally, I think armor is too extreme— especially for heavy types. They’re either too skimpy so that I don’t even consider it to be armor or too covered up so whatever body type you picked doesn’t matter and thus doesn’t look good. Yes I understand that people don’t go into battle wearing casual clothes but at the same time nobody walks around in full plate armor regardless of what they’re doing.

People, for the love of kittens paste the “share” link from youtube, not the web address. Your making our forum “fat”.

Mirta.5029:

1. So men in their underwear are not being sexualized…

A male character dressed like a barbarian, isn’t placed in a sexual context. Please don’t generalize my statement, context means everything here.

Mirta.5029:

2. Damsel in distress is bad even though it fits the character perfectly, having in mind their profession…

A damsel in distress is bad when that character is kidnapped every episode, and when it reflects bad on the portrayal of the gender as a whole, due to women constantly being the damsel in tons of cartoons and movies. A trope isn’t bad, until it becomes offensive.

Mirta.5029:

3. Them learning martial arts is also bad…

Depends on the context. If the movie/game is simply trying to prove to its audience that it’s not being sexist, it ends up feeling contrived and unconvincing, and becomes a trope of its own. Often you’ll see this in various cartoons, where a female character is suddenly turned into an action star contrary to the essence of her character.

Mirta.5029:

4. Having a strong female character is bad, because she is pretty…

Having a strong female character is bad, when she isn’t strong at all, but pretty first. What makes it bad is the fact that they write her character around her being pretty, but don’t know quite how to write a strong female character. But at least they got the pretty part right. In Tomb Raider (the reboot) this is painfully obvious, when they try to sell you a serious story, but the cameraman constantly gets distracted by shots of her cleavage during cut scenes.

I just think that there is something seriously wrong with you perception that’s all. Maybe you’re attracted to females and not males and that’s why you notice all that sexualizing of women when I don’t. But if to counter your points:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

A male character dressed like a barbarian, isn’t placed in a sexual context. Please don’t generalize my statement, context means everything here.

rough barbarian men are considered to be sexy by females. Barbarians had full clothing. Their portrayal as almost naked is there only to please the female eye.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

A damsel in distress is bad when that character is kidnapped every episode, and when it reflects bad on the portrayal of the gender as a whole, due to women constantly being the damsel in tons of cartoons and movies. A trope isn’t bad, until it becomes offensive.

Tell me, would you find it offensive if she was a man? That was her character. A person with very powerful ties, but not physically strong. And no, I don’t think that it reflects bad on the gender at all. Your own answers are doing more harm to the gender than anything from TNMT ever did.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Depends on the context. If the movie/game is simply trying to prove to its audience that it’s not being sexist, it ends up feeling contrived and unconvincing, and becomes a trope of its own. Often you’ll see this in various cartoons, where a female character is suddenly turned into an action star contrary to the essence of her character.

I don’t think that they change characters so they wouldn’t look sexist. I think they do that to give a twist to the show, but everyone can have their own ideas I guess.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Having a strong female character is bad, when she isn’t strong at all, but pretty first. What makes it bad is the fact that they write her character around her being pretty, but don’t know quite how to write a strong female character. But at least they got the pretty part right. In Tomb Raider (the reboot) this is painfully obvious, when they try to sell you a serious story, but the cameraman constantly gets distracted by shots of her cleavage during cut scenes.

so having a realistic character is bad? Lara is an explorer, not a military unit. She is strong mentally though and overcomes all the things that life throws at her. Also what’s bad about a character that is strong being pretty?
Didn’t you see those calendars that some countries do, that has the prettiest police and military female officers as covers? And I’m not talking about models dressed as police personal. I’m talking actual calendars that police offices themselves pride themselves on and sell.
And I didn’t notice those constant cleavage shots that you noticed. Did you actually play the game?

This is still going on? Why are people still responding to a handful of posters who want to force you to think the way they do?

I say again, to the OP (as opposed to the continuing blather about gender equality, which, form an online forum, holds all the weight of a wet paper towel) more options at both ends of the spectrum would be good.

Personally, I’d be happy with pants for my (male) ele, so he’s not wearing a frigging skirt all the time. Ranger, I’d like something that’s not a trench-coat.

For the rest? Bring on the frilly, skimpy, whatever – counter it with the (already more available in-game) full clothed options.

yes maybe, No.

Guild Wars has done well with practicability though sometimes it falters in the armors. Anet has designed the armors well to fit the role of the armor classes, though in some areas it could use considerable improvement. Op included a picture of med-class armor, Human T3 which makes sense for thiefs as they are kind of like ninjas, mobility is key versus heavy armors, such as wars and guardians. The Light armor class armors are lacking severely in style/fashion, though the light-armor human T3 is somewhat ridiculous for female chars. Stylistically the Seer’s armor is quite nice, it feels like elite sorcerer gear to a sense though the female bottom embellished lines are ridiculously large. Professional and elite are the two words I believe that should accompany any T3 Armor in terms of design/fashion especially if they cost players 119g a set.

Skimpy Armors are not professional or elite in subjective sense to a characters role in the GW2 universe. Only so few classes could have so much such skin showing before it becomes a stupid sexual gimmick. The T3 human thief whose armor looks kind of like a jogging suit is one of these exceptions or maybe the He’man style norn with tatoo’s or tatoo’d ritual necro. However given GuildWars2 is a business modeled MMO, skimpy/eye candy armor is plausable….. and as such be treated as an unatural armor and be made only avialable on the BL TC for say 1200-2000 gems(if its ever introduced). In all seriousness its hard to take things seriously when a player runs around almost naked and that being said, skimpy armors don’t fit subjectively well into the GW2 Universe. Some exceptions again do apply such as maybe a tattoo’d necro(from GW1 which worked for the character), or aired armored mediums such as thiefs or rangers, though the aired T3 of human lights is borderline dysfunctional. I find myself mixing and matching the chest/boots so as to not look so naked, and to perpetuate a more elite flare with the human T3 light as exampled below. Fashion is exploration of human form and function/flare, which fits in a world perpetuating a older world, 1700s-1900s feel. Skimpy is sexual eye candy without regard to reality and is unnatural to the subjective reality of the in game world.

Overall No to skimpy armors as they don’t fit into the fashion/style of the GW2 Universe. Aired armors for mobile classes, but skimpy is a dangerous term that is so general and so charged it could easily mean sexual eye candy armor which in other mmo’s is used to cover their flaws and dysfunction.

Mirta.5029:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

A male character dressed like a barbarian, isn’t placed in a sexual context. Please don’t generalize my statement, context means everything here.

rough barbarian men are considered to be sexy by females. Barbarians had full clothing. Their portrayal as almost naked is there only to please the female eye.

Not true. The half-naked barbarian brimming with muscle is a power fantasy for men, not a sexually objectifying fantasy for women. Though sometimes a scantily dressed strong woman can be a power fantasy for women, too…

Tuomir.1830:

Mirta.5029:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

A male character dressed like a barbarian, isn’t placed in a sexual context. Please don’t generalize my statement, context means everything here.

rough barbarian men are considered to be sexy by females. Barbarians had full clothing. Their portrayal as almost naked is there only to please the female eye.

Not true. The half-naked barbarian brimming with muscle is a power fantasy for men, not a sexually objectifying fantasy for women. Though sometimes a scantily dressed strong woman can be a power fantasy for women, too…

so men fantasize about naked barbarians? O_O

Tuomir.1830:

Mirta.5029:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

A male character dressed like a barbarian, isn’t placed in a sexual context. Please don’t generalize my statement, context means everything here.

rough barbarian men are considered to be sexy by females. Barbarians had full clothing. Their portrayal as almost naked is there only to please the female eye.

Not true. The half-naked barbarian brimming with muscle is a power fantasy for men, not a sexually objectifying fantasy for women. Though sometimes a scantily dressed strong woman can be a power fantasy for women, too…

Uhhh, as a woman, I consider a half-naked man brimming with muscle to be part of woman’s sex fantasy.

Power fantasy does not equate to sexual fantasy. Is it hard to imagine a man enjoying playing the part of a strong barbarian warrior, capable of using brute force to overcome his troubles and attracting women?

Because of this, many games aimed at men have this kind of player characters.

Tuomir.1830:

capable of using brute force to overcome his troubles and attracting women?

Because of this, many games aimed at men have this kind of player characters.

Mirta.5029:

Tuomir.1830:

capable of using brute force to overcome his troubles and attracting women?

Because of this, many games aimed at men have this kind of player characters.

Men enjoy playing such characters, because they know that such characters are considered sexy by women. The same way that females can play women with curves that are powerful and attractive to men. It doesn't mean that such characters don't serve their purpose as an eye candy to the opposite sex.

That very much depends on who it is aimed for. So, in the example of a half-naked woman, if the character is meant to relate to , and how she’s dressed is a way to convey her strengths (and not lack of them), then there’s no problem as far as I’m concerned. However, if the character is meant to be looked at, objectifying her, that’s where the problem is. Same would apply to male character, but I’ve never seen a case of a “lightly clothed” male being objectified in games.

Tuomir.1830:

That very much depends on who it is aimed for. So, in the example of a half-naked woman, if the character is meant to relate to , and how she’s dressed is a way to convey her strengths (and not lack of them), then there’s no problem as far as I’m concerned. However, if the character is meant to be looked at, objectifying her, that’s where the problem is. Same would apply to male character, but I’ve never seen a case of a “lightly clothed” male being objectified in games.

everyone is objectified in some way. Everyone is given some value and some preference. Saying that “objectifying a woman is bad and men don’t get objectified” is just silly. A man portrayed as a power house is an objectification in itself. Double standards much?

You don’t seem to quite get what I’m driving. What I’m saying is that it’s not objectifying if the character is wearing clothes (or the lack of them), but if the character’s purpose is to be submissive or weak in addition. The red haired punk from Mad Max 2 falls into this category. Characters from GW2 do not.

Now, individually, this is not so much a problem, as it’s just one kind of character. But, if a gender is consistently shoeholed into that role, it becomes a case of sexism.

Mirta.5029:

Tell me, would you find it offensive if she was a man? That was her character. A person with very powerful ties, but not physically strong. And no, I don’t think that it reflects bad on the gender at all. Your own answers are doing more harm to the gender than anything from TNMT ever did.

If men were consistently shoe horned into the position of having to be rescued by women, then yes, that would be sexist as well. Are you having trouble understanding what sexism is?

Mirta.5029:

so having a realistic character is bad? Lara is an explorer, not a military unit. She is strong mentally though and overcomes all the things that life throws at her.

Its not realistic at all. She is a pretty girl first and fore most, and plenty of throw away characters then die around her, in order for her to supposedly grow into her role as an action hero. But that’s pretty poor writing. Games struggle to write women well.

Mirta.5029:

Also what’s bad about a character that is strong being pretty?

The problem arises from thinking from the starting point of a pretty girl. That is not how you write a complex character. So nothing is bad about a girl being pretty and strong at the same time. But the focus on her beauty undermines the story. The writing becomes unfocussed. Because if you really think about it, if you want to tell a good story about an interesting female character, her looks should not matter.

Mirta.5029:

And I didn’t notice those constant cleavage shots that you noticed. Did you actually play the game?

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y_p4f_UNUXo/0.jpg

Conan sure noticed them, as did I. They are right in the intro.

stale.9785:

This is still going on? Why are people still responding to a handful of posters who want to force you to think the way they do?

Remember kids. When ever people disagree with you, they are really just trying to force their opinion on you, and not challenge you in polite discussion.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

If men were consistently shoe horned into the position of having to be rescued by women, then yes, that would be sexist as well. Are you having trouble understanding what sexism is?

why do you think that those turtles are male anyway? Last time I checked they didn’t seem to have sexual organs as well. Also in your opinion if a weak person falls into trouble repeatedly it should not be saved by the opposite sex, because that’s sexism?

“Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex. Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and may include the belief that a person of one sex is intrinsically superior to a person of the other. A job applicant may face discriminatory hiring practices, or (if hired) receive unequal compensation or treatment compared to that of their opposite-sex peers.”

as far as I remember the woman in TMNT had a job and wasn’t threated like she’s inferior by her turtle friends.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Its not realistic at all. She is a pretty girl first and fore most, and plenty of throw away characters then die around her, in order for her to supposedly grow into her role as an action hero. But that’s pretty poor writing. Games struggle to write women well.

that’s because she is an explorer and not a military unit.
Also if in your opinion media describes women wrong, why don’t you write an action story with an ugly military unit female as the main character, that will portray women “right”? Because I’m a woman that doesn’t think that women are being portrayed wrong at all.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

The problem arises from thinking from the starting point of a pretty girl. That is not how you write a complex character. So nothing is bad about a girl being pretty and strong at the same time. But the focus on her beauty undermines the story. The writing becomes unfocussed. Because if you really think about it, if you want to tell a good story about an interesting female character, her looks should not matter.

And why do you think that her starting point is a “pretty” girl? She’s a scholar, obviously quite smart, she is able to investigate ancient ruins, push trough the pain and is not afraid to go trough hell for her friends.
Now having in mind that Lara is a video game character – going by your logic she shouldn’t be portrayed at all, because you chose to ignore her personality and focus on the looks.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y_p4f_UNUXo/0.jpg

I see a face there. With a very gripping facial expression. I don’t see this one as a kitten shot at all. To be honest her lady bits are even blurred out.

Mirta.5029:

I see a face there. With a very gripping facial expression. I don’t see this one as a kitten shot at all. To be honest her lady bits are even blurred out.

What you have to realize is that if you want to villainize something pretty much anything can be made into something naughty. It’s pretty much what Sarkeesian(?)’s vids are all about.

And, really… females are prancing around in their underwear? You’re not reaching at all here.

[quote=1983344;Mad Queen Malafide.7512:}Giant snip

Remember kids. When ever people disagree with you, they are really just trying to force their opinion on you, and not challenge you in polite discussion.

[/quote]

No, people who disagree with me often have a valid point – I try to never make the mistake that someone with a differing opinion from me is either stupid or a villain. Saying something shouldn’t be implemented because you don’t like it, that is forcing your opinion on me.

Of the posters saying they wouldn’t like to have the extra options for armour, we have blur, who is at least honest enough to say (s)he doesn’t want it in the game because it makes them uncomfortable. I understand that – it’s not a particularly valid point, but I understand it.

You, on the other hand, not only have said you don’t like the option for personal taste reasons, but then go on to submit page after page of absolute walls of text, defending your reasoning for not wanting other people to have the extra options, with everything from how fabric hangs in real life, how modern imitations of medieval armour are flexible, to the pseudo-intellectual blather about gender equality and stereotyping in video games.

You’ve raised other points, and many of them are valid, as discussion, but not a single one is a solid answer for why the OP, or those that agree with them, shouldn’t be allowed to have the options of clothing they desire. “Because I don’t like it.” is not a reason, it’s an opinion. What other people choose to wear in game has absolutely no material effect upon you.

Also, if you’re going to quote mine me to make yourself look superior, please be sure to make it as condescending as possible, again. A truly open-minded person interested in discussion and other people’s opinions would not respond the way you have, wherein nobody else has a valid point, and they’re wrong, whereas you’re right.

For what it’s worth, I acknowledge there’s a huge issue of gender stereotyping in video games (and media in general) but the least significant aspect of it is clothing. The far more telling area’s would be one’s of intellect and ability. If the OP had asked for all female’s to be presented as vapid, indecisive sexual objects, and nothing more, I’d have taken issue with that. What they asked for was a fashion choice, nothing more.

Err, I think Gw2 was pretty progressive in this area, but there could be more variety. But I can’t really be offended at a little human skin. Certainly, the human body (or Charr/Norn/Asura/Sylvari if you’re into that) can be a beautiful thing, and honestly every time I log in the game, I commit acts of violence and kill innocent animals and people. Someone wearing a miniskirt is just not up there with that, I’d say.

Also, we could also go for some less idealized figures. What if I want to roleplay a balding fat guy?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

If men were consistently shoe horned into the position of having to be rescued by women, then yes, that would be sexist as well. Are you having trouble understanding what sexism is?

Statistically, women make up less than a quarter of the police forces in countries around the world. If someone is aiming for some semblance of realism, it’s more likely to be saved by a man than a woman at least when law enforcement is taken into account.

To undermind the statistics, you could probably just have fewer females in trouble at all, leaving most of the rescuing and being rescued to males…yet that is a trope in and of itself, having women being immune to the troubles of the world and leaving men to fall prey to everything in their stead…

Its not realistic at all. She is a pretty girl first and fore most, and plenty of throw away characters then die around her, in order for her to supposedly grow into her role as an action hero. But that’s pretty poor writing. Games struggle to write women well.

How does one ascertain which is first and which is secondary? Just because they have physical characteristics that are noticeable?

Also, I hear people say how badly suchandsuch writer writes for women characters…I wonder, why don’t the critics attack said writer instead? Instead, they’ll demean the product, the buyers of the product, the avenue of the product and everyone but whomever wrote badly. They usually don’t suggest a writer who writes better female characters either.

Conan sure noticed them, as did I. They are right in the intro.

Haha, man I forget how funny Conan can be

But yeah, Conan is an entertainer. He’s not trying to intellectually critique anything and will take a stab at whatever he thinks is funny to make you laugh…even if it’s the blatantly obvious joke of “she’s a female, whenever a shot zooms in I’m going to make a deal of it”.