Guild Wars 2

Crossaber.8934:

Just ask Anet to have more variety of armor choice for both side, win win.

Someone claims that there are more skimpy than non skimpy armor, that is a lie or unless somebody cannot properly count. When i am looking at the armor sets, all i can see is well covered armor for every weight class. For skimpy armor, yes, some of them are half naked but it is a rare case.

The armor designs are well following our modern fashion direction, female fashion are more focus on slim cut, tight fit and even boob holes and mini skirts. Why? Because guys love it. In real world, for practical protection gear are not designed with "attractive" in mind. But this is a game, and this is where this kind of fantasy are possible to exist out of real world.

So be productive, stop telling skimpy armor is wrong, instead, suggesting possible walk around solution for the kind like yours.

Not many argue for the removal, or that the sparser armours are in themselves wrong. There is an argument to appreciate or allow a different perspective, however, and that’s clearly rather difficult to do. Ignoring people who are not the "guys" when determining who apparently loves what is particularly disingenuous toward the player base (I say apparently; how many would say they want a particular thing so as not to appear different from the perceived status quo?). Some players have been posting, saying they prefer other things for their fantasies.

Thus, the other perspectives I began with which must also be considered. Asking for a game to embrace differing preferences isn’t a bad thing. No one has asked for the unmitigated removal of the more revealing armours, and would be unreasonable to do so. Whether someone prefers a more realistic approach or the ultimate fantastical show is personal. Having a preference in and of itself isn’t wrong. We should be able to celebrate all whilst being able to retain our choices. I suppose I’m advocating a live and let live approach: as this is a (fantasy) game, we in theory harm no one by making such allowances. If a person is unable to do so, then I would humbly suggest they have the problem, not those who embrace different choices, and should seek immediate ownership thereof.

<- Plays Male Sylvari(mix of T1-3, nightmare, toxic for a plant look), Male Charr alt.
I honestly can’t get the idea behind going in combat while a part of your boob is hanging out of your human T3 coat. I can only imagine getting that pretty open waist sliced in half by a greatsword <3
But it may be just me… I’m a man after all and can’t understand the idea behind undressing yourself when the goal is to be protected. As things go, fighting in underwear is probably not the brightest idea in my opinion… And skimpy clothes are not much better, really. But to each his own of course, and I respect addition of new male skimpy clothes(and we have enough of skimpy female clothes, I rarely ever get to see a decently clothed female human/norn player).

Xovian.8572:

You seem to be missing the point, there’s an obvious reason why men were not put in tutu’s (outside of some fetish or some form of cruel punishment). Lacey and frilly type fashion just isn’t manly. Works for females, some even have a defined grace that flows with it, but it’s hardly the pinnacle of masculinity. It looks cute on my 4 year old daughter. /shrug

Yeah, just like high heels aren’t manly, right? Men would never . . . oh, they were originally worn by men, and ladies started wearing them to adopt more masculinity, my bad.

But hey, at least we can always rely on gendered colours, right? No colour is more manly than blue, after all, and pink is . . . oh, this was actually the reverse in early 1900s and blue was for girls and pink was for boys.

You see how trivial this is? How subjective it is? How arbitrary this is? What is “manly” isn’t objective fact. You can’t pin it down to scientific analysis of aesthetics based on anatomy or “grace” or any other gendered stereotype. It’s social stigma, nothing more, nothing less. Let people express themselves how they want to, regardless of sex and gender, and let’s all stop pretending we are in any way able to objectively define what is masculine and what is feminine.

Xovian.8572:

My wife can’t even do her hair in 10 minutes, much less anything else lady wise, so I’m gonna ere on the side of caution and say most of the females here can’t either, at least not where they feel comfortable with themselves to be in public. (How you like that run on sentence).

Bottom line the sexes are different, and what is considered “beautiful” on each of those sexes varies greatly. Women complain when they don’t look like Barbie, or that they feel they should have to look like that instead of being comfortable with themselves, but all too often they forget that men typically don’t look like He-Man either. The difference is, most men don’t even try.

Let me start by saying it takes less than a minute to do my hair and I feel quite comfortable in public either with or without make-up if I wear any it’s because I felt like it. Secondly I wouldn’t want to look like barbie and that’s coming from someone whose favourite colour is pink (Albeit not the barbie shade of pink).

The thought of it makes me shudder. That doll is so out of proportion and unnatural. That people think that’s a realistic ideal or attractive is worrying. If whomever I’m with can’t accept me for who I am then they aren’t worth my time, I don’t like shallow people. So please don’t speak as if all woman supposedly want this or spend hours getting plastered up.

That said. I voted that I wanted to see more skimpy armour. The reason being is that right now there are plenty of covered up options and very few skimpy options. I’d like these two to be a bit more balanced. Especially for Medium armour.

The other reason I feel that there aren’t many skimpy options is that with a lot of the skimpier outfits you also get skirts that look ridiculous with random holes and weird flappy bits making for even fewer desirable options. They aren’t particularly elegant or delicate or have any cohesion.

The covered up outfits tend to be very puffed up and look odd in combat. I’d like to see more sleek and elegant armour skins like the new Ancestral outfit. I want to see a lot more of this style (Not necessarily with the asian twist).

That together with tops and bottoms rarely lining up. This to me gives even fewer mix ‘n’ match options. Obviously this is my opinion and others might like the weird flappy hole skirts and puffy covered up outfits. Whatever you prefer there are still less skimpy outfits than there are covered up ones.

To be honest the reason I tend to prefer skimpy outfits in this game is because they look more feminine where the fully covered up ones tend to be quite masculine. Which isn’t a bad thing I just prefer feminine outfits thus my desire for more elegant and sleek sets like Ancestral.

I’d also like male characters to have more skimpy options so people who play male characters also have more options. It’s all about variety and having more of every option as balanced as possible. Freedom of choice for everyone Gender is irrelevant in what someone likes. Remember that.

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Fay.2735:

It’s all about variety and having more of every option as balanced as possible. Freedom of choice for everyone Gender is irrelevant in what someone likes. Remember that.

Thank you.

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

No option for balance of both across all classes, which is what I’d like. Too much skimpy light armor, too many long trenchcoats for medium.

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

1. Programming issue. Not even related to topic.
2. Magic
3. Magic
4. You can be in a family of privilege and still not be given a home.

People can dress however they want, I’m just saying its impractical on the field of battle.

Serophous.9085:

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

1. Programming issue. Not even related to topic.
2. Magic
3. Magic
4. You can be in a family of privilege and still not be given a home.

People can dress however they want, I’m just saying its impractical on the field of battle.

By that logic, who is to say that magic isn’t what provides extra protection?

But yes, at it’s core, in real life, it would be impractical to wear many of the things we get to wear, regardless as to how they’d be categorized based on the theme of the thread.

I also agree that people should be able to wear whatever they want.

FrozenStarRo.7240:

No option for balance of both across all classes, which is what I’d like. Too much skimpy light armor, too many long trenchcoats for medium.

As other’s have pointed out, if you were to actually count the numbers, it’s a low percentage of the overall choices. It just seems that way, either because more people choose to wear it (whether actively, or passively – still not liking it, but better than the alternatives), or because of predisposed perceptions.

In the spirit of choices and options, hopefully you would believe that the solution could be accomplished by adding more options which aren’t those you indicated you do not like, while at the same time, not removing anything existing, and possibly also including additional items of types you don’t like for those who may?

Apparently all races exept for Asurans and Charr are too stupid to dress properly

Just kittening

I just want some pants options for female light armor. Something similar to the Light Male Ascalonian pants would be nice. Without any extra cape/skirt pieces added to it.

Serophous.9085:

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

1. Programming issue. Not even related to topic.
2. Magic
3. Magic
4. You can be in a family of privilege and still not be given a home.

People can dress however they want, I’m just saying its impractical on the field of battle.

Yeah, I run around in a robe with a flaming pumpkin head. It’s very impractical to walk around without muscles and setting yourself alight but my character does it anyway.

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

1. Programming issue. Not even related to topic.
2. Magic
3. Magic
4. You can be in a family of privilege and still not be given a home.

People can dress however they want, I’m just saying its impractical on the field of battle.

By that logic, who is to say that magic isn’t what provides extra protection?

But yes, at it’s core, in real life, it would be impractical to wear many of the things we get to wear, regardless as to how they’d be categorized based on the theme of the thread.

I also agree that people should be able to wear whatever they want.

Well, we are still taking damage despite if any magic there is protecting us. Even so, the magic would have to be concentrated more in the largely open areas to make sure you don’t get skewered. Imagine the defense of the armor improving even moreso by the magic overall if not concentrated in one area.

Thus, the skimpy armor is still impractical.

Serophous.9085:

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

notebene.3190:

Serophous.9085:

Thankfully I’m not the only one who realizes skimpy armor makes no sense. Who runs into battle with sharp weapons with their stomach exposed?

Also, did anyone post that vid of the female warrior complaining bout the skimpy armor while the males got fully covered?

Yes. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fact that I sheathe my staff and it floats 6 inches from my back makes no sense.

I can magically make myself appear any where in the world by using a magic map (did I get that from Dora?).

There is a giant candy corn in my home zone that I can mine.

It said I grew up in a family of privilege, where is my home?

Why can’t it just be about making available as many choices and options for people to dress their characters how they see fit so they can enjoy themselves? Does the solution have to involve intolerance?

1. Programming issue. Not even related to topic.
2. Magic
3. Magic
4. You can be in a family of privilege and still not be given a home.

People can dress however they want, I’m just saying its impractical on the field of battle.

By that logic, who is to say that magic isn’t what provides extra protection?

But yes, at it’s core, in real life, it would be impractical to wear many of the things we get to wear, regardless as to how they’d be categorized based on the theme of the thread.

I also agree that people should be able to wear whatever they want.

Well, we are still taking damage despite if any magic there is protecting us. Even so, the magic would have to be concentrated more in the largely open areas to make sure you don’t get skewered. Imagine the defense of the armor improving even moreso by the magic overall if not concentrated in one area.

Thus, the skimpy armor is still impractical.

Semantics. The magic part of my armor is that it’s really all plate, but it just appears to other’s as something entirely different.

Talking about realism in a game with magic and unlimited ammo and dragons is a bit silly.
In the real world women was not sent to war either.

tom.7468:

Talking about realism in a game with magic and unlimited ammo and dragons is a bit silly.
In the real world women was not sent to war either.

But they often went along anyway. Women have fought throughout history.

With dragons and magic? Right?

tom.7468:

Talking about realism in a game with magic and unlimited ammo and dragons is a bit silly.
In the real world women was not sent to war either.

It’s so easy to defend something when you like looking at it, and using the same old, recycled excuse in attempt to make a kittenty point.

tom.7468:

In the real world women was not sent to war either.

Excuse me?

You really need to brush up on your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

And let’s not forget the countless examples of woman going to war in place of men, even if society deemed them unfit.

The first point he makes is valid though. We can’t pick and choose which aspects of the game we want to be ‘realistic’ while ignoring others.

Which is why I believe the designers simply used the prevailing standards of fantasy armour as a guide: Heavy armours generally covering more skin than light.

Jahroots.6791:

The first point he makes is valid though. We can’t pick and choose which aspects of the game we want to be ‘realistic’ while ignoring others.

Which is why I believe the designers simply used the prevailing standards of fantasy armour as a guide: Heavy armours generally covering more skin than light.

It is, it just annoys me when people play this “woman=/=war” card.

Celestina.2894:

Jahroots.6791:

The first point he makes is valid though. We can’t pick and choose which aspects of the game we want to be ‘realistic’ while ignoring others.

Which is why I believe the designers simply used the prevailing standards of fantasy armour as a guide: Heavy armours generally covering more skin than light.

It is, it just annoys me when people play this “woman=/=war” card.

Also funny how it was the female charr army that helped overthrow the shaman caste :p

Serophous.9085:

Well, we are still taking damage despite if any magic there is protecting us. Even so, the magic would have to be concentrated more in the largely open areas to make sure you don’t get skewered. Imagine the defense of the armor improving even moreso by the magic overall if not concentrated in one area.

We also still take damage despite any metal there to protect us. It’s more likely that the magic is always spread out and the metal is reinforcing it somehow.

Also, despite everything said, Kasmeer implied she went through the Tower of Nightmares without any clothing at all (wearing nothing but illusions). It’s questionable how much armor they actually need.

Edit: Added the screenshot. Sadly, I don’t have a better one.

Fenrina.2954:

Serophous.9085:

Well, we are still taking damage despite if any magic there is protecting us. Even so, the magic would have to be concentrated more in the largely open areas to make sure you don’t get skewered. Imagine the defense of the armor improving even moreso by the magic overall if not concentrated in one area.

We also still take damage despite any metal there to protect us. It’s more likely that the magic is always spread out and the metal is reinforcing it somehow.

Also, despite everything said, Kasmeer implied she went through the Tower of Nightmares without any clothing at all (wearing nothing but illusions). It’s questionable how much they actually need any form of armor for defense.

Edit: Added the screenshot. Sadly, I don’t have a better one.

As humans, we tend to rationalize things by what general knowledge we have. Since really, there are no articles or books or ways to explain how gw2 magic works, I would have to rely on my DND idea (which shouldn’t be too far off since mmo RPGs are based on the DND system) and say her illusion spell provides a massive bonus to deflection AC.

Course then, I am applying a different rules and game mechanics to a different game and world where we don’t know exactly how such mechanics work. Course, I do this because as a person, its how I rationalize and try to understand something that is different and unknown.

So, in a way, I am wrong to say that a skimpy armor piece doesn’t provide protection, as I do not know the full understanding of how magic works in tyria. But the other way is, I am right since using what I know and common sense, skimpy armor should barely provide any protection at all.

Serophous.9085:

(which shouldn’t be too far off since mmo RPGs are based on the DND system)

Mmorpgs trace their roots back to MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon). Said roots are old and deep enough that experience with d&d is not applicable to an mmo. I don’t consider it reasonable to say magic in the Lord of the Rings is comparable to Final Fantasy’s magic because they’re both Fantasy. This is not any different.

Faowri.4159:

You see how trivial this is? How subjective it is? How arbitrary this is? What is “manly” isn’t objective fact. You can’t pin it down to scientific analysis of aesthetics based on anatomy or “grace” or any other gendered stereotype. It’s social stigma, nothing more, nothing less. Let people express themselves how they want to, regardless of sex and gender, and let’s all stop pretending we are in any way able to objectively define what is masculine and what is feminine.

(*Note, comments are not aimed solely at the quote but for several responses)

You can however scientifically show what has been the norm in FANTASY as all writing that specifically deal with it are not that old. This distinction should be held up in your mind very quickly before we try to go 100+ years (real world) in the past as D&D and its origins are not 100’s of years old. I used modern thoughts on styles as it is what most people are aware of, and most people are comfortable with to try and be descriptive. However it seems people want to pull the card to try and say oh blah blah blah was different, because I used real world references. It has NEVER been different in a fantasy setting of any kind from the 70’s onward where D&D began, and became more popular in the 80’s and onward. 1974 was the first publication if you want an exact date. Yes the game which started it all is not that old, though it is based on works and legends from various cultures that are older. So simply put real world has no meaning it was just something most people are “aware of” and can relate to.

Now then, as I said before, I’m all for more options so people can have whatever floats their boat. It changes nothing from my tastes, it simply adds more to the game.

As far as real world:
As to the comments of people wearing heavy armor in war, that is incorrect as most armies through out time were largely conscripts, most of which were farmers and more often then not, were not well equipped. It’s why several rulers though out the worlds history were able to rule all they saw simply because they had the equipment and trained soldiers, not conscripts that were little better then farmers armed with pitch forks. It should also be noted that England and countries near it were the only ones who ever wore heavy (eg PLATE) armor and this was often regulated to royalty or the wealthy and their guard, with some obvious exceptions of course. Everyone else did not wear heavy armor as it was far too restrictive and heavy to be useful. Archers for example were NEVER given heavy (or even “medium”) armor as it restricted their ability to use a bow and if their front lines got opened up, it left them as sitting ducks. (Granted with the onset of Calvary, this made it easy for them to be run down anyways.) You might also try looking up assassins as well (aka thieves, ninja or any other person who dealt with subterfuge) also never wore armor, as anything that could make sound and expose their location was a big no no. Medium armors generally thick leather or less was the norm, if they wore anything at all. And for a majority of people the latter was often the case.

Fenrina.2954:

Mmorpgs trace their roots back to MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon). Said roots are old and deep enough that experience with d&d is not applicable to an mmo.

Not sure I’d concur with this as most MUDs used simple “GOTO” writing and many of which were little more then choose your own path stories, there were never calculations being performed by the PC on these. An MMO RPG obviously uses calculations, which is by and large based on D&D. MMORPG’s are nothing like Zork, and those that predated it.

Fenrina.2954:

Serophous.9085:

(which shouldn’t be too far off since mmo RPGs are based on the DND system)

Mmorpgs trace their roots back to MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon). Said roots are old and deep enough that experience with d&d is not applicable to an mmo. I don’t consider it reasonable to say magic in the Lord of the Rings is comparable to Final Fantasy’s magic because they’re both Fantasy. This is not any different.

And MUD implementations frequently used D&D rulesets, so you could say that modern graphical MMORPG mechanics do have their roots in D&D.

But D&D ‘deflection’ (and armor) essentially worked through the chance to hit, or get hit, while Guildwars armor reduces the damage inflicted without affecting any chance to (get) hit.

I prefer less skimpy.

The over-abundance of skimpy armor is why I don’t play a female norn or human. (That, and the blatant oversexualization… Jesus christ, just look at the starter armor!)

Kain Francois.4328:

I prefer less skimpy.

The over-abundance of skimpy armor is why I don’t play a female norn or human. (That, and the blatant over sexualization… Jesus christ, just look at the starter armor!)

Just gotta ask, how is there an over abundance of skimpy armor, when there are more that are not skimpy then are. You must have a very rigid version of skimpy, to say the above.

Not saying “you’re wrong” or the like, just generally curious what you’d be calling skimpy as the choices for light, while it has the most “skimpy” choices, it is not more prevalent compared to more modest choices. Simply put, from my perspective that are a lot more modest designs then skimpy. Someone posted earlier in the thread some numbers though it may be subjective for some choices.

To be fair, most of the female armours are significantly more revealing than the equivalent sets on male characters. I just don’t see why this is such a bad thing. The designs tend to be influenced by both fantasy tropes and contemporary fashion.

frans.8092:

And MUD implementations frequently used D&D rulesets, so you could say that modern graphical MMORPG mechanics do have their roots in D&D.

That’s true, but many of those MUDs are also almost as old as D&D itself. Enough time has passed for additional rpgs, muds, mmos, etc to come up with their own ideas and systems. One can’t say it works like this because it’s distantly related to D&D.

That said. I think we’re on a nearby pages. Kasmeer can’t have survived the Tower of Nightmares because of “Deflection AC” since AC does not exist within GW2.

Why it’s a bad thing – it’s sexualizing women and women’s bodies while men’s bodies aren’t treated the same way. If men had testicle windows, garter belts, high heels, and tiny skirts as part of most of their armor sets, I’m pretty sure no one would care about female designs with the same sort of skin showing features.

I voted for more non-skimpy and by non skimpy, I mean no freaking boob cups, boob windows, or other crap that screams look at my T&A. I can’t tell you how much light armor I can’t see my toons using because it’s stupid skimpy. You can compare sets all you like – if it’s not readily available by crafting, vendor, or trading post then it’s a specialty armor you’re going to either have to spend gems on or buy and those aren’t the crap you’re stuck in until level 60. Unless you have a large wardrobe and plenty of transmute charges, prepare to look awful in either the garter belt mage get up or as a harem girl or with a huge poofy skirt.

Yes, I get that, But why is sexualizing women’s bodies more than men’s inherently bad?

Maybe things are different down here in the tropics, but most of the women I see love their bodies and aren’t inhibited about showing them off. I truly have a hard time understanding why having ‘gendered’ standards of attractiveness upset some people.

Also, pardon me if this comes across as insensitive, but the ‘men aren’t treated the same way, it’s not fair’ arguments just sound petty and contrived to me. Where should designers draw the line as far as equality is concerned? What about the people who actually like the differences in armour design?

Aerlen.5326:

Why it’s a bad thing – it’s sexualizing women and women’s bodies while men’s bodies aren’t treated the same way. If men had testicle windows, garter belts, high heels, and tiny skirts as part of most of their armor sets, I’m pretty sure no one would care about female designs with the same sort of skin showing features.

I voted for more non-skimpy and by non skimpy, I mean no freaking boob cups, boob windows, or other crap that screams look at my T&A. I can’t tell you how much light armor I can’t see my toons using because it’s stupid skimpy. You can compare sets all you like – if it’s not readily available by crafting, vendor, or trading post then it’s a specialty armor you’re going to either have to spend gems on or buy and those aren’t the crap you’re stuck in until level 60. Unless you have a large wardrobe and plenty of transmute charges, prepare to look awful in either the garter belt mage get up or as a harem girl or with a huge poofy skirt.

Testicles = Breasts ? If you are going to compare thing at least compare what can be compared. Exposed genitalia is bad for both genders.

But I’m interested in what outfits you are labeling “garter belt” skirt and actually how many outfits are stupidly skimpy.
Here’s a link with all armor available in the game http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?lang=en&color=10&race=2&w=1&sex=1

Edit : There’s one garter belt gem shop outfit. But you make it seem like there’s more.

http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=1&race=2&w=1&skinID=tartlabi&lang=en

Starter light armor for women features a tiny skirt and a garter (why? Look at the male version and tell me how in the kitten the female version translates to THAT – http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=0&race=2&w=1&skinID=tartlabi&lang=en).

Next armor up is a harem outfit: http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=1&race=2&w=1&skinID=meoi&lang=en. Again, male version isn’t sexualized: http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=0&race=2&w=1&skinID=meoi&lang=en

Low levels without a ton of wardrobe choices, lots of gold, gems, dungeon tokens, and transmute stones are sorta stuck with those two are choices for a lot of early levels.

Or you can have a poofy skirt:

http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=1&race=2&w=1&skinID=gothicli&lang=en.

While men get robes: http://argos-soft.net/GW2/ArmorGallery/index.php?color=10&sex=0&race=2&w=1&skinID=gothicli&lang=en

I’d like a vest without sleeves or with short sleeves. A vest that comes up to neck level with no freaking boobie panel. I’d like fancy, flowing skirts without a mid-drift bare or a boobie window. I do have toons who would dress that way but most? No. No way. Give some low level light armor choices that aren’t skimpy, poofy or meh. The guys get them!

Also – would you prefer a butt window or a stuffed thong as a proper comparison for men? I was trying to stick to something seen as a sexual symbol. A bare chest on a man isn’t seen the same way female breasts are.

“Yes, I get that, But why is sexualizing women’s bodies more than men’s inherently bad?” – because it’s a symptom of a societal ill that’s a lot worse than just skimpy armor in a video game and affects all women every day of their lives. Keeping this thread on topic means we probably shouldn’t go there.

And lastly…. LET FEMALE CHARR HAVE FEMALE ARMOR TOO >:( The one race I’d want skimpy on to show off fur patterns and they’re all covered up like the guys!

Aerlen.5326:

[….]

Links aren’t working. Near as I can tell, Aerlen is refering to the Apprentice, Embroidered, and Cabalist sets, respectively.

Aerlen.5326:

Low levels without a ton of wardrobe choices, lots of gold, gems, dungeon tokens, and transmute stones are sorta stuck with those two are choices for a lot of early levels.

While perhaps not ideal, is there a reason why Devout or Country sets don’t work as alternatives?

Edit: A friend of mine liked the Embroidered set because it reminded her of Princess Jasmine.

Oops forgot the argos links are kind of bad when trying to link specific outfits. But I see which one you meant.

And my point is : there’s not that much stupidly skimpy outfits.
The profane disaster is one of them (one of the very few necro outfit I never bought in GW1, and in GW2 they went one step further to make sure it never reaches my inventory), I find the Embroidered pants to have completely unnecessary holes and the top would look more appealing if it was similar to Jasmine.
The poofy skirt is probably the Masquerade set which does look stupid. It should have been covered.
But in the end, out of 42 sets, you linked 3. At best you could link something like 17. That leaves quite a lot of sets that no one can consider stupidly skimpy. But some of them look stupid nonetheless.
Of course, compared to male sets, that’s infinitely more. But anyone kittening at the amounts of skimpy sets versus non skimpy options needs to realize that their problem doesn’t lie with skimpy vs non skimpy but with how generally bad the renders and some designs are.

A bare chest on a man isn’t the same as exposed breasts. And neither is exposed buttocks. You simply cannot compare them. Bare chests are a sexual symbol.
Type “sexy guy” in goggle search chests, chests, chests.
Except that for some reason, in certain countries, men without a shirt on are just chilling and women without a top are being kittens.

Personally, I don’t give a kitten about either.

I much prefer non-skimpy armor for females because as a female myself, if it is skimpy, it’s NOT armor. I just feel like skimpy armor is like saying “let’s see how much we can sexualize females in a video game” Even if it’s not real, doesn’t make it okay. But that’s just my opinion.

RedStar.4218:

A bare chest on a man isn’t the same as exposed breasts. And neither is exposed buttocks. You simply cannot compare them. Bare chests are a sexual symbol.
Type “sexy guy” in goggle search chests, chests, chests.
Except that for some reason, in certain countries, men without a shirt on are just chilling and women without a top are being kittens.

Personally, I don’t give a kitten about either.

Agreed. The issue here is that women seem to object to sexualization far more than men do.

Jahroots.6791:

Agreed. The issue here is that women seem to object to sexualization far more than men do.

No, the issue here is that there is resistance to challenging norms that have been able to be assumed and naturalized – that women’s bodies ought to be less clothed and that men’s shouldn’t. And when reasons are given, they are attacked using dismissive, insulting, and falsely authoritative (“science says…” “everyone knows…”) language to cover the pervasive bias in favor of a particular perspective. When options are offered, such as examples of attractive scantily clothed men (both in media and RL), they are ridiculed as universally silly or offensive, despite many people commenting on how they like them. When someone indicates a personal preference to not wear revealing women’s clothing, they are ridiculed and their objectivity is called into question (“it’s all in your head” “you have issues”).

There are quite a few women here who are fine with sexualization – they just want equal opportunity sexualization.

Now, to your flawed issue: more men sexualize women’s bodies than vice versa, your point? Maybe that could have something to do with some women (and men) preferring to choose something else and/or to have the same opportunity to enjoy pleasing (male) bodies?

On the first page of the thread, Satharina added up all the skimpy vs. non skimpy armor. (thank you!) For women, it tallies Light: 1/2, Medium 1/7 (altho there are lower cut chestpieces), and Heavy 1/4. For the men, I’d love it if Anet could allow male characters to hide their chestpieces. <g>

I’m pretty certain that this is a fantasy game. Being born in the middle of the previous century I’ve not seen a single dragon, harpy, nor devourer. However, for the Light armor classes of female toons, I’d suggest a Devout garb for total coverage. And for the Heavy classes, Scale, Reinforced Scale, or Guild Defender to avoid those unsightly breast-cups that several have complained about, although they will flatten one right out and there is the issue of the larger derriere. Medium armor wearers should avoid the t-3 Human at all costs, most of the rest of the trenchcoats will do nicely.

Seriously, tho I voted #1 especially concerning the lack of feminine skimpy if you will Medium armor, and would also love to see more love shown to females of the Charr and Asura, as well as to the male toons as far as choices of armor.

Yes, I am a woman, a mother, even a grandmother (gasp), former card-carrying member of NOW, voted for ERA in 72. As I said before, GW2 is a fantasy game, people should not expect realism in such.

I wouldn’t mind some Spartan armor for the guys.

I guess this really isn’t about choices and options after all. Time will tell whether this can be resolved ultimately through education rather than intolerance. I’ll just wish everyone good luck at this point.

RedStar.4218:

A bare chest on a man isn’t the same as exposed breasts. And neither is exposed buttocks. You simply cannot compare them. Bare chests are a sexual symbol.
Type “sexy guy” in goggle search chests, chests, chests.
Except that for some reason, in certain countries, men without a shirt on are just chilling and women without a top are being kittens.

I did! I Googled it! Always happy to take one for the team. On occasions, such as this one, I even enjoy it.

A lot of what I saw wasn’t just the bare chest alone. It was that old Apollo’s Belt I’m always asking to see in GW2 that hints of stuff I probably can’t discuss here. The bare chest is completed with this, and this is why there should be a few pairs of trousers with an actual lower rise so this can be seen. It should work for lady toons too, for those so inclined. I’d actual just redesign the harem pants this way as an optional craftable at level 20, or whatever it is (not throwing the original out, mind). Regardless, it’d be thinking in V.

However, Urban Dictionary just informed me the Belt is also called the Devil’s Shoulders, which for me, explain so, so very much.

videoboy.4162:

I wouldn’t mind some Spartan armor for the guys.

I did this in Age of Conan. Here, have a gander at Sneakytim.

(edit: looks like I hastily misread the quote, but the points are still valid)

Jahroots.6791:

Agreed. The issue here is that women seem to object to sexualization far more than men do.

If you want to solve that “issue”, you will have to write to Ms. Evolution (or Mr. God).

For ages, males have fought over males to prove that they’re the strongest and can provide the best food and the best home for their females and their children.

For ages, women fought against women to prove they have the best physical appearance in terms of child-bearing (including “bigger” and “rounder”) for their males.

Ages have passed, living for pleasure and not self-reproduction became socially acceptable, but hormones still drive males to look for the best females (standards have shifted though just as natural human environment did), and instincts still drive females to look more attractive than the girl next door to get a male who can provide a good “nest” (who can now be smart as opposed to mighty).

So why again is sexualisation of women is an “issue”? It is completely natural. Nature said that women have to be “pretty” to be chosen. Nature said that men have to be “reliable” to be able to protect their children. That’s exactly what we see here.

Yes, the society had some soothing effect now on the facade of this. At the moment, the society is telling us that women can date women, men can date men, and women can wear beards to become TV celebrities. That is also natural, simply because it is able to happen; however, it is natural on a local level, while women dating men and men wearing beards are natural on a global level.

Same goes for armour designs and what not: yes, FF designs are okay on a local game level and men in frills are okay on a local theater level, but women showing skin to seduce men is still more natural on a global level then men showing skin to seduce anyone simply because nature designed us that way.

And that “gender inequality” will be present until science finds a way to fully remove all hormone effects and make all genders equal to the extent of men bearing children and no one being able to tell the genders apart in the first place. Which I hope never happens, because, you know, humanity will fall apart when there are no more social roles to play.

This thread is starting to topple again :P

In a world where magic exists and where a Full plate has the same Armor Class as the Gladiator armor, what outfit would you have chosen yourself? Do you like skimpy? Well you choose skimpy. Do you like Full Plate? Well you choose full plate.
If me and my Girldfriend would live in the Guild Wars world and have the perfect bodies as the heroes does we would choosen the skimpy looks. In real life I would go shirtless or atleast barechest in the summer if I had a tad better figure becouse I realy like that look. My girlfriend had a miniskirt highheel kneeboots and a nice shirt that showed her shoulders on her yesterday. Sure we where out having dinner but in a world where you could fight/walk long distances/Run/not freeze/Not sweat/ or without any other penalties, I think many more would have walked around in clothes like that in the real world.

Lishtenbird.2814:

(edit: looks like I hastily misread the quote, but the points are still valid)

Jahroots.6791:

Agreed. The issue here is that women seem to object to sexualization far more than men do.

If you want to solve that “issue”, you will have to write to Ms. Evolution (or Mr. God).

For ages, males have fought over males to prove that they’re the strongest and can provide the best food and the best home for their females and their children.

For ages, women fought against women to prove they have the best physical appearance in terms of child-bearing (including “bigger” and “rounder”) for their males.

Flag on the play: Appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) and excessive use of evolutionary psychology for false authority.

Bonobos, our closest relatives, have matriarchal societies and freely engage in sexual activity in all combinations for social bonding. Yet monogamy and sexual restriction of women is advocated in many of our cultures.

Most animals have male displays that are beautiful, aesthetic, and probably “sexy” to the observing females, who get to scrutinize and choose (see: blue-footed boobies), but humans unnaturally turned it around.

“Natural” as an argument especially falls flat when thrown about by people playing computer games.

The arguments against inclusion of revealing styles for males boil down to the following flawed arguments, and I’m going to sum them up here because I’m tired of them being brought up in ways that really come across as condescending and shaming:

1) it’s unnatural
Wrong - many cultures would have revealing male styles and “nature” has lots of examples of male displays of body – tails, horns, coloration, feet, dances.

2) it’s a waste of resources
Denied - we shouldn’t waste resources making more skimpy female styles when there are gameplay issues people regularly wish were fixed and more desire for real play content).

3) no one would want it
Empirically denied - look at the comments in this thread to see all the people who would be excited about them AND those not personally interested but who feel it is fair.

4) it’s gross/weird
For some individuals in their particular tastes it is, but a universal claim cannot be made about that, any more than that female bodies are sexually appealing – there are lots of straight women and gay men who don’t find female bodies sexually attractive.

5) you can’t use “feminine” stuff on men – i.e. lace, heels, stockings, ruffles, silk
Empirically denied - European history alone is chock full of this, and many of the historical periods used for “traditional fantasy settings” drawn from times when these were considered proper ornamentation/styles for men. Expand to all of world culture, and you have nearly infinite possibilities.

6) games shouldn’t be vehicles of social change
Empirically denied - media change us as much as we change media, and gaming in particular drives computer technology, social practices, and cognitive evolution in people. Every time a design choice is made in a game, it has social impacts. ArenaNet and Bioware are two specific examples of game companies who recognize this and enact it through their products)

I have similar rebuttals against the straw (wo)man argument against individuals who prefer not to use revealing female attire on their toons, but those go into more gender theory than some would care for. I’ll just leave it that individuals have a right to say, “I’m personally uncomfortable with X, and so I’ll opt out of using it” and as long as they’re not trying to get rid of those options for others, I have no problem with it. Why everyone can’t follow that, I don’t know.