Guild Wars 2

maha.7902:

Phoenix, profane, aurora, apprentice and inquest aren’t even skimpy either, that’s honestly just clutching at straws. Cleavage =/= skimpy

I was leaving the book wide open, for deffinite and indeffinite definitions, as various people see skimpy or revealing in different ways. If I want a solid arguement that everyone will concede to, then I must lable anything that MAY be concidered skimpy, as such. The main complaint about being skimpy is that the armor bears too much flesh, and thus no longer protects you, in this regard, I listed all armor that greatly shows flesh, even if that flesh is only their arms and legs(aurora), which leaves a big weakness zone.

Well, not that I mind, skimpy armor is my favorite ;3

OtakuModeEngage.8679:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Human_female_light_armor

Human Female Light Armor “Skimpy” (16 sets)
~Inquest
~Sorcerers
~Embroidered
~Masquerade
~Winged
~Feathered
~Apprentice
~Conjuer
~Primative
~Aurora (only because its sleeveless)
~Diviner
~Tribal
~Profane
~Pheonix
~Flamekissed
~Incarnate

Human Female Light Armor “Well Covered” (29 sets)
~Ascalonian Performer
~Council Ministry
~Nightmare court (90%)
~Forgeman
~Flame Legion
~Armor of Koda (75%) -makes up for what it lacks in covering by heavily plating its pieces
~Armor of the linch (95%)
~Priory Historical
~Whispers Secret (95%)
~Vigils Honor (90%)
~Researchers
~Aristocrats (95%)
~Devout
~Student (90%)
~Drybones (95%)
~Acolyte
~Exalted (95%)
~Illustrious
~Country (95%)
~Magician
~Cabalist
~Seer
~Stately (95%)
~Apostle
~Guild Archmage
~Heritage (95%)
~Aetherblade
~Trickster
~zodiaco

I went ahead and composed a list of “skimpy” and “well covered” human female light armor, to show you guys, that there is far more coverage than you think. Note, that how “reinforced” an armor is, which refers to metal plating, is not a factor, as both male and female armors are ill equipt with plating -as, that is afterall, the point of light armor (for the cloth to be magically infused/woven, and protected by magic rather than steel). Also note that the feminine shape of the armor is likewise not a factor, as armor made for women, obviously must be tailored to their bodies; ie: breast room…

i only count 13 skimpy armor, showing skin doesn’t mean skimpy

Ok, I feel the need to post input on this.

Most of my characters are male with a couple of females for variety. With regard to revealing armor, I feel games should treat both genders fairly.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that males wear female armor, but that they can all have equally revealing styles. A loin cloth with straps, boots and bracers, helmet and chest harness (think Roman style barbarian) on a male can be just as interesting as a plate-mail bikini on a female character.

When I think of all that wonderful Charr fur and Norn tattoos that are always hidden, I’m saddened.

The closest chest piece I’ve found for my male asura is a Scallywag (heavy) chest piece. I mixed and matched a few of the set pieces and others for a half decent Mad Max style outfit suitable for desert adventuring.

GamerOnline.3650:

Ok, I feel the need to post input on this.

Most of my characters are male with a couple of females for variety. With regard to revealing armor, I feel games should treat both genders fairly.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that males wear female armor, but that they can all have equally revealing styles. A loin cloth with straps, boots and bracers, helmet and chest harness (think Roman style barbarian) on a male can be just as interesting as a plate-mail bikini on a female character.

When I think of all that wonderful Charr fur and Norn tattoos that are always hidden, I’m saddened.

The closest chest piece I’ve found for my male asura is a Scallywag (heavy) chest piece. I mixed and matched a few of the set pieces and others for a half decent Mad Max style outfit suitable for desert adventuring.

I am all for skimpy male clothes

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

But I was using it more or less as an example that women in the real world, and not in the game, wear clothing that is extremely revealing and thus it confuses me sometimes why when it’s in a video game it’s suddenly offensive?

I was trying to keep my gender out of this but if I just say “agreed” it doesn’t have the oomph that it does without my gender attached

As a woman I actually get really upset when someone insinuates that a woman ought not to dress in a sexy or revealing way because I firmly think that I should have the choice to wear what I want (within limits, of course. I’m not going to be wearing that skimpy clubbing dress to my day job anytime soon!) without any stigma attached. I take offense to the idea that revealing armors in any game are only titillation because I as a woman like to dress up in and out of game.

TL;DR Let’s design outfits that appeal to everyone. Skimpy and non-skimpy for the guys, and skimpy and non-skimpy for the girls too

ThiBash.5634:

Then again, given that Anet had the guts to add a lesbian couple to the game, I’m still waiting for them to have the guts to openly sexualize a male character by giving them skimpy outfits.

Are you kidding me? Anet is openly ridiculing same sex couples with the harmful, stereotypical gay couple that have absolutely no personality outside being gay and force their sexual orientation in your face as much as they can in their dialogue. I guess people are so desperate for seeing a homosexual couple in video game that they let it pass but applauding them for it is really pushing it. I am all for having all sorts of couples and relationships but enforcing stereotypes is not something that should be applauded or looked up to

As for the skimpy male armor, sure, why not – as long as we get both skimpy and non-skimpy versions for both asura & charr genders

sorudo.9054:

i only count 13 skimpy armor, showing skin doesn’t mean skimpy

I addressed this 2 post above yours

cakesphere.5910:

GamerOnline.3650:

Ok, I feel the need to post input on this.

Most of my characters are male with a couple of females for variety. With regard to revealing armor, I feel games should treat both genders fairly.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that males wear female armor, but that they can all have equally revealing styles. A loin cloth with straps, boots and bracers, helmet and chest harness (think Roman style barbarian) on a male can be just as interesting as a plate-mail bikini on a female character.

When I think of all that wonderful Charr fur and Norn tattoos that are always hidden, I’m saddened.

The closest chest piece I’ve found for my male asura is a Scallywag (heavy) chest piece. I mixed and matched a few of the set pieces and others for a half decent Mad Max style outfit suitable for desert adventuring.

I am all for skimpy male clothes

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

But I was using it more or less as an example that women in the real world, and not in the game, wear clothing that is extremely revealing and thus it confuses me sometimes why when it’s in a video game it’s suddenly offensive?

I was trying to keep my gender out of this but if I just say “agreed” it doesn’t have the oomph that it does without my gender attached

As a woman I actually get really upset when someone insinuates that a woman ought not to dress in a sexy or revealing way because I firmly think that I should have the choice to wear what I want (within limits, of course. I’m not going to be wearing that skimpy clubbing dress to my day job anytime soon!) without any stigma attached. I take offense to the idea that revealing armors in any game are only titillation because I as a woman like to dress up in and out of game.

TL;DR Let’s design outfits that appeal to everyone. Skimpy and non-skimpy for the guys, and skimpy and non-skimpy for the girls too

I agree very much. And in no way am I insinuating that women should not be able to dress how they please. In fact, I am a firm believer in responsibility over one’s own eyes. Eg. just because someone is dressed in a revealing outfit, does not mean you need to be staring at their cleavage or eyeballing their testicles. If they want to dress that way you cannot blame them for where your eyes take you, since they have no control over where your eyes look.
Again, all I’m saying is that when people get all uptight about ingame stereotypes and oversexualization (not a word) I just have to wonder why they don’t put that kind of passion in to something that actually matters… Such as not allowing your 15 year old daughter to wear shorts that are so short the pockets hang lower than the shorts themselves.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

I agree very much. And in no way am I insinuating that women should not be able to dress how they please. In fact, I am a firm believer in responsibility over one’s own eyes. Eg. just because someone is dressed in a revealing outfit, does not mean you need to be staring at their cleavage or eyeballing their testicles. If they want to dress that way you cannot blame them for where your eyes take you, since they have no control over where your eyes look.

What a farce. I’m sorry, but while I agree that women have a right to wear whatever they want; if you’re going to wear next to nothing, you should expect men to stare, because there is no way they wont. There is a certain responsibility that comes with an attire; if your attire exposes your body in a sexual manor, then you are creating a sexual connotation with that attire, and as such, are allowing -if not asking- for a sexual response. Its not a debate, its how the human mind and hormones are programmed to work.

…on the other hand, the more something is exposed and made readily available, the less people desire it. For example, when Daisy Dukes were first introduced, men were obsessed over seeing women wear them, but now that such short-cut clothes is common place, we are far less drawn to them. Still attractive yes, but as we see it everyday, its nothing to stare at or hunger for. Similarly, European countries that have far more lenient policies on nudity have far less sex crimes, because desires are made readily available rather than being denied and pent up. To this ends, if society changed its laws so that everyone was allowed to go around naked, being naked wouldn’t be such a big deal.

IE; a pervert with a fetish of stripping people down, could no longer strip people down. Or even if he found someone currently clothed, the fetish would lose its kicks, as most people are naked anyways.

Though, in that same regard, it would devalue how special it is to be naked with a lover… as if you do with everyone, it no longer means anything to do it with that person. Everything in moderation is a must. Well, we are moving far off topic with this argument.

OtakuModeEngage.8679:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Human_female_light_armor

Human Female Light Armor “Skimpy” (16 sets)
~Inquest
~Sorcerers
~Embroidered
~Masquerade
~Winged
~Feathered
~Apprentice
~Conjuer
~Primative
~Aurora (only because its sleeveless)
~Diviner
~Tribal
~Profane
~Pheonix
~Flamekissed
~Incarnate

Human Female Light Armor “Well Covered” (29 sets)
~Ascalonian Performer
~Council Ministry
~Nightmare court (90%)
~Forgeman
~Flame Legion
~Armor of Koda (75%) -makes up for what it lacks in covering by heavily plating its pieces
~Armor of the linch (95%)
~Priory Historical
~Whispers Secret (95%)
~Vigils Honor (90%)
~Researchers
~Aristocrats (95%)
~Devout
~Student (90%)
~Drybones (95%)
~Acolyte
~Exalted (95%)
~Illustrious
~Country (95%)
~Magician
~Cabalist
~Seer
~Stately (95%)
~Apostle
~Guild Archmage
~Heritage (95%)
~Aetherblade
~Trickster
~zodiaco

I went ahead and composed a list of “skimpy” and “well covered” human female light armor, to show you guys, that there is far more coverage than you think. Note, that how “reinforced” an armor is, which refers to metal plating, is not a factor, as both male and female armors are ill equipt with plating -as, that is afterall, the point of light armor (for the cloth to be magically infused/woven, and protected by magic rather than steel). Also note that the feminine shape of the armor is likewise not a factor, as armor made for women, obviously must be tailored to their bodies; ie: breast room…

Don’t Bother. The people on this forum don’t like facts.

DarksunG.9537:

Don’t Bother. The people on this forum don’t like facts.

Actually, the thread experienced a fairly decent turn around following that post.

My take on this issue is very simple: Armor theme should be consistent between all races and gender.

If a set of armor is supposed to be a bulk body-covering armor, it should be a bulk body-covering armor for male and female. Good example: Heavy Plate Armor

If a set is supposed to look skimpy, it should be skimpy for male and female. Good example: Tribal Armor

The only way to go wrong is if an armor set have a theme under one situation, and another theme under a different situation (being the most common case: Male bulky, Female skimpy). The Norn Wolf Armor is a good example of lack of theme. While the female armor is showing a lot of skin, the male armor is literally covered from head to toe.

It can even work with the mix-and-match armor style we have. If an armor set have a big oversized shoulder pad, it should maintain that big oversized shoulder pad in both genders and in all five races. So that way if we are skimming through the gem store or the TP, looking for skins in a character, we shouldn’t be surprised when that same skin is vastly different when we switch to another character.

Nibelung.1407:

My take on this issue is very simple: Armor theme should be consistent between all races and gender.

If a set of armor is supposed to be a bulk body-covering armor, it should be a bulk body-covering armor for male and female. Good example: Heavy Plate Armor

If a set is supposed to look skimpy, it should be skimpy for male and female. Good example: Tribal Armor

The only way to go wrong is if an armor set have a theme under one situation, and another theme under a different situation (being the most common case: Male bulky, Female skimpy). The Norn Wolf Armor is a good example of lack of theme. While the female armor is showing a lot of skin, the male armor is literally covered from head to toe.

It can even work with the mix-and-match armor style we have. If an armor set have a big oversized shoulder pad, it should maintain that big oversized shoulder pad in both genders and in all five races. So that way if we are skimming through the gem store or the TP, looking for skins in a character, we shouldn’t be surprised when that same skin is vastly different when we switch to another character.

^ This.

I think that’s what causes the complaints, unequal skimpyness within each male/female armor set. If it’s complete coverage for male, then don’t have the female wearing a mini skirt. Make the armor themed. Skimpy or covered for both.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

So the answer is no, then? If we’re discussing the practicality of the Arah heavy armor on a human female, it’s appearance is intimidating and also sexy, but not practical because it’s purpose is to be functional, so it is only filling a secondary desire.

How does it not serve its intended function ? Are its stats lower ?

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

And since we’re also talking about allowing males and females to wear both variations of the armors (male with the option to wear female, female with the option to wear male) I think that means you’re missing the point and only trying to disprove something I’ve said by ignoring the subject that’s actually at hand.
Regardless, you are right and I agree. But I was using it more or less as an example that women in the real world, and not in the game, wear clothing that is extremely revealing and thus it confuses me sometimes why when it’s in a video game it’s suddenly offensive?

I’ve commented, made a suggestion in fact, on the subject at hand. The reality is that it does not seem likely to be cost effective to add more skin choices to existing armor sets. Similarly, doing so would increase production costs of future armor sets. In order to maintain similar levels of ROI this would require higher price points on future armor sets. I am not convinced that raising prices is what GW2 needs to do with its gemstore armor sets. What seems like a better option, in my opinion, is to design different general styles for different skins for future releases. Don’t like how the newest set looks for one’s character ? Then wait for the next. Not every set is meant to be appealing to every player or a good fit for every character.

Nibelung.1407:

My take on this issue is very simple: Armor theme should be consistent between all races and gender.

If a set of armor is supposed to be a bulk body-covering armor, it should be a bulk body-covering armor for male and female. Good example: Heavy Plate Armor

If a set is supposed to look skimpy, it should be skimpy for male and female. Good example: Tribal Armor

The only way to go wrong is if an armor set have a theme under one situation, and another theme under a different situation (being the most common case: Male bulky, Female skimpy). The Norn Wolf Armor is a good example of lack of theme. While the female armor is showing a lot of skin, the male armor is literally covered from head to toe.

It can even work with the mix-and-match armor style we have. If an armor set have a big oversized shoulder pad, it should maintain that big oversized shoulder pad in both genders and in all five races. So that way if we are skimming through the gem store or the TP, looking for skins in a character, we shouldn’t be surprised when that same skin is vastly different when we switch to another character.

Good point.

One day there will be a fantasy game that does something no fantasy or game has ever done yet- make no skimpy non sexualized female characters. But then people will complain about the game being too prude or something else that’s stupid.

SnowHawk.3615:

One day there will be a fantasy game that does something no fantasy or game has ever done yet- make no skimpy non sexualized female characters. But then people will complain about the game being too prude or something else that’s stupid.

Well, sounds a bit boring. Like WOW WotlK amors or something. That was fun… in BC the trend was the clown style… in WotlK they fixed it making all boring and gray.

Why can’t sexualize both genders?

“Oh no, feminine armour is feminine!”

How ridiculous this complaining is.