Guild Wars 2

Back during the Scarlett LS the big hubbub was regarding this stretching animation being done during the scene where Kasmeer was talking to Marjory about her sister being dead. THAT was certainly inappropriate. I also, personally, don’t like ALL of the sexualization of my characters in GW2. My characters are warriors or adventurers and I think its silly for them to perform certain animations.

IMO, they should have 2 different sets of female animations: sexy / girly animations vs more athletic / adventurer animations. And people should be able to toggle the animations they prefer for their characters. To be fair, they could have two for males also

If they did that, the devs could choose the idle animations for their NPCs also. Sexy women in town could have the sexy animations, warrior women and the NPCs we interact with in serious circumstances could have the others.

As i recall this was meant to be a “living, breathing world” and such small things make it “living and breathing” so it would be nice if the bug would be fixed asap.

Sexuality is part of being human, and our human female characters are supposed to be simulated humans. Attempts to de-sexualise them are misogynistic.

What some people seem to be missing is the simple fact that a woman stretching is not a sex act. Its not even suggestive of sex.

Djinn.9245:

Back during the Scarlett LS the big hubbub was regarding this stretching animation being done during the scene where Kasmeer was talking to Marjory about her sister being dead. THAT was certainly inappropriate. I also, personally, don’t like ALL of the sexualization of my characters in GW2. My characters are warriors or adventurers and I think its silly for them to perform certain animations.

IMO, they should have 2 different sets of female animations: sexy / girly animations vs more athletic / adventurer animations. And people should be able to toggle the animations they prefer for their characters. To be fair, they could have two for males also

If they did that, the devs could choose the idle animations for their NPCs also. Sexy women in town could have the sexy animations, warrior women and the NPCs we interact with in serious circumstances could have the others.

So adventurers and warriors do not stretch… Also, what’s up with this sexualization thing? If men are displayed as strong, muscular and powerful is that not the same kind of sexualization? Why not have stick figures run around and poke each other with Twilight or Bolt to be 100% politically correct and don’t give teenagers the wrong idea about human beings having sex. Ever. Since that would totally ruin them for life.

Neko Dudley.2495:

Sexuality is part of being human, and our human female characters are supposed to be simulated humans. Attempts to de-sexualise them are misogynistic.

What some people seem to be missing is the simple fact that a woman stretching is not a sex act. Its not even suggestive of sex.

“Sexuality” does not mean “behaving in a sexy manner”. Do you think a female police person should be stretching and sticking her boobs out while she’s talking to a perp? That’s the equivalent of what is going on in the game with NPCs and, in my POV, with my adventuring characters. Taking away a sexualized stretch is not misogynistic.

But if people really want those animations back, give me a choice to have non-sexy animations for my warriors and adventurers.

kolompi.1287:

Djinn.9245:

Back during the Scarlett LS the big hubbub was regarding this stretching animation being done during the scene where Kasmeer was talking to Marjory about her sister being dead. THAT was certainly inappropriate. I also, personally, don’t like ALL of the sexualization of my characters in GW2. My characters are warriors or adventurers and I think its silly for them to perform certain animations.

IMO, they should have 2 different sets of female animations: sexy / girly animations vs more athletic / adventurer animations. And people should be able to toggle the animations they prefer for their characters. To be fair, they could have two for males also

If they did that, the devs could choose the idle animations for their NPCs also. Sexy women in town could have the sexy animations, warrior women and the NPCs we interact with in serious circumstances could have the others.

So adventurers and warriors do not stretch… Also, what’s up with this sexualization thing? If men are displayed as strong, muscular and powerful is that not the same kind of sexualization? Why not have stick figures run around and poke each other with Twilight or Bolt to be 100% politically correct and don’t give teenagers the wrong idea about human beings having sex. Ever. Since that would totally ruin them for life.

I specifically stated this was my opinion for my characters. Some of you want your female characters to stretch while sticking their boobs out, why can’t I ask that my characters NOT behave in this manner?

Yeah there is a type of people who would complain about all that sort of things. But thats not a good reason to remove it and you should never have a person like that making such decisions in your company.

Djinn.9245:

Neko Dudley.2495:

Sexuality is part of being human, and our human female characters are supposed to be simulated humans. Attempts to de-sexualise them are misogynistic.

What some people seem to be missing is the simple fact that a woman stretching is not a sex act. Its not even suggestive of sex.

“Sexuality” does not mean “behaving in a sexy manner”. Do you think a female police person should be stretching and sticking her boobs out while she’s talking to a perp? That’s the equivalent of what is going on in the game with NPCs and, in my POV, with my adventuring characters. Taking away a sexualized stretch is not misogynistic.

But if people really want those animations back, give me a choice to have non-sexy animations for my warriors and adventurers.

That attitude is misogynistic because you are assuming it is sexualized when it is not. You are obsessing about boobs, so you see it as something that is not there. Taking away a natural gesture dehumanizes the female character. That is as misogynistic as it gets. Women stretch, they have breasts which can’t go away just because they offend people who want to suppress female sexuality. And in regards to your silly straw man, a female cop who is standing around doing nothing should be able to stretch if she feels like it, without fear of punishment.

Stop with the a-priori conclusions that female sexuality is a bad thing or that sex is a bad thing for women. Gender dimorphism is not bad, it is a natural phenomenon. It is the natural state of being, and inescapable. Learn to accept it. Or, rage pointlessly against nature and be angry for the rest of your life.

kolompi.1287:

If men are displayed as strong, muscular and powerful is that not the same kind of sexualization?

Strong, muscular men are a male power fantasy and not a female sexual fantasy. The problem here is that appearantly female characters are allowed to be anything, IF they are also “beautiful”, “feminine” and “sexy”, while male characters are not expected to be anything like that. They can just be powerful, strong, etc.
Already most of the female armor in the game is vastly dfferent from the same male armor in that it fulfills certain male fantasies, but even if I put on other armor, my characters are still animated to fulfill the forementioned requirement for females.
It’s not that everyone is asexual that’s the issue, the issue is if females can be anything but sexual. We are actual persons and don’t exist to serve male fantasies and needs. And so should my character.

“Strong, muscular men are a male power fantasy and not a female sexual fantasy.” – Really? So women generally want weak and unimpressive men?

Besides, when did it become standard that only men fantasize about women but women don’t fantasize about men? How does that even work? Is that not unfair and sexist towards men?

“Most” female armor does not serve any fantasies anyway as a bigger percentage is quite decent, unrevealing. Now nobody uses it but that’s another thing.

phoenix.3465:

kolompi.1287:

If men are displayed as strong, muscular and powerful is that not the same kind of sexualization?

Strong, muscular men are a male power fantasy and not a female sexual fantasy. The problem here is that appearantly female characters are allowed to be anything, IF they are also “beautiful”, “feminine” and “sexy”, while male characters are not expected to be anything like that. They can just be powerful, strong, etc.
Already most of the female armor in the game is vastly dfferent from the same male armor in that it fulfills certain male fantasies, but even if I put on other armor, my characters are still animated to fulfill the forementioned requirement for females.
It’s not that everyone is asexual that’s the issue, the issue is if females can be anything but sexual. We are actual persons and don’t exist to serve male fantasies and needs. And so should my character.

So now ugly women don’t stretch?
If female characters can’t stretch because men might like it (and anything that appeals to them is apparently unacceptable), than Charr can’t rawr cos it turns me on.

Hey, it’s not just the stretching that’s gone (left picture). We also lost the hands-on-hips, kicking the dirt animation (right picture). Is that too sexy/girly for you? I want ’em both back.

“Games are like paintings, was Leonardo da Vinci told that he wasn’t allowed to paint the Mona Lisa, no.” – me

I guess I’m one of the few in the minority that prefers the more subtle animations, even as a straight male.

I’ll quote myself about the running animation change as well. It managed quite a bit of upvotes.

DeceiverX.8361:

It wasn’t feminine before. It was over-exaggerated cutesy bordering on pathetic schoolgirl.

Women, or, rather, female characters, should be entitled to act in whatever way they please. That said, this doesn’t justify making an idle animation into something that can even be disputed as inherently more sexualized than a male’s. I’d actually be fine with both genders sharing a neutral idle animation pool. And that’s precisely the thing; we’re talking about an idle animation – something that has a default and cannot be changed. It’s therefore better to stick with the neutral animation. So what if players want to make their female characters look sexy? That’s what on-demand emotes are for. If you care to look sexy at a given time, you should be in control of that, but that doesn’t justify forcing players into having their characters to natively behave in such a way based upon their sexuality.

DeceiverX.8361:

I guess I’m one of the few in the minority that prefers the more subtle animations, even as a straight male.

I’ll quote myself about the running animation change as well. It managed quite a bit of upvotes.

DeceiverX.8361:

It wasn’t feminine before. It was over-exaggerated cutesy bordering on pathetic schoolgirl.

Women, or, rather, female characters, should be entitled to act in whatever way they please. That said, this doesn’t justify making an idle animation into something that can even be disputed as inherently more sexualized than a male’s. I’d actually be fine with both genders sharing a neutral idle animation pool. And that’s precisely the thing; we’re talking about an idle animation – something that has a default and cannot be changed. It’s therefore better to stick with the neutral animation. So what if players want to make their female characters look sexy? That’s what on-demand emotes are for. If you care to look sexy at a given time, you should be in control of that, but that doesn’t justify forcing players into having their characters to natively behave in such a way based upon their sexality.

You know, for all the criticism this game gets, it must be in a pretty good place if people are taking the time to write such detailed arguments about the sexuality of idle animations.

THANK YOU, 15 CHARACTERS!

Personally, (and I’m pretty sure others have suggested this before as well, but what the hell) I think it’d be great if animations would be a part of the character customization, as a tab alongside outfits, dyes, finishers and the like. Ability to disable idle animations you don’t like, choosing a running animation of your preference, adding new animation packages to gem store – stuff like that.

Thanks for the update, Gaile.

Thank you so much Gaile, I knew there had to be reason thank you for being so open about the problem.

{hugs}

Thank you for the update! Hopefully these can be readded in sooner rather than later…

I’m just surprised the animations got changed in the first place on what was seemingly the whims of a minority. Even for forum standards. It seems to me it’s caused more of an issue than what it has fixed, but yeah. It’s definitely negatively impacted my general experience, if not perception of the company (once again) also.

Tuomir.1830:

Personally, (and I’m pretty sure others have suggested this before as well, but what the hell) I think it’d be great if animations would be a part of the character customization, as a tab alongside outfits, dyes, finishers and the like. Ability to disable idle animations you don’t like, choosing a running animation of your preference, adding new animation packages to gem store – stuff like that.

I completely agree this would take the customization of this game to a whole other level. And I’m sure a lot of people would like to customize their idle stance or run animations the world would look a lot more alive.

Thanks for the update, Gaile.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Soooo sorry! I asked about this and forgot to post!

Some time ago, it was noticed and reported as a “bug” that during cinematics, the “fidget” animations continued. So you’re seeing this exciting story bit about a dragon attack and, behind the scenes, your character is yawning and toeing the sand. It just didn’t fit.

So the animations were temporarily removed to be worked on and reincorporated in a way that allowed them to perform normally in the game but to stop (or maybe change) during cinematics. But getting to a place where the animations could be configured on a more fine-grained basis took more time than anticipated.

From what I understand, the team has the tools to reconfigure and re-enable the animations, but the team lead told me that naturally they’ll need to figure out when someone (or maybe more than one person) can be assigned the task. As it turns out, each animation bit needs to be reconfigured individually.

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

Clear communications. All we were asking for. Thanks.

Neko Dudley.2495:

Djinn.9245:

Neko Dudley.2495:

Sexuality is part of being human, and our human female characters are supposed to be simulated humans. Attempts to de-sexualise them are misogynistic.

What some people seem to be missing is the simple fact that a woman stretching is not a sex act. Its not even suggestive of sex.

“Sexuality” does not mean “behaving in a sexy manner”. Do you think a female police person should be stretching and sticking her boobs out while she’s talking to a perp? That’s the equivalent of what is going on in the game with NPCs and, in my POV, with my adventuring characters. Taking away a sexualized stretch is not misogynistic.

But if people really want those animations back, give me a choice to have non-sexy animations for my warriors and adventurers.

That attitude is misogynistic because you are assuming it is sexualized when it is not. You are obsessing about boobs, so you see it as something that is not there. Taking away a natural gesture dehumanizes the female character. That is as misogynistic as it gets. Women stretch, they have breasts which can’t go away just because they offend people who want to suppress female sexuality. And in regards to your silly straw man, a female cop who is standing around doing nothing should be able to stretch if she feels like it, without fear of punishment.

Stop with the a-priori conclusions that female sexuality is a bad thing or that sex is a bad thing for women. Gender dimorphism is not bad, it is a natural phenomenon. It is the natural state of being, and inescapable. Learn to accept it. Or, rage pointlessly against nature and be angry for the rest of your life.

Lol, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m female and I don’t stretch like that (unless I’m trying to attract a certain kind of attention…). And I didn’t say anything about punishment, or female sexuality being bad – don’t put words in my mouth.

And I don’t know why you are bringing actual sex into this discussion.

The point I’m making is that, as a female, I don’t like my female characters which are adventurers and warriors being portrayed in a sexual manner. I don’t care if other people do want it, that’s fine. I’m speaking for myself and I think I should have a choice.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Soooo sorry! I asked about this and forgot to post!

Some time ago, it was noticed and reported as a “bug” that during cinematics, the “fidget” animations continued. So you’re seeing this exciting story bit about a dragon attack and, behind the scenes, your character is yawning and toeing the sand. It just didn’t fit.

So the animations were temporarily removed to be worked on and reincorporated in a way that allowed them to perform normally in the game but to stop (or maybe change) during cinematics. But getting to a place where the animations could be configured on a more fine-grained basis took more time than anticipated.

From what I understand, the team has the tools to reconfigure and re-enable the animations, but the team lead told me that naturally they’ll need to figure out when someone (or maybe more than one person) can be assigned the task. As it turns out, each animation bit needs to be reconfigured individually.

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

Bam! Twice in a row! Did they finally snap the tether?

Thank you Gaile for letting us know.

But I, and many others, feel that these should not have been removed :/
And while I don’t pretend to know a lot about animations, I am curious as to why they have to be completely redone instead of ‘turned off’ in specific situations.

Thank you, Gaile!

Here’s hoping they are brought back in their original forms and not watered-down versions. And as the poster above said, why have them redone? The change came from nowhere and with no explanation. Where was the uproar about the animations leading up to their removal?

Djinn.9245:

The point I’m making is that, as a female, I don’t like my female characters which are adventurers and warriors being portrayed in a sexual manner. I don’t care if other people do want it, that’s fine. I’m speaking for myself and I think I should have a choice.

Tongue in cheek humor, you do know how the male mind works don’t you ?

I dunno about you guys, but I see idle female characters in Lion’s Arch, far more than I see them in the background of an exciting dragon sequence. Strikes me as an odd reason to allocate resources to removing the animations than requiring them to be reinstated in the first place.

let’s take away all instances of where the animation fits, in exchange for removing it where it doesn’t… err…

Yea, rather weird decision. Especially considering that said cut scenes overall are of very low quality anyway (very raw and clunky in every aspect except voice acting), the character with some inappropriate animation in background is like a very minor issue there.

Thanks Gaile for taking the time and effort and ask the animation team lead about this. I’ve serious problems processing the answer though.

• Almost every patch that came out introduced some bug (sometimes more bugs) that were so serious that people were wondering how this could slip by the gametesters or QA.
• The mesmer community (i main a mesmer) had a list of 40+ bugs out of which some 20 were actually gamebreaking in the way that skills did not activate, phantasms were “kicking dirt” instead of attacking, etc…. but it has been prioritized as not so important, instead we got some tooltip fixes (still important but more important than skills not working?)
• Is the “bug” about the character yawning in the background REALLY that bad that it had to be removed?
• How much time does an average human female spend in a LS2 cinematic and how much in town, waiting for world bosses, trading, and so on being idle?
• If this has already been prioritized kitten insanely important that it just HAD to be removed so as not to break the cinematics, why does it have to be evaluated again and prioritized again? Isn’t it already established that it’s very important?

I don’t know why but i am still hoping it will be fixed and soon (not Soon™ but actually soon). Until then i have to say, i’m very disappointed with this whole approach, and i guess the adventurers and warriors can be happy about having their “look to the side, repeat, repeat, repeat” not-sexualized, politically correct, teen-approved idling.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Soooo sorry! I asked about this and forgot to post!

Some time ago, it was noticed and reported as a “bug” that during cinematics, the “fidget” animations continued. So you’re seeing this exciting story bit about a dragon attack and, behind the scenes, your character is yawning and toeing the sand. It just didn’t fit.

So the animations were temporarily removed to be worked on and reincorporated in a way that allowed them to perform normally in the game but to stop (or maybe change) during cinematics. But getting to a place where the animations could be configured on a more fine-grained basis took more time than anticipated.

From what I understand, the team has the tools to reconfigure and re-enable the animations, but the team lead told me that naturally they’ll need to figure out when someone (or maybe more than one person) can be assigned the task. As it turns out, each animation bit needs to be reconfigured individually.

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

Not to stir the bucket, but are you saying ONLY the female human animations were conflicting with the cutscenes or that they were the only ones that seemed “out of place”?

I’m not trying to disbelieve what you are stating, but the fact that ONLY the female human animations are “removed” makes it difficult to grasp (unless it’s the “out of place” issue..which I guess I can follow…sort of).

kolompi.1287:

Thanks Gaile for taking the time and effort and ask the animation team lead about this. I’ve serious problems processing the answer though.

• Almost every patch that came out introduced some bug (sometimes more bugs) that were so serious that people were wondering how this could slip by the gametesters or QA.
• The mesmer community (i main a mesmer) had a list of 40+ bugs out of which some 20 were actually gamebreaking in the way that skills did not activate, phantasms were “kicking dirt” instead of attacking, etc…. but it has been prioritized as not so important, instead we got some tooltip fixes (still important but more important than skills not working?)
• Is the “bug” about the character yawning in the background REALLY that bad that it had to be removed?
• How much time does an average human female spend in a LS2 cinematic and how much in town, waiting for world bosses, trading, and so on being idle?
• If this has already been prioritized kitten insanely important that it just HAD to be removed so as not to break the cinematics, why does it have to be evaluated again and prioritized again? Isn’t it already established that it’s very important?

I don’t know why but i am still hoping it will be fixed and soon (not Soon™ but actually soon). Until then i have to say, i’m very disappointed with this whole approach, and i guess the adventurers and warriors can be happy about having their “look to the side, repeat, repeat, repeat” not-sexualized, politically correct, teen-approved idling.

It’s all because A-Net is very good at removing old, but not at adding new content.

I spend mere seconds in cinematics. Sometimes not even long enough to see the removed animations play out or at least notice them. I spend a lot more time waiting for events to spawn and so on. If it was so important to remove the animations then it’s equally or perhaps more important to get them back in there, but so far it has been almost 2 full months since they were removed.

This also doesn’t explain why the running animation was changed a year ago (and the sitting animation where she moved her finger on her thigh, which was removed).

It may be partly because of cinematic “immersion” but I believe there is an underlying pathological reason for all these animation changes/removals on Human female in particular, and that above all bothers me the most.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Soooo sorry! I asked about this and forgot to post!

Some time ago, it was noticed and reported as a “bug” that during cinematics, the “fidget” animations continued. So you’re seeing this exciting story bit about a dragon attack and, behind the scenes, your character is yawning and toeing the sand. It just didn’t fit.

So the animations were temporarily removed to be worked on and reincorporated in a way that allowed them to perform normally in the game but to stop (or maybe change) during cinematics. But getting to a place where the animations could be configured on a more fine-grained basis took more time than anticipated.

From what I understand, the team has the tools to reconfigure and re-enable the animations, but the team lead told me that naturally they’ll need to figure out when someone (or maybe more than one person) can be assigned the task. As it turns out, each animation bit needs to be reconfigured individually.

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

Gaile, could you also please ask the developers, what’s going on with the Human female running animation?
Every NPC and also your character — if she is infight — uses the old, more feminine running animation, which never had any clipping problems with the shoulder gear or weapons. Now, with the “new” animation, two-handed weapons — especially hammers/staffs — behave oddly. And big shoulders don’t look good on your running character anymore.
No one ever asked for a change or reported problems about the “old” animation. Of all women in this game, the Human running animation was the best. It got this subtle femininity compared with the Norn or Sylvari (But do you never dare to change these as well, they fit perfectly).

Gaile Gray.6029:

Soooo sorry! I asked about this and forgot to post!

Some time ago, it was noticed and reported as a “bug” that during cinematics, the “fidget” animations continued. So you’re seeing this exciting story bit about a dragon attack and, behind the scenes, your character is yawning and toeing the sand. It just didn’t fit.

So the animations were temporarily removed to be worked on and reincorporated in a way that allowed them to perform normally in the game but to stop (or maybe change) during cinematics. But getting to a place where the animations could be configured on a more fine-grained basis took more time than anticipated.

From what I understand, the team has the tools to reconfigure and re-enable the animations, but the team lead told me that naturally they’ll need to figure out when someone (or maybe more than one person) can be assigned the task. As it turns out, each animation bit needs to be reconfigured individually.

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

What took so long was someone crafting the story about how it didn’t fit with the cinematics. It’s about one thing, and one thing alone, and I’m saddened that the only solution that anyone can thing of is one of intolerance and one that isn’t more inclusive and about choices and options.

How about instead of removing something that is there and throwing it away entirely, something many of us have enjoyed since the beginning of the game (and this applies to the original running animation as well), ‘adding’ options that in some people’s opinion will better fit with the cinematic or whatever narrative the lawyers feel like conjuring up, and then making them character configuration options (like your choice of hair, eye color, body type, etc), and add them to the makeover kit?

That way, if the idle animations as originally developed don’t seem right to you in the cinematic, you can choose not to have those animations. If it doesn’t seem right that your character runs as was originally developed then you can choose the newer animation.

1. Everyone has their choice.
2. Something new you can add to the cash shop (imagine a skipping Asuran!) for us to buy.
3. No one is left out.

Otherwise, it’s about one thing: intolerance.

I found the origin thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/lwd/Default-Character-Animations-Spoil-It-All

It’s so annoying that a handful of people got these removed for everyone else. If they’d removed them and then fixed them immediately, sure. But they removed them and now there’s no ETA on when they’ll be back in? I don’t understand why this was a high enough priority to remove or tamper with in the first place.

Well, congrats to everyone who complained about this minor and completely unimportant detail. Seriously, job well done.

I wonder if we’d say that the removal of these animations SPOILS IT ALL in the living story, would we get the animations back?

DarkOcean.8746:

I found the origin thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/lwd/Default-Character-Animations-Spoil-It-All

It’s so annoying that a handful of people got these removed for everyone else. If they’d removed them and then fixed them immediately, sure. But they removed them and now there’s no ETA on when they’ll be back in? I don’t understand why this was a high enough priority to remove or tamper with in the first place.

I understand completely why all of this is happening. I’m also fine that it is happening, and people are being heard, and there is an effort to make changes where appropriate.

What I’m saddened by is the nature of the change has to be one of complete intolerance. If someone doesn’t like the way someone runs, or, a pair of shorts that we were given a long time ago, or, character animations, that’s fine, there’s no reason to make up a story about immersion breaking cinematics. Just say why, that’s the first thing.

Now, having said that, why not design a change that includes what everyone wants? If you don’t want your character to behave like that, fine, pick this idle animation and running pack for your character. If you miss the old ones, pick the originally designed running and idle animation pack.

If this is about being sad because now that your character behaves as you see fit, you still see my character behaving differently and that makes you sad, then add a setting that says “View all other animations the way I have mine set”, or whatever it would be called.

If that isn’t enough, and simply ‘knowing’ that there is an option out there for me to pick the original idle animations and running animation and that makes you sad, then, I give up. I’d be sorry that you feel that depriving me of those choices is the only victory, rather than finding solutions that everyone can live with. I’d fine it down right hypocritical.

Gaile Gray.6029:

TL;dr: This change is coming, as soon as it can be scheduled and prioritized. Naturally, some matters that are higher on the priority list but this project will be scheduled as appropriate.

Can’t you guys just put it back in for the time being until it can be worked on?
The amount of time we spend in cinematic sequences is miniscule anyways.

If we start going towards this new feature that everyone can pick how their characters behave, it will take another 2 years before we see anything, if we ever see anything.

kolompi.1287:

If we start going towards this new feature that everyone can pick how their characters behave, it will take another 2 years before we see anything, if we ever see anything.

Why it takes them so long to do something is an entirely different problem.

But to be fair, they should have never taken away what we had originally and replaced it. The original developers had a vision of how things should look, and many of us enjoyed that since release. Put it back until you can add them back as character customizations.

Romo.3709:

Can’t you guys just put it back in for the time being until it can be worked on?

Seconded! So much gets removed in this game that doesn’t ever need to be, whether intentionally or due to bugs. The many, many bugs.

It won’t be added back because it’s not a priority now. It was back when it totally, absolutely jarred, ruined and whatnot the living story.
Seriously, it ruined the living story? The OP in that other thread did not even ask for this to be removed, they asked for a change to the NPC animations… Why remove it then?
Never mind.

aerial.7021:

Djinn.9245:

The point I’m making is that, as a female, I don’t like my female characters which are adventurers and warriors being portrayed in a sexual manner. I don’t care if other people do want it, that’s fine. I’m speaking for myself and I think I should have a choice.

Tongue in cheek humor, you do know how the male mind works don’t you ?

Yes I do And I think its fine that many male gamers like to create female characters with as little clothing as possible and like this kind of animation. I personally prefer to look at real live people rather than cartoons, but to each his own. All I’m asking for is a choice of how to represent my own characters. Not to dictate to anyone else.

kolompi.1287:

• The mesmer community (i main a mesmer) had a list of 40+ bugs out of which some 20 were actually gamebreaking in the way that skills did not activate, phantasms were “kicking dirt” instead of attacking, etc…. but it has been prioritized as not so important, instead we got some tooltip fixes (still important but more important than skills not working?)
• Is the “bug” about the character yawning in the background REALLY that bad that it had to be removed?

• If this has already been prioritized kitten insanely important that it just HAD to be removed so as not to break the cinematics, why does it have to be evaluated again and prioritized again? Isn’t it already established that it’s very important?

I would guess that it is easier to turn off animations than to fix a bug.

I don’t know why but i am still hoping it will be fixed and soon (not Soon™ but actually soon). Until then i have to say, i’m very disappointed with this whole approach, and i guess the adventurers and warriors can be happy about having their “look to the side, repeat, repeat, repeat” not-sexualized, politically correct, teen-approved idling.

So you are upset that Mesmers have so many bugs that aren’t being fixed quickly but you want THIS to be fixed “actually soon”?

notebene.3190:

Now, having said that, why not design a change that includes what everyone wants? If you don’t want your character to behave like that, fine, pick this idle animation and running pack for your character. If you miss the old ones, pick the originally designed running and idle animation pack.

I completely agree that people should have a choice. If there was a choice of animation style, even the developers could choose which style was appropriate for the NPC they are making. If they had the option to toggle between styles, players could also choose what kind of animation they wanted for their character at given times. That would be good for roleplayers too.

Posts in this thread further prove that the human female body is simply too confusing for the playerbase, it would probably be best to remove it from the game

Djinn.9245:

Neko Dudley.2495:

Djinn.9245:

Neko Dudley.2495:

Sexuality is part of being human, and our human female characters are supposed to be simulated humans. Attempts to de-sexualise them are misogynistic.

What some people seem to be missing is the simple fact that a woman stretching is not a sex act. Its not even suggestive of sex.

“Sexuality” does not mean “behaving in a sexy manner”. Do you think a female police person should be stretching and sticking her boobs out while she’s talking to a perp? That’s the equivalent of what is going on in the game with NPCs and, in my POV, with my adventuring characters. Taking away a sexualized stretch is not misogynistic.

But if people really want those animations back, give me a choice to have non-sexy animations for my warriors and adventurers.

That attitude is misogynistic because you are assuming it is sexualized when it is not. You are obsessing about boobs, so you see it as something that is not there. Taking away a natural gesture dehumanizes the female character. That is as misogynistic as it gets. Women stretch, they have breasts which can’t go away just because they offend people who want to suppress female sexuality. And in regards to your silly straw man, a female cop who is standing around doing nothing should be able to stretch if she feels like it, without fear of punishment.

Stop with the a-priori conclusions that female sexuality is a bad thing or that sex is a bad thing for women. Gender dimorphism is not bad, it is a natural phenomenon. It is the natural state of being, and inescapable. Learn to accept it. Or, rage pointlessly against nature and be angry for the rest of your life.

Lol, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m female and I don’t stretch like that (unless I’m trying to attract a certain kind of attention…). And I didn’t say anything about punishment, or female sexuality being bad – don’t put words in my mouth.

And I don’t know why you are bringing actual sex into this discussion.

The point I’m making is that, as a female, I don’t like my female characters which are adventurers and warriors being portrayed in a sexual manner. I don’t care if other people do want it, that’s fine. I’m speaking for myself and I think I should have a choice.

Lol, I’m right on target. I am asserting that there is nothing sexual, sexualized, sexy or sexish (insert your preferred obfuscating jargon here) about the human female idle animations or even the female models used for character generation. People who are seeing it as sexualized are having inappropriate reactions to the images, seeing something that is not really there except in their own minds. You insist that it is sexual but you have not presented a reasonable argument for why it is. The closest you have gotten is in saying that you do not stretch this way unless you are seeking attention. Unfortunately, you are not the standard for humanity, male or female. I stretch this way before and after I exercise my rotator cuff and before bowling matches. I see female bowlers also stretch this way. Are you suggesting that women who do this are only seeking sexual attention? If you are, then that is a misogynistic attitude.

I mentioned the facts of life because some people need to be reminded from time to time that humans, both male and female, are sexual animals. Biology, no matter how harsh or wonderful, is always neutral.

Women, who live in oppressive cultures are often severely punished when they fail to conform to the local notions of proper female social behavior.

You don’t want your characters to be presented in a sexual manner. I appreciate that feeling. However, I don’t see anything sexual about it, except perhaps the representation of gender dimorphism. If you take that away then you no longer have a human character.

I am on your side regarding choice in the matter of idle animations, but I have a hard time believing that the people who complain about them are going to be satisfied with that when they see other people choosing differently.

If I have misjudged your comments as hostile to women, I apologize.