Guild Wars 2

Questorian.1098:

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable? You do realize these robots transform into other creatures to fight ya? But, even if they didn’t what does wearing high heels have to do with their abilities or presence?

Women choose to wear heels all the time, and I don’t think that makes them any less of a women.

Now….lets look at this from another perspective. When you fight, or play sports, you don’t typically stand flat footed. Humans distribute their weight on the balls of their feet so they can quickly move.

That is why soccer cleats have more spikes at the toes, and only a few at the heels. So, from a fighting perspective, these “high heels” aren’t really an issue.

In the end, it’s just a design choice. It’s meant to make them look taller, and more sleek (just like real high heels). I don’t think the intention was to make them some porn-bot with the intention of being someone secretary, and bending over to pick up dropped Skritt bottles.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.

Are you seriously claiming that they aren’t modeled after the female form?

Strawman Detected.

What are you talking about? That’s what you said. “They don’t have a female model either, just a mechanical clockwork robot model.” /confused

I didn’t say that the female form did not influence the design, I said that there are no female models. They are mechanical clockwork robots. They can’t be females and thus it is not a female model.

Being modeled after the female form means they have a female model. You’re trying to split a hair that isn’t there.

Questorian.1098:

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

That’s what I thought as well………but well, this is why we can’t have nice things.

Alleluia.1320:

Questorian.1098:

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

………..I’m sorry, but EDI was FAR more sexualized then these could ever hope to be.

How you can have a problem with these and not EDI is beyond me.

Never in my mind did I think “wow look at all these sexy hot bots”. They were just there, yes they got a feminine form but so what? Does that really mean you gotta go scream sexist cause of that?

Also, should we also be giving Braham a shirt? Why did no one complain about him?

Alleluia.1320:

Questorian.1098:

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

The character’s name was ‘Maria’ in the film.
http://www.jeffbots.com/maria-large.jpg
http://tv-facts.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Metropolis-Wallpaper-HD-1.jpg

The actor’s name was Brigitte Helm.
http://theredlist.fr/media/database/muses/icon/cinema_women/brigette_helm/09_brigitte_helm-theredlist.jpg
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/08/cmon_vogue.jpg
http://gmemail.customer.netspace.net.au/maria.jpg

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable?

Not capable of running around and fighting enemies? Yes. You can’t sword fight in heels, especially heels like that, effectively. Just b/c the mechanics of the game ignore that doesn’t make it less true. The game’s mechanics could make a fish levitate rather than swim, too. Doesn’t change the fact it’d be ridiculous.

The heels are there as part of the aesthetic and the aesthetic is overtly sexualized in nature.

Alleluia.1320:

Being modeled after the female form means they have a female model. You’re trying to split a hair that isn’t there.

These robots cannot reproduce and thus are asexual. Female is a reproductive gender and is thus inherently sexual. Asexual means “not sexual”. You can’t be sexual and asexual at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.

Additionally, the fact that there is only one model directly prevents that model from being a “female” model due to the lack of a male model. A female is a counterpart to a male in the reproductive process. If there is no such thing as a male, then there inherently is no such thing as a female as well.

Again, these are robots. They have no gender. The fact that you find their appearance similar to something that has a gender does not bestow a gender on that object.

Elbegast.6970:

Alleluia.1320:

Questorian.1098:

You folks are all just too young, first time I saw them I was immediatly reminded of “Metropolis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_. A Classic if there ever was one and I thought the Devs took inspiration from there…

If the robots looked like the statue in that wiki article, I wouldn’t have a problem. Or heck, EDI from mass effect. She was pretty but still clothed.

The character’s name was ‘Maria’ in the film.
http://www.jeffbots.com/maria-large.jpg
http://tv-facts.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Metropolis-Wallpaper-HD-1.jpg

The actor’s name was Brigitte Helm.
http://theredlist.fr/media/database/muses/icon/cinema_women/brigette_helm/09_brigitte_helm-theredlist.jpg
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/08/cmon_vogue.jpg
http://gmemail.customer.netspace.net.au/maria.jpg

Again, not seeing the nudity and high heels… Her body purposely has very little definition in those areas, with just the general form and a matte finish instead. If the robots in this game were an homage to them and looked like that, I wouldn’t have a problem. They’re not. (Or at best, its a very poor attempt.)

The first thing I noticed when looked at their chest was not the nipple. It was the detail of the gears.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

Being modeled after the female form means they have a female model. You’re trying to split a hair that isn’t there.

These robots cannot reproduce and thus are asexual. Female is a reproductive gender and is thus inherently sexual. Asexual means “not sexual”. You can’t be sexual and asexual at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.

Additionally, the fact that there is only one model directly prevents that model from being a “female” model due to the lack of a male model. A female is a counterpart to a male in the reproductive process. If there is no such thing as a male, then there inherently is no such thing as a female as well.

Again, these are robots. They have no gender. The fact that you find their appearance similar to something that has a gender does not bestow a gender on that object.

You’re being ridiculous. You know the problem is that it is an overtly sexualized female aestetic. Its immaterial whether it is biologically female and capable of reproduction when we’re talking about the imagery used, not debating a robot’s biology. Your argument is a red herring.

Alleluia.1320:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable?

Not capable of running around and fighting enemies? Yes. You can’t sword fight in heels, especially heels like that, effectively. Just b/c the mechanics of the game ignore that doesn’t make it less true. The game’s mechanics could make a fish levitate rather than swim, too. Doesn’t change the fact it’d be ridiculous.

The heels are there as part of the aesthetic and the aesthetic is overtly sexualized in nature.

Yes, I suppose the difference is that while you see this is as a negative, I don’t.

There are a lot of outfits in fantasy games that are not practical for the task at hand. This applies to both Genders (A Norn with no shirt, have you ever lived through a Canadian winter?).

Here is the thing though, just because you don’t think it’s practical, or even cool looking, doesn’t mean therefore sexism. You can argue that it’s not practical all you want, and I might even agree with you on that point.

But you need to be very careful to not then come to the conclusion that just because something isn’t realistic, or even practical, therefore it is sexist.

I am in two minds about the watchknights.

• I like that they’re female. Not because I prefer female models over male models as a default, but because it makes for a nice change from the Asura golems and, well, most robots out there. (And of those who are out there, almost all of them are either firly-pink or sex-bots, so we definitely need more variety of female robots, for diversity.)
• I find the design lovely. I stood in front of one and admired it for a long time, two nights ago. I don’t know if the Metropolis-esque-ness is a deliberate reference, but it’s lovely. Love the art deco style.
• That being said, I do feel they are sexualised. They do not just have a female form, they have an exaggerated female form, and stilettos (which, sorry, I wouldn’t wear for fighting or running ever, no matter my weight distribution), and nipples that serve no function and are clearly for the looks. All three of these design choices are used in sexualised depictions of women. Any one of them I would have maybe just raised my eyebrow at and whatevered if off, but in combination, yes, there is a sexual component. (See also Sorayama’s illustrations of robots, easy to google.)
• I don’t have a principal problem with that. It is okay to depict women and men in sexual ways. (If only men and women were depicted in sexualised ways in roughly similar proportions, overall. There’s disproportionally little sexualisation out there for straight females to look at.)
• However, this is not what I expected to see in GW2, which in other design choices has been a lot more conservative (in an “American” and “suitable for 13+” kind of way) so these really stand out. Otherwise, they might not even be a discussion about this.
• I am not offended by the art, or by the form, or the quality. What bothers me about this is the lack of context. Are they supposed to be eye-candy, or sexual, or fighting machines? They can be all three, but context was given to only one of the three – fighting machines. (Maybe two if you count general “eye-candy” as “Jennah wants to show off”, which I believe was said in the live stream.) So in the end, it is awesome, beautiful fight-bots which have overly sexual visuals tagged on for… no real reason (that I can see) other than “let’s make them… sexy!!” And I can totally see why that would offend some.

Rammie.2843:

If only they were voiced by Tricia Helfer…

Just a few weeks back i watched Tron: Uprising – great series.
Guess who they got to voice the narrator?

She s pretty much the defacto robot chick voice in the industry.

Alleluia.1320:

You’re being ridiculous. You know the problem is thakittens an overtly sexualized female aestetic. Its immaterial whether it is biologically female and capable of reproduction when we’re talking about the imagery used, not debating a robot’s biology. Your argument is a red herring.

So you concede my point that they are not females and have adjusted your argument to be that your opinion is that anything that resembles a female is “wrong” as long as it meets your personal definition of overtly sexual.

Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. It is by definition unprovable, subjective and arbitrary and thus inadmissable in a debate.

The fact of the matter is that these are robots and not females.

Onshidesigns.1069:

The first thing I noticed when looked at their chest was not the nipple. It was the detail of the gears.

First thing I noticed, too. But once it was pointed out, its been rather hard to unsee.

And to head off the nitpickers here: just because it had to be pointed out to me doesn’t mean the sexualization isn’t there. I can see it now, see the people who pointed it out have a point, and agree with them.

Penguin.5197:

Alleluia.1320:

The heels are there as part of the aesthetic and the aesthetic is overtly sexualized in nature.

Yes we should keep all women from going out in heels, kitten them for going outside where people can see them in shoes. They should only be used in bedrooms and nowhere else.
>.>

The strawman awakens!

Alleluia.1320:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable?

Not capable of running around and fighting enemies? Yes. You can’t sword fight in heels, especially heels like that, effectively. Just b/c the mechanics of the game ignore that doesn’t make it less true. The game’s mechanics could make a fish levitate rather than swim, too. Doesn’t change the fact it’d be ridiculous.

The heels are there as part of the aesthetic and the aesthetic is overtly sexualized in nature.

In this case, those are robots we are talking about. I don’t think the movement problems introduced by wearing high heels apply to them the same than for humans.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

You’re being ridiculous. You know the problem is thakittens an overtly sexualized female aestetic. Its immaterial whether it is biologically female and capable of reproduction when we’re talking about the imagery used, not debating a robot’s biology. Your argument is a red herring.

So you concede my point that they are not females and have adjusted your argument to be that your opinion is that anything that resembles a female is “wrong” as long as it meets your personal definition of overtly sexual.

Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. It is by definition unprovable, subjective and arbitrary and thus inadmissable in a debate.

The fact of the matter is that these are robots and not females.

And the matter of the fact they imitate the female form and that imitation is overtly sexualized is what is being argued in this thread. You realized that female shaped robots aren’t actual women and argued that point successfully in a condescending manner. Grats.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I find the design lovely. I stood in front of one and admired it for a long time, two nights ago. I don’t know if the Metropolis-esque-ness is a deliberate reference, but it’s lovely. Love the art deco style.

Though I’m not really partial to how they are designed, I admit I do like their butts… The intricate design on it was literally born from ‘dat arse!’ and I want to just stare and stare and stare.

BrandonBandicoot.3968:

Alleluia.1320:

cainejw.7142:

Tott, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. You ignore it and brush it under the patriarchy. Your feeling of offense is not because there’s some master plot to sexualize women and promote them only through the male gaze.

In fact, where you see gross, unrealistic shapes that could forever ruin femininity, others see beauty and power in SPITE of form. The Watchknights are powerful regardless of how they look. However, all you see is how they look (women) and suppose that it MUST be sexualization, abuse of women, making women weak, etc.

It’s perspective, and your perspective is colored by sex-negative radical critical feminism.

They’re naked women fighting in dominatrix-style stiletto heels. I’m as conservative as southern girls come and I see the sexualization of these statues, too. I don’t understand how you and others can’t.

Nudity =/= Sexualization

The human body isn’t scary and offensive to look at, it’s a natural form that can be appreciated without being sexualized.
The Watchknights have a nice style to them, the female form to them is more artistic and beautiful than sexy.

I’m not too much of a fan of heels but I don’t care that they’re there too, just saying that to say that.

I dunno. I find the naked male disturbing. To me it is the strongest argument that “god”, the universe, what have you does have a sense of humour.

And it’s warped.

Bovinity.8610:

I love how people say that they’re “made to appeal to male fantasies” or something.

Yes, because a giant metal clockwork machine made out of pixels is totally a male fantasy.

Grow up. There are enough real problems facing women without you quasi-crusaders freaking out every time you see something that looks like a breast made out of pixels.

I know right. Makes me want to head right out into the garage in search of my oil can….

Alleluia.1320:

And the matter of the fact they imitate the female form and that imitation is overtly sexualized is what is being argued in this thread. You realized that female shaped robots aren’t actual women and argued that point successfully in a condescending manner. Grats.

Your OPINION is that they are overtly sexualized.
Your OPINION is also that overt sexualization of objects is “wrong”.

Those are not facts.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I feel the problem with this conclusion is that you’re making assumptions about what people will think. These robots are not designed to represent the average female. These aren’t statues designed to comment on society, they are robots designed for protection and fighting.

While I understand where you are coming from, I think you’re taking the design of these robots out of context. Think of them as professional athletes with body types designed for that purpose.

I would think of them like athletes if they had a body structure which I considered athletic. Additionally, from a practical design point I would have thought that they would function better if they had a lower centre of gravity, which would require them to have a greater emphasis on their hips and legs. The slightness of the upper part of the body is understandable as they don’t have the same needs as living beings, but I would have thought that adding breasts to a combat unit would be more of an inconvenience than a boon. I certainly don’t see how providing them with stiletto heels would improve their balance and grace. It would be a nightmare of engineering.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Again, you are assuming the purpose of these Watchknights is to represent women. They are exaggerated representations of women. Like huge Norn, or Charr.

This is really hard to put into words without being insulting, but I’ll just come out and say it. You are making a sexist issue out of something that isn’t one. I can understand why you feel this way, but you are not being objective here.

Perhaps I’m not objective. I can accept that. I’m a woman, I’m biased, clearly. As are we all. None of us are looking at this objectively, because we all have our own slant, we all have our own way of seeing the world, shaped by our experiences.

The experiences I’ve had tell me that figures such as the ones the Watchknights represent are typically fetishised. Not by all men. I mean, obviously not. Everyone has different tastes and to find that figure a sexual ideal it would have to conform to your tastes.

And in all honesty, that they are a female figure with breasts doesn’t concern me as much as the fact that the designers have gone to the effort of adding details which go above and beyond implying that the figure is nude (nipples, and contoured buttocks, for example). Once you get into a “nude” figure wandering around, that tends towards sexualisation in my view, be that figure male or female. I would have just as much problem were they male robots with nipples and a suspiciously ornate package and buttocks.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

They’re not “Ugly” or “Fat” because that is not the point of them. They haven’t been designed with the purpose of making everyone feel included and nice inside. They are idealized representations, meant to convey strength and power.

The “strong women” I was referring to are the plethora of other female NPCs of all races and a variety of appearances whom the player can encounter about the world. GW2 did well there. The aside which referenced how they were all attractive was more of a reference to how heroic people must conform to visual stereotypes across the board as anything, and I apologise for not making this clearer. It was something of a deviation from my point.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I’m sorry, but you seem to be saying a few things here that I find quite insulting. You also seem to be making some pretty big generalizing assumptions about males, and the game designers.

I’m sorry, but if you want to get into name calling and labelling, we can do that, but I don’t think it is very good for conversation.

I’m not exactly sure what I have said to insult or offend if I’m honest. I’ve stated my point in as general a manner as I could, simply because that is the best way, in my opinion, to avoid going down a tangent towards personal attacks. My opinions differ from yours, yes, but that’s all they are. Different. I don’t see how my experience and viewpoint can be insulting.

Elsewhere on the forums are posters requesting screenshots of the Watchknights’ chests and backsides so that they can use them as wallpaper. That is ample evidence, so far as I can see, that these figures are being fetishised. Do I think all men and all the designers fetishise them in this manner? Of course not. Heck, my boyfriend saw them before I did and he was more irritated by them than I was.

Given ANet’s stated intention to not over-sexualise the game in the past, they are clearly a company aware of the potential for game assets to be taken in this fashion. I cannot imagine that this aspect of the Watchknights was something which no one brought up at any point in the design process.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

And the matter of the fact they imitate the female form and that imitation is overtly sexualized is what is being argued in this thread. You realized that female shaped robots aren’t actual women and argued that point successfully in a condescending manner. Grats.

Your OPINION is that they are overtly sexualized.
Your OPINION is also that overt sexualization of objects is “wrong”.

Those are not facts.

Those are my opinions, yes. That’s also not what I said in that post. You’re still arguing past me instead of at me. Reading comprehension, please.

Wow @ the super sensitive posts…

1. It’s art
2. It’s a game
3. It’s machine

Any game today will likely have nudity shown off as art, as seen through history. I don’t see how people can be so easily offended/overly sensitive about nudity.

Apparently some people want “everything” censored. Would you rather spend $60 on a kiddy game? Please act your age when playing such games, less QQ.

And did you even bother to look on the back of the box before buying this game?
Oh, it has alcohol, violence and mild swearing and lots of blood/gore. It shouldn’t have any bit of nudity though.

Anet if you’re reading this can we get sexy male robots too? And some chesty armour for my sexy thief instead of trenchcoats? It isn’t fair that light-armoured ladies get all the skin, why can’t guys get some too :C

I thought they were a really nice example of clockwork.
They are beautiful and they look kind of intimidating because they tower over you.
Sexualized didn’t even occur to and I am a woman.

for people who say you can’t fight in heels I’ll just leave this here :P

I would love to see male robots in game, done in the same style.

Alleluia.1320:

Those are my opinions, yes. That’s also not what I said in that post. You’re still arguing past me instead of at me. Reading comprehension, please.

You can’t argue with an opinion, and thus I can’t argue “at” you and am forced to argue against your method instead of your content. What you’ve said is irrelevant if it isn’t logical.

Kiriwar.7382:

Anet if you’re reading this can we get sexy male robots too? And some chesty armour for my sexy thief instead of trenchcoats? It isn’t fair that light-armoured ladies get all the skin, why can’t guys get some too :C

Wouldn’t mind not having trenchcoats all the time. Lotta nice gear with cool leggings that are pointless cause they then hide them with trenchcoats. May as well have been basic jeans.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

I would love to see male robots in game, done in the same style.

http://www.roommatesdecor.com/images-cache/81/67/A47A/8167A47A91C39A006F5EF90E8950A9EA3858D3C9.jpg

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

These aren’t statues designed to comment on society, they are robots designed for protection and fighting.

While I understand where you are coming from, I think you’re taking the design of these robots out of context. Think of them as professional athletes with body types designed for that purpose.

If this were the case they would not have boobs. That feature is a detriment to their purpose due to the obstruction presented by their size.

Again, you are assuming the purpose of these Watchknights is to represent women. They are exaggerated representations of women. Like huge Norn, or Charr.

This is a perfect explanation of why it’s bad. Norn are indeed exagerated versions of humans, but Charr are extremely subdued female, just like Asure show no gender definition short of hair. There were many ways they could have done this and they chose extremely exaggerated feminine profile.

They’re not “Ugly” or “Fat” because that is not the point of them. They haven’t been designed with the purpose of making everyone feel included and nice inside. They are idealized representations, meant to convey strength and power.

It’s like Superman, or Wonder Woman. They’re designed in a way that represent an exaggerated ideal. Tall, large muscles, good looking, etc.

As well, these are not “Damsels in Distress” at all. They’re fighting machines. They’re designed to protect the city and the queen. They stand watch, towering over the citizens.

If that were the case it would have included both male and female versions. It doesn’t.

For the people claiming that they love the art deco style, you know an art deco model for the Watchknights would have looked like this right?

I mean, I actually quite like art deco figures. And I like the aesthetic of the filigree and such. It would have been nice to get them all together though.

Garenthal.1480:

I’m a little baffled by the lack of a male model.

There isn’t a king either.

Kiriwar.7382:

Elbegast.6970:

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

I would love to see male robots in game, done in the same style.

http://www.roommatesdecor.com/images-cache/81/67/A47A/8167A47A91C39A006F5EF90E8950A9EA3858D3C9.jpg

Beetch please, don’t gimme a C3PO. They have to have rippling pecs and shii. And dem biceps. Mm-mm.

C3PrOlled!

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Kiriwar.7382:

I’m mostly upset that they had to have -high heels.-

I mean… really? really?

Wearing high heels means you’re no longer capable? You do realize these robots transform into other creatures to fight ya? But, even if they didn’t what does wearing high heels have to do with their abilities or presence?

Women choose to wear heels all the time, and I don’t think that makes them any less of a women.

Now….lets look at this from another perspective. When you fight, or play sports, you don’t typically stand flat footed. Humans distribute their weight on the balls of their feet so they can quickly move.

That is why soccer cleats have more spikes at the toes, and only a few at the heels. So, from a fighting perspective, these “high heels” aren’t really an issue.

In the end, it’s just a design choice. It’s meant to make them look taller, and more sleek (just like real high heels). I don’t think the intention was to make them some porn-bot with the intention of being someone secretary, and bending over to pick up dropped Skritt bottles.

I would love to see you go play sports in high heels. That would be amazing.

First time I saw them I thought “oh great”. I was disappointed in the design. It could have been designed a lot less sexual. First of all the stiletto doesn’t make any sense. Robots are horrible with balance issues, have you watched any videos lately of the new designs? The ones that can keep their balance most of the time don’t even look humanish. Robots don’t need breasts or over emphasized butts to be strong and powerful looking. And I’m incredibly surprised Jennah would approve this design. At the very least, barefoot Jennah putting stilettos on them?

Also, just as I thought when I first saw them, there have been conversations in map chat about having sex with them. Really guys? Keep your fantasies in your own mind. The rest of us don’t want to hear them.

FUN FACT for anyone discussing boobies on the robots: Apparently having boobplates on armour would kill you faster because instead of deflecting blades, the shape of the boobplates drives blades towards the center of your chest, and if you were to fall forward, the outward divets on your boobs would drive into your chest and injure/kill you, were you to sustain a hard enough blow.

Take that as you will.

This has been a message sponsored by Concerned Players Who Enjoy Practicality That Isn’t Necessarily Reflected In Fantasy Worlds.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

I am in two minds about the watchknights.

• I like that they’re female. Not because I prefer female models over male models as a default, but because it makes for a nice change from the Asura golems and, well, most robots out there. (And of those who are out there, almost all of them are either firly-pink or sex-bots, so we definitely need more variety of female robots, for diversity.)

I agree, it’s awesome to see robots of ANY kind honestly. Robots are awesome! In media we’ve seen all kinda of robots (many aren’t firly-pink or sex-bots – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_female_robots_and_cyborgs).

Iron Giant, Johnny 5, Pris, T-800/1000/X, C-3P0, Bishop, False Maria, Dot Matrix, Eve, etc.

In general we need more cool robots, and as I said before, I welcome the change from the glowing blue Asura, golem robots.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I find the design lovely. I stood in front of one and admired it for a long time, two nights ago. I don’t know if the Metropolis-esque-ness is a deliberate reference, but it’s lovely. Love the art deco style.

Same, I love art deco to begin with, so these were really cool to me. I would like to see more of this style in the game honestly.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• That being said, I do feel they are sexualised. They do not just have a female form, they have an exaggerated female form, and stilettos (which, sorry, I wouldn’t wear for fighting or running ever, no matter my weight distribution), and nipples that serve no function and are clearly for the looks. All three of these design choices are used in sexualised depictions of women. Any one of them I would have maybe just raised my eyebrow at and whatevered if off, but in combination, yes, there is a sexual component. (See also Sorayama’s illustrations of robots, easy to google.)

They are sexualized yes, but not in a sexual way. These are sex-bots, nor are they doing anything that is sexual in nature. For me, there is nothing wrong with this. I don’t see being sexy as being a bad thing.

P.S. Bat-nipples

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I don’t have a principal problem with that. It is okay to depict women and men in sexual ways. (If only men and women were depicted in sexualised ways in roughly similar proportions, overall. There’s disproportionally little sexualisation out there for straight females to look at.)

The new Wolverine is out in theatres. :P

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• However, this is not what I expected to see in GW2, which in other design choices has been a lot more conservative (in an “American” and “suitable for 13+” kind of way) so these really stand out. Otherwise, they might not even be a discussion about this.

And thank goodness for that! I’m kinda tired of seeing Quaggan plushies, and other cute things. I’m not saying that these things are bad, but having these more mature, and realistic designs are a breath of fresh air.

I really wish they would keep going in this direction. We’re all adults (or we should be…why aren’t you in school?") and so it would be nice to see more mature designs.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I am not offended by the art, or by the form, or the quality. What bothers me about this is the lack of context. Are they supposed to be eye-candy, or sexual, or fighting machines? They can be all three, but context was given to only one of the three – fighting machines. (Maybe two if you count general “eye-candy” as “Jennah wants to show off”, which I believe was said in the live stream.) So in the end, it is awesome, beautiful fight-bots which have overly sexual visuals tagged on for… no real reason (that I can see) other than “let’s make them… sexy!!” And I can totally see why that would offend some.

The question I have is why is this choice any more, or less valid than any other choice? Are we questioning it because they’re female?

Would we be asking the same questions if they were big “male” robots? Would be be asking why they’re big, muscular, and mean looking?

I was initially torn. I think the level of detail is beautiful (so beautiful). But do the watchknights really need nipples? Really? Once I realized that, I realized the watchknights present not just a typical skin-tight-I-can-fight-in-heels fantasy female body, but a naked female body to gawk at. Not even an attempt to hide the objectification. Do they really need heels? I wish they would have been androgynous, or that the lace/engraving effect was more emblematic of clothing. Do the breasts and butt really need the extra attention drawn through the lace design? Was someone like “You know, that engraving on the genitalia isn’t eye-catching enough… let’s give the robots nipples, too”?

And if you think a single topless male NPC (Braham) is equivalent to a whole type of NPC that makes up an army that we see over and over again in the span of seconds in the case of the Jubilee events, supposedly commissioned by a strong female ruler, I… I don’t even know what to tell you other than to ask you to sit and think about it for a while. And yes, EDI from Mass Effect 3 was way less sexualized in design than this. The details of her breasts, for glaring example, were kept inside of her “suit”.

Some sort of equivalence that could ~make things even~ is to get some male watchknights up in there with their testes made into the bellybutton/nipple “bolts” and some embroidered codpieces.

mXz.4512:

Wow @ the super sensitive posts…

1. It’s art
2. It’s a game
3. It’s machine

Any game today will likely have nudity shown off as art, as seen through history. I don’t see how people can be so easily offended/overly sensitive about nudity.

Apparently some people want “everything” censored. Would you rather spend $60 on a kiddy game? Please act your age when playing such games, less QQ.

And did you even bother to look on the back of the box before buying this game?
Oh, it has alcohol, violence and mild swearing and lots of blood/gore. It shouldn’t have any bit of nudity though.

teen
Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.

This falls under suggestive themes to me.

MATURE
Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

This is not intense sexual content.

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

Those are my opinions, yes. That’s also not what I said in that post. You’re still arguing past me instead of at me. Reading comprehension, please.

You can’t argue with an opinion, and thus I can’t argue “at” you and am forced to argue against your method instead of your content. What you’ve said is irrelevant if it isn’t logical.

We’re all having a discussion about whether the aesthetic of the robots is overtly sexualized or not, not whether they are actual women. As I’ve said to you several times now. You are right. They are not actual women capable of biological reproduction. That’s also not what anyone is talking about besides you. Not responding to you anymore now unless you are actually on topic. kthnx.

Kiriwar.7382:

FUN FACT for anyone discussing boobies on the robots: Apparently having boobplates on armour would kill you faster because instead of deflecting blades, the shape of the boobplates drives blades towards the center of your chest, and if you were to fall forward, the outward divets on your boobs would drive into your chest and injure/kill you, were you to sustain a hard enough blow.

Take that as you will.

This has been a message sponsored by Concerned Players Who Enjoy Practicality That Isn’t Necessarily Reflected In Fantasy Worlds.

Are you implying the robots have their vital organs in the same place as humans do?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

The question I have is why is this choice any more, or less valid than any other choice? Are we questioning it because they’re female?

Would we be asking the same questions if they were big “male” robots? Would be be asking why they’re big, muscular, and mean looking?

What does “big, muscular and mean looking” have to do specifically with masculinity?

I’ll be honest, if they were sexualised male robots, I absolutely would have a problem, because that wouldn’t be congruent with the design purpose. But I wouldn’t see a sexualised male figure as “mean-looking”, so perhaps that’s where I misunderstand.

A big, muscular, mean looking female form would be fantastic. That also is something that the Watchknights do not represent.

Masculine =/= sexualise, just as Feminine =/= sexualised.

I (along with many other posters here) feel that the specific model used by the Watchknights is indeed sexualised. That seems inappropriate for a combat unit no matter what the gender.

kimeekat.2548:

I was initially torn. I think the level of detail is beautiful (so beautiful). But do the watchknights really need nipples? Really? Once I realized that, I realized the watchknights present not just a typical skin-tight-I-can-fight-in-heels fantasy female body, but a naked female body to gawk at. Not even an attempt to hide the objectification. Do they really need heels? I wish they would have been androgynous, or that the lace/engraving effect was more emblematic of clothing. Do the breasts and butt really need the extra attention drawn through the lace design? Was someone like “You know, that engraving on the genitalia isn’t eye-catching enough… let’s give the robots nipples, too”?

And if you think a single topless male NPC (Braham) is equivalent to a whole type of NPC that makes up an army that we see over and over again in the span of seconds in the case of the Jubilee events, supposedly commissioned by a strong female ruler, I… I don’t even know what to tell you other than to ask you to sit and think about it for a while. And yes, EDI from Mass Effect 3 was way less sexualized in design than this. The details of her breasts, for glaring example, were kept inside of her “suit”.

Some sort of equivalence that could ~make things even~ is to get some male watchknights up in there with their testes made into the bellybutton/nipple “bolts” and some embroidered codpieces.

Pretty much this. +1

Alleluia.1320:

mtpelion.4562:

Alleluia.1320:

Those are my opinions, yes. That’s also not what I said in that post. You’re still arguing past me instead of at me. Reading comprehension, please.

You can’t argue with an opinion, and thus I can’t argue “at” you and am forced to argue against your method instead of your content. What you’ve said is irrelevant if it isn’t logical.

We’re all having a discussion about whether the aesthetic of the robots is overtly sexualized or not, not whether they are actual women. As I’ve said to you several times now. You are right. They are not actual women capable of biological reproduction. That’s also not what anyone is talking about besides you. Not responding to you anymore now unless you are actually on topic. kthnx.

Ok, I guess I have to break down the implications of my point since it isn’t being inferred.

I am saying that because they are not females, they cannot sexualize females. Any female features that are considered “sexually appealing” are sexualizing the robot, not the female that inspired the design.

Barbie can be argued to sexualize women because it is a doll that is intended to represent a female while exaggerating the features that most commonly elicit sexual arousal.

These are robots that draw inspiration from the female form so any “sex appeal” does not sexualize the female form but rather reflects the innate sexuality of certain aspects of the female form.

You can’t sexualize women by making “sexy” robots. You can sexualize a robot by borrowing “sexy” features from women. They are not the same thing.

I also rolled my eyes when I saw the design. Part of me wanted to bring it up in the forums, but the other part is kind of exhausted by similar topics. I don’t actually have a problem with sexualised aesthetics in general, but it a) feels pretty out of place in GW2, and b) as always, only seems to apply to one gender.

I assume male watchknights come with beautifully engraved, prominent, shiny codpieces. When do we get to see those?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

They are sexualized yes, but not in a sexual way.

I honestly don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make: “sexualized” literally means “made to be in a sexual way”.

Sexzualize
1. to make or become sexual or sexually aware
2. to give or acquire sexual associations
- To make sexual in character or quality
- to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

P.S. Bat-nipples

Those are generally critisized and mocked. Do you know anybody who liked the bat-nipples?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I don’t have a principal problem with that. It is okay to depict women and men in sexual ways. (If only men and women were depicted in sexualised ways in roughly similar proportions, overall. There’s disproportionally little sexualisation out there for straight females to look at.)

The new Wolverine is out in theatres. :P

I said “disproportionally little”, not “none”

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

I’m kinda tired of seeing Quaggan plushies, and other cute things. I’m not saying that these things are bad, but having these more mature, and realistic designs are a breath of fresh air.

I prefer a more mature design, too, although for me, that really doesn’t have to go hand in hand with more sexy stuff. The absence of immature content doesn’t automatically mean sex stuff – mature means many things besides “sex”.

I also want more realism in the general design of GW2, but calling the watchkinghts “more realistic” in design really would be a stretch…

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

• I am not offended by the art, or by the form, or the quality. What bothers me about this is the lack of context. Are they supposed to be eye-candy, or sexual, or fighting machines? They can be all three, but context was given to only one of the three – fighting machines. (Maybe two if you count general “eye-candy” as “Jennah wants to show off”, which I believe was said in the live stream.) So in the end, it is awesome, beautiful fight-bots which have overly sexual visuals tagged on for… no real reason (that I can see) other than “let’s make them… sexy!!” And I can totally see why that would offend some.

The question I have is why is this choice any more, or less valid than any other choice? Are we questioning it because they’re female?

Would we be asking the same questions if they were big “male” robots? Would be be asking why they’re big, muscular, and mean looking?

If they were big, muscular, and mean-looking male robots with pronounced, naked, hairy butt-cheeks and a rather large fun package between their legs, yes, I believe many players would absolutely be asking these questions.

(I still want to see them. Although I’m not too hopeful that I’ll get them. /sad)

stof.9341:

Kiriwar.7382:

FUN FACT for anyone discussing boobies on the robots: Apparently having boobplates on armour would kill you faster because instead of deflecting blades, the shape of the boobplates drives blades towards the center of your chest, and if you were to fall forward, the outward divets on your boobs would drive into your chest and injure/kill you, were you to sustain a hard enough blow.

Take that as you will.

This has been a message sponsored by Concerned Players Who Enjoy Practicality That Isn’t Necessarily Reflected In Fantasy Worlds.

Are you implying the robots have their vital organs in the same place as humans do?

Robots don’t have organs, but since these robots are clockwork almost everything about them is a vital part.

FUN FACT: clockwork is the worst thing to make a fighting robot out of since every piece has to fit into every other piece to keep it working properly. If one gear it knocked out of place everything connected through that gear will stop functioning. It isn’t really possible nor practical to design redundancy into clockwork. And yes, Watchwork is clockwork.

The implication is that there is never a good reason, robot or human or other to have armor with boobs on.