Guild Wars 2

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

1) Don’t make blanket statements if you don’t want to be misconstrued
2) I personally wouldn’t consider the Renaissance “ancient”.
3) So only European Renaissance-era artforms that you consider “exquisite” count? I think not.
4) Look up Peter Paul Rubens, among many others, if you think that hyperbolizing the body proportions considered desirable in that time period didn’t happen.

Natural ladies there. If they’d created the watchknights in that image I’d love to see what the reaction would have been.

zenleto.6179:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

1) Don’t make blanket statements if you don’t want to be misconstrued
2) I personally wouldn’t consider the Renaissance “ancient”.
3) So only European Renaissance-era artforms that you consider “exquisite” count? I think not.
4) Look up Peter Paul Rubens, among many others, if you think that hyperbolizing the body proportions considered desirable in that time period didn’t happen.

Natural ladies there. If they’d created the watchknights in that image I’d love to see what the reaction would have been.

Except they aren’t “natural” at all. They are just as much an unrealistic idealization of what was considered desirable in that era. Though I agree it would’ve been an interesting design choice to have gone that route.

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

zenleto.6179:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

1) Don’t make blanket statements if you don’t want to be misconstrued
2) I personally wouldn’t consider the Renaissance “ancient”.
3) So only European Renaissance-era artforms that you consider “exquisite” count? I think not.
4) Look up Peter Paul Rubens, among many others, if you think that hyperbolizing the body proportions considered desirable in that time period didn’t happen.

Natural ladies there. If they’d created the watchknights in that image I’d love to see what the reaction would have been.

Except they aren’t “natural” at all. They are just as much an unrealistic idealization of what was considered desirable in that era. Though I agree it would’ve been an interesting design choice to have gone that route.

Well yeah, but they’re more realistic than Barbie. Going back to beach references, I see those ladies fairly often at my local one. With swimmers on.

Tharium.7325:

My point still stands for old Greek and Roman statues. Or is over 2500 years not old enough for you?

Your point still doesn’t stand.

Human forms changed quite a bit depending on the time and culture. You also get quite a variety of human shapes and sizes depending on what the context is. For example, human forms were often distorted when depicting creatures like demons, or religious figures.

Even within Greek and Roman art, there was variation and exaggeration based on the role and status of an individual or character. In fact, most statues were exaggerations and idealized versions of the people they were meant to represent.

Humans have often distorted the human form to suit the narrative they are trying to convey. All throughout history, human societies have changed what they have viewed as ideal forms. ( example – NSFW )

That is no different that what we see in current popular media. Aliens, demons, monsters, creatures, females, males, children, and animals have all been distorted and idealized to suit the story being told.

Go back to 1977 and think of the Cantina on Mos Eisley. Those aliens were all strange distorted representations of humans and animals. They were interesting because we could relate to them, but they were different enough that they weren’t human. Art and literature have done this for thousands of years, and even back to cave paintings.

In terms of the Watchknight, what we are seeing is a character that is designed to have female characteristics, but not a realistic representation of a female. It is a stylized robot version of a female. This is done because it would be totally boring and uninspired to simply put the “average” female in the game as a robot.

It would have lost it’s stature, it’s uniqueness, it’s strangeness, and intimidating presence. Just look at any robot from popular culture such as the Transformers. They are exaggerated versions of half human, half machine.

We can argue this back and fourth for days, but until some people on here start to accept that the purpose of these characters is not to represent the average female, nor are they meant to blend in, be approachable and “cute”, or to not represent a stylized and exaggerated version of a human female…well, there really isn’t much to say.

You may not LIKE the design, and that is fine, but you can’t sit here and continuously argue that because it doesn’t fit your version of what you feel is an ideal feminine form, that it is therefore sexist, offensive, and objectified.

I just wanted to add one final thought. A few people have brought up this idea that because they are silent, subservient, and lacking personality, they are therefore disposable….well, yes…they are fighting robots. They aren’t Bicentennial Man or C-3P0 (human / cyborg relations), they are robots with one purpose, to protect and fight. They’re not meant to be your best friend and play scrabble with, or go check out a movie. They’re not meant to be your best friend that you call and talk about the latest fan edit of Firefly.

These are not going to give you a high five for beating the final boss, or making half a million Karma. They are there to protect, and fight.

Why are so many of you putting them into roles that they’re not design to be in? Why are you asking for them to be something they’re not? Would you be happy if one learned how to love, and said, “I know now why you cry” and gave a thumbs up as it burned in a pool of lava?

zenleto.6179:

Well yeah, but they’re more realistic than Barbie. Going back to beach references, I see those ladies fairly often at my local one. With swimmers on.

You’re cherry-picking one culture to suit your argument. Look at the body proportions of other ancient cultures, or even stylized humans from the same era. You can’t say, “I found some women with non-barbie bodies, therefore this is ridiculous.”

There are many, many examples of exaggerated female forms in Greek and Roman art. Just Google.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

zenleto.6179:

Well yeah, but they’re more realistic than Barbie. Going back to beach references, I see those ladies fairly often at my local one. With swimmers on.

You’re cherry-picking one culture to suit your argument. Look at the body proportions of other ancient cultures, or even stylized humans from the same era. You can’t say, “I found some women with non-barbie bodies, therefore this is ridiculous.”

There are many, many examples of exaggerated female forms in Greek and Roman art. Just Google.

No I’m not. And what argument? What are you even talking about here?

I think you need to turn it off for a bit, mate. You’re picking fights everywhere.

zenleto.6179:

No I’m not. And what argument? What are you even talking about here?

I think you need to turn it off for a bit, mate. You’re picking fights everywhere.

The general argument that you stepped into the middle of and decided you had something to contribute. I’m not picking fights, I’m having a discussion, and if you have something to add, by all means add it.

Feel free to read the thread again and contribute your thoughts.

Crazylegsmurphy you make the point about this game being stylised and that’s true but why does that simple fact make it ok to basically have female characters running around in lingerie while male characters get some actual armour? I think a good example is the heavy armour I use on my warrior. On a male it covers him head to toe in plate and chainmail but if I stick that exact same armour on a female character she will have more flesh visible on her legs and chest than actual steel. And ther are multiple other pieces of armour in this game that behave in the same way. Stylised or not the only purpose this divide serves is to offer up digital eye candy for the segment of the male audience who like women that way. I just think it’s rather immature to want all your female characters in video games to show more skin than actual clothing while the men dress in completely normal attire.

And yes you’re right I have a rather low view of men who choose to play female characters in video games, but I should clear up that I was referring only to the men who do this and then only dress their characters in the skimpiest and most impractical armours they can find. And I’ve even had these men literally say that they want their characters to look like prostitutes. So yes I take a dim view on these people, I hope you can understand why. On the other hand I’ve known men who play female game characters that actually take them seriously and kit them out in a believable way. This I’m fine with because it’s not at all disrespectful. I once asked one of these men about why he didn’t dress his female characters up in the skimpiest armours around and he told me that he thought that would be childish and he wanted his characters to look like they would be taken seriously.

I just think that if video games are to be taken more seriously as a form of art like books and movies are then developers should move away from these obvious attempts at titillating the younger male demographic with unrealistic childish depictions of women. While this does can happen in movies it’s much less frequent and far less over the top. Am I so wrong for wanting women in video games to be actual believable characters like Alyx from Half Life or Faith from Mirror’s Edge or Anya Stroud from Gears of War? Or should they all be like Ivy from Soul Calibur because it’s a stylised video game?

Tharium.7325:

Crazylegsmurphy you make the point about this game being stylised and that’s true but why does that simple fact make it ok to basically have female characters running around in lingerie while male characters get some actual armour? I think a good example is the heavy armour I use on my warrior. On a male it covers him head to toe in plate and chainmail but if I stick that exact same armour on a female character she will have more flesh visible on her legs and chest than actual steel. And ther are multiple other pieces of armour in this game that behave in the same way. Stylised or not the only purpose this divide serves is to offer up digital eye candy for the segment of the male audience who like women that way. I just think it’s rather immature to want all your female characters in video games to show more skin than actual clothing while the men dress in completely normal attire.

And yes you’re right I have a rather low view of men who choose to play female characters in video games, but I should clear up that I was referring only to the men who do this and then only dress their characters in the skimpiest and most impractical armours they can find. And I’ve even had these men literally say that they want their characters to look like prostitutes. So yes I take a dim view on these people, I hope you can understand why. On the other hand I’ve known men who play female game characters that actually take them seriously and kit them out in a believable way. This I’m fine with because it’s not at all disrespectful. I once asked one of these men about why he didn’t dress his female characters up in the skimpiest armours around and he told me that he thought that would be childish and he wanted his characters to look like they would be taken seriously.

I just think that if video games are to be taken more seriously as a form of art like books and movies are then developers should move away from these obvious attempts at titillating the younger male demographic with unrealistic childish depictions of women. While this does can happen in movies it’s much less frequent and far less over the top. Am I so wrong for wanting women in video games to be actual believable characters like Alyx from Half Life or Faith from Mirror’s Edge or Anya Stroud from Gears of War? Or should they all be like Ivy from Soul Calibur because it’s a stylised video game?

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

zenleto.6179:

No I’m not. And what argument? What are you even talking about here?

I think you need to turn it off for a bit, mate. You’re picking fights everywhere.

The general argument that you stepped into the middle of and decided you had something to contribute. I’m not picking fights, I’m having a discussion, and if you have something to add, by all means add it.

Feel free to read the thread again and contribute your thoughts.

You told me I was cherry-picking one culture to suit my argument. What argument? Who am I arguing with? I’ve been following your posts with interest in this thread but unfortunately, with your poor understanding of my post, I’m wondering if you really know what you’re on about.

I’m out. Should have stayed out after the last time I said it.

Can someone lock this thread already? This silly argument has gone long enough for the fact its has now 9 pages.

This is very sad if this thing upsets a community to the extent they need to give descriptive details and showing images to defend their argument when overall it’s not a big deal.

We get it
Section A

• does not like the model, but wants to criticize Anet saying shame on them for putting this out for a assumption of a certain audience. That’s ludicrous…

Section B

• Does not see a problem whats wrong with the image because it’s not their first time seeing something like this before. They just know its a new model that happens to have female anatomy and nothing more.

Section C

• Plays the game focusing on getting more gold and karma not caring about the model or anything. They just play the game to have fun and not to stare at something for more then a second wondering whats wrong with it.

This may take a bit of explaining, but I’ll try my best.

Tharium.7325:

Crazylegsmurphy you make the point about this game being stylised and that’s true but why does that simple fact make it ok to basically have female characters running around in lingerie while male characters get some actual armour?

I’m sorry, but this is not a simple fact. It’s actually grossly inaccurate.

Just look at the various types of armor Here

Female characters in this game have access to a wide range of armor types, and the ability to mix and match gives players an extremely generous amount of options. To claim any differently is to misrepresent the facts.

Tharium.7325:

I think a good example is the heavy armour I use on my warrior. On a male it covers him head to toe in plate and chainmail but if I stick that exact same armour on a female character -snip-

Yes, but as I mentioned above, you are not limited to one armor type.

I hear the argument you’re trying to make, so I won’t pretend that I don’t. You’re trying to say that some armors are sexualized for females, while the male version is arguably not. This is of course true, and there is no problem asking the question of why this is the case.

It’s a discussion that needs to be had, but we need to do it without distorting the facts, taking it out of context, or cherry-picking to suit our argument. We can ask the question, “Why are some male and female armor sets more sexualized?” without having to resort to distorting the truth.

So, why does this happen? I would admit that it is probably a lingering result of what was once the norm to make female characters more sexualized. There is no need to deny or ignore this. Lets have a conversation about how we can rectify this moving forward.

EDIT: I’m by no means suggesting nothing should be sexualized, I just want to make sure whatever direction media takes, that it is equal among both genders.

Tharium.7325:

Stylised or not the only purpose this divide serves is to offer up digital eye candy for the segment of the male audience who like women that way. -snip-

You’re right, it is immature to only want to represent females in more skin than clothing, but this isn’t the case here, nor is it in a lot of video games.

The problem I have with your argument is the assumptions you’re making. You assume that only males want characters like that. Some people of both genders like the idea of their characters wearing skimpy outfits, just like people choose to wear in real life.

You can’t say that because you don’t prefer that style, that no one else should have access to it as well.

Tharium.7325:

And yes you’re right I have a rather low view of men who choose to play female characters in video games, -snip-

And what you are doing here is, in my opinion, is judging the abilities and validity of a character based on what they are wearing. What any player chooses to dress their characters in has no barring on how we should treat real people.

If I see a person wearing a fuzzy Quaggan hat, wearing sunglasses, their underwear, and boxing gloves, all colored in bright purple, that doesn’t give me the right to judge that person, or any one gender/race/religion/etc.

…cont

Tharium.7325:

So yes I take a dim view on these people, I hope you can understand why. On the other hand I’ve known men who play female game characters that actually take them seriously and kit them out in a believable way. -snip-

See what you’re doing here? You’re associating certain clothing choices with ability. In a way, this is the same thing as saying that if a woman is wearing short shorts and tank-top at a company meeting, that we shouldn’t take her seriously. This is like when people argue that because a woman chose to wear revealing clothing, that she deserves to be cat-called, and hit on, because she obviously doesn’t respect herself.

How serious a player (regardless of their gender, and the gender their characters is), takes their gameplay has nothing to do with what outfits they choose to wear. Players choose to take the game as serious, or as casual as they like, and that is their choice.

Tharium.7325:

I just think that if video games are to be taken more seriously as a form of art like books and movies -snip-

You’re doing it again. You’re associating the validity of something based on your version of what you consider to be appropriate.

I want women and men in games to be designed in a way that suits the story best. I don’t have any problem seeing overly sexualized, idealized, stereotypical characters if it fits within the narrative.

To say that all characters have to be realistic depictions of humans is kinda short sighted and unrealistic. Think of all the games and movies that use exaggeration for impact. Clueless, Ace Ventura, Monkey Island, My Little Pony, Transformers, Buffy, etc…all had over the top, highly stylized and exaggerated characters to tell a story.

This desire to sanitize everything so no one feels offended, and everyone is equally and realistically represented is not conducive to telling good stories.

bhagwad.4281:

For me, I have a problem with the forms. But it’s NOT about the following.

1. It’s NOT about feminism or objectifying women
2. It’s not about sexuality or nudity
3. It’s not about getting offended. I’m somehow missing that bone

It’s about a machine – and a very obvious machine at that – having completely extraneous parts that serve no function. Mind you, these machines are NOT being made to look human ala terminator. No skin, no hair, no lips, no eyes. But they have boobs. And bums. And high heels! And that too not normal boobs, bums and heels. Huge, massive ones!

So my problem is this…what are the developers trying to achieve? Are they trying to make them look like women? Obviously not. Are they trying to make them feminine? Possibly. But then they would have had just normal curves, normal waists, and if necessary (though I don’t see how), normal heels.

So I’m left with no conclusion other than the fact that the developers just wanted to put in those parts for kicks to pander to the male player base.

Its obviously padding to protect them. Or maybe theyre for storage?

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

Gosh, really? First time I saw the Watchknights, I was: “Oh cool” and that was it. Not once did I pay attention to their anatomical features because it wasn’t important to me. So what if the Watchknights are modeled after the female body (also isn’t Queen Jennah making the decisions)? Is gender type really that important? We’re all humans in the end, that’s the only thing that should matter. Gender to me is secondary.

I hear this argument a lot when discussing various fictional fembots. I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that what we’re looking at, as some have pointed out in different terms, are not objectified females, but rather feminized objects. In other words, the qualities that ascribe a female gender to them are entirely visual and socially learned — the high heels for example (though men wearing high heels has certainly been a common fashion throughout history and various cultures, so that’s situational) — but there is no actual female sexuality because there is no concurrent biology.

I find it kind of odd that our society — by which I mean America — is so weird about things like this. Liberals will laud the freedom of drag queens to choose their gender identity using the most garish visual cues possible, and then vilify actual women for doing the exact same thing. Right-wingers will tell us a woman’s place is in the kitchen, unless that kitchen is in a restaurant, at which point it becomes a man’s job. And so on.

On the other hand, there is indeed such a thing as white male privilege; men don’t have to go through these sorts of arguments specifically because “male” is the assumed default. Nobody bats an eye at a male robot (I’m looking at you, Asuran golems) because unless a gender is specified — overtly through physical design or more subtly through activity or demeanor — it is not male; it is simply a robot.

On the OTHER other hand, Fifty Shades of Grey sold 60 million copies, mostly to women. There’s certainly a non-negligible slice of society that wants, willingly, to explore objectification. Should they be denied that opportunity? Should they be curtailed from representation?

On the OTHER other other hand, this is art we’re talking about. Do we want to make the argument that certain kinds of art shouldn’t be expressed because some interpretations could be offensive? I’m fairly certain the intent here wasn’t “women are objects”, considering that there are also numerous powerful and strong female characters in this story — Queen Jenna is the leader of all of humanity, remember — and the fact that ArenaNet and NCSoft like making money and are fully aware how many women play this game.

I do think it’s good to bring up issues like this because women still suffer from gross inequalities in our society. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. This, to me, is a relatively harmless bit of fun, and possible cheesecake to people with a certain bent, in a larger game world that represents plenty of other options for feminist-minded players.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Shiren.9532:

The audience of the game isn’t you and your personal tastes. Some people might like to see something sexualised. Judging from all the human females running around in skimpy armour I’d say a large number of players care a great deal about that. Are they all people who should grow up because they want something from their fantasy MMO that’s different to what you want?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

There are plenty of girls who play GW2 and go for the “skimpy” outfits. I watched the GW2 stream where someone from ArenaNet was playing a human female ele and showing people how to get started in GW2. It stood out to me that she was very excited to buy a purple bag (her whole character was purple, hair, clothes, bag etc). As I watched her play, I was amazed at how I could see up the character’s skirt as she ran, it was designed to stand out (I’m not claiming that she chose that armour, obviously it’s every human female’s starter armour, I’m just pointing out that this kind of stuff exists already and it’s perfectly fine). The starter clothes are far more sexual than the robots, and unlike the robots they are actually supposed to represent humans (which the player controls if you want to view that as another way to make it wrong – males creating attractive female avatars subservient to their every key press – it’s not as sinister and some people in this thread would like us to believe).

Video games are always going to present idealised versions of people. The men will generally have trim, buff bodies and the women will be trim and curvy. I don’t really see why there is a problem with these as options, and I actually think it’s narrow minded to suggest it’s something which specifically targets females. Norn males will often go shirtless and have very masculine and muscular bodies. One of the key characters for this chapter (Braham) is even showing a nipple, and Logan is your stereotypical pretty-boy.

Guild Wars 2 doesn’t objectify women, it goes to great lengths to do the opposite (to the point where I think the story is dumbed down to accommodate this agenda). There is an entire race which was designed to portray females as masculine to the point where maternal females aren’t the norm and the main physical difference between males and females are their tails (and neither asura nor charr females use the female armour models). The human kingdom is ruled by a Queen, not a King which is standard in the fantasy genre. She’s not as formidable as Olenna Tyrell from Game of Thrones, but she’s certainly not portrayed as weak. I suspect her character was designed to appeal to females more so than males. In many ways, her relationship with Logan is a stereotypical gender reversal (the queen is almost portrayed as asexual while Logan is painfully written as a clingy, love-sick puppy dog – another way the story goes out of its way to promote females at the expense of male characters). Several factions in Tyria are lead by a female (Order of Whispers, Vigil, Sylvari etc) to the point where I think the females are outweighing the males in the power/numbers ratio. Destiny’s Edge is made up of three females and two males, the Living Story so far has only one male protagonist (Braham) but four female protagonists (Rox, Kasmeer, Kiel, Marjory).

If you played GW2 and think that it teaches people to think of women as objects, you haven’t paid attention to anything past the character customisation screen. Some people seem to think that if something is sexual (especially if it’s the female form) it’s somehow degrading or morally objectionable. It’s not, it’s the context which matters most, and in the context of GW2, women are standing in a pretty good place. It’s the height of irony to me that this thread is so large during a month where the story focuses around the Jubilee of a female queen. The Watchknights, while clearly emphasising the female form, are not portrayed in a sleazy way. They aren’t sex bots, they are potent fighters. As far as it being unrealistic for them to be shaped the way they are, boob armour is unrealistic, magic is unrealistic, giant cat people are unrealistic, almost every greatsword skin in the game is unrealistic, most of the asuran combat animations are unrealistic. It’s a fantasy MMO. The fact that we get to see and experience things which aren’t in the real world is part of the fun.

Shiren.9532:

-snip-

Brilliant post! I really like how you pointed out the female representation in this game in comparison to the male. Very cool.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

The size of the breasts are the concern which happen to come with the body. When most of the breasts are DD+ it is obvious without argument. It is like saying Lara Croft just happens to have huge boobs but has nothing to do with using that to market to male gamers. -_- Though I love Lara Croft, I will still not deny that fact.

Meriem.3504:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

The size of the breasts are the concern which happen to come with the body. When most of the breasts are DD+ it is obvious without argument. It is like saying Lara Croft just happens to have huge boobs but has nothing to do with using that to market to male gamers. -_- Though I love Lara Croft, I will still not deny that fact.

What do you expect from FAKE breasts. Of course the Watchknights have FAKE large breasts.

Small FAKE mechanical breasts just wouldn’t look right.

Onshidesigns.1069:

Meriem.3504:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

The size of the breasts are the concern which happen to come with the body. When most of the breasts are DD+ it is obvious without argument. It is like saying Lara Croft just happens to have huge boobs but has nothing to do with using that to market to male gamers. -_- Though I love Lara Croft, I will still not deny that fact.

What do you expect from FAKE breasts. Of course the Watchknights have FAKE large breasts.

Small FAKE mechanical breasts just wouldn’t look right.

Please read the posts that I am responding too. This is not in regard to the bots but the body selection for Norns and Human females.

Meriem.3504:

Onshidesigns.1069:

Meriem.3504:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

The size of the breasts are the concern which happen to come with the body. When most of the breasts are DD+ it is obvious without argument. It is like saying Lara Croft just happens to have huge boobs but has nothing to do with using that to market to male gamers. -_- Though I love Lara Croft, I will still not deny that fact.

What do you expect from FAKE breasts. Of course the Watchknights have FAKE large breasts.

Small FAKE mechanical breasts just wouldn’t look right.

Please read the post. This is not in regard to the bots but the body selection for Norns and Human females.

Eh, I’m personally ok with female norn body shapes.

It’s the barbie doll humans I hate. But then with the right armor even that can be hidden

Celestina.2894:

Meriem.3504:

Onshidesigns.1069:

Meriem.3504:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

When I made my engi I gave her as tough a look at the game would allow. I would have preferred a body type with smaller breasts though, but they weren’t available. Take a look.

There are a lot of body types many of us would prefer in games, but we have to understand the limitations the developers have. There is nothing wrong with requesting more diversity though.

We just have to make sure we don’t say, “I couldn’t make smaller breasts, therefore sexism!”

The size of the breasts are the concern which happen to come with the body. When most of the breasts are DD+ it is obvious without argument. It is like saying Lara Croft just happens to have huge boobs but has nothing to do with using that to market to male gamers. -_- Though I love Lara Croft, I will still not deny that fact.

What do you expect from FAKE breasts. Of course the Watchknights have FAKE large breasts.

Small FAKE mechanical breasts just wouldn’t look right.

Please read the post. This is not in regard to the bots but the body selection for Norns and Human females.

Eh, I’m personally ok with female norn body shapes.

It’s the barbie doll humans I hate. But then with the right armor even that can be hidden

I don’t mind them having big and or huge boobs. I personally wanted them to be a seperate selection was all so if peeps wanted too, they could chose the body the wanted along with the breasts being breasts are a prominent feature.

I don’t mind being * bone * skinny because I am already dead! No pun intended! X D

Is it weird I know straight women, or married women, who are artists and like going just a little “top heavy”, racy, or otherwise appealing it up?

I don’t have a problem with the watchknights, I am male, in the US, and while I can see the argument may hold some merit (in that people have been offended) I find it much more interesting the epithets heard when I play a charr about a certain fetish subculture.

It’s the Internet. I fully expect everything, to at least one person or another, is going to offend. I could offer free chocolate ice cream and I’d have a small line of people telling me how offended they were.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Is it weird I know straight women, or married women, who are artists and like going just a little “top heavy”, racy, or otherwise appealing it up?

Not really. The only people I know who I consider true friends are female, and they’re the first ones to dress their characters up in skimpy clothing so long as it looks stylish.

Hell, one of them wants the tier 3 med human just because of the underboob where as I myself would have to pass on that one.

I LOVE the look of the Watchtower Knights. I didn’t even notice all of the nicer details until it was heavily pointed out here on the forums. Please keep up the good work ANet and for the love of all that is good please introduce more revealing armor.

Why are there no high heeled armor sets?

This is a 4 day old thread. There is another thread that is 6 days old you should look at so you don’t rehash the same arguments.

HERE

Shiren.9532:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Shiren.9532:

The audience of the game isn’t you and your personal tastes. Some people might like to see something sexualised. Judging from all the human females running around in skimpy armour I’d say a large number of players care a great deal about that. Are they all people who should grow up because they want something from their fantasy MMO that’s different to what you want?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

There are plenty of girls who play GW2 and go for the “skimpy” outfits. I watched the GW2 stream where someone from ArenaNet was playing a human female ele and showing people how to get started in GW2. It stood out to me that she was very excited to buy a purple bag (her whole character was purple, hair, clothes, bag etc). As I watched her play, I was amazed at how I could see up the character’s skirt as she ran, it was designed to stand out (I’m not claiming that she chose that armour, obviously it’s every human female’s starter armour, I’m just pointing out that this kind of stuff exists already and it’s perfectly fine). The starter clothes are far more sexual than the robots, and unlike the robots they are actually supposed to represent humans (which the player controls if you want to view that as another way to make it wrong – males creating attractive female avatars subservient to their every key press – it’s not as sinister and some people in this thread would like us to believe).

Video games are always going to present idealised versions of people. The men will generally have trim, buff bodies and the women will be trim and curvy. I don’t really see why there is a problem with these as options, and I actually think it’s narrow minded to suggest it’s something which specifically targets females. Norn males will often go shirtless and have very masculine and muscular bodies. One of the key characters for this chapter (Braham) is even showing a nipple, and Logan is your stereotypical pretty-boy.

Guild Wars 2 doesn’t objectify women, it goes to great lengths to do the opposite (to the point where I think the story is dumbed down to accommodate this agenda). There is an entire race which was designed to portray females as masculine to the point where maternal females aren’t the norm and the main physical difference between males and females are their tails (and neither asura nor charr females use the female armour models). The human kingdom is ruled by a Queen, not a King which is standard in the fantasy genre. She’s not as formidable as Olenna Tyrell from Game of Thrones, but she’s certainly not portrayed as weak. I suspect her character was designed to appeal to females more so than males. In many ways, her relationship with Logan is a stereotypical gender reversal (the queen is almost portrayed as asexual while Logan is painfully written as a clingy, love-sick puppy dog – another way the story goes out of its way to promote females at the expense of male characters). Several factions in Tyria are lead by a female (Order of Whispers, Vigil, Sylvari etc) to the point where I think the females are outweighing the males in the power/numbers ratio. Destiny’s Edge is made up of three females and two males, the Living Story so far has only one male protagonist (Braham) but four female protagonists (Rox, Kasmeer, Kiel, Marjory).

If you played GW2 and think that it teaches people to think of women as objects, you haven’t paid attention to anything past the character customisation screen. Some people seem to think that if something is sexual (especially if it’s the female form) it’s somehow degrading or morally objectionable. It’s not, it’s the context which matters most, and in the context of GW2, women are standing in a pretty good place. It’s the height of irony to me that this thread is so large during a month where the story focuses around the Jubilee of a female queen. The Watchknights, while clearly emphasising the female form, are not portrayed in a sleazy way. They aren’t sex bots, they are potent fighters. As far as it being unrealistic for them to be shaped the way they are, boob armour is unrealistic, magic is unrealistic, giant cat people are unrealistic, almost every greatsword skin in the game is unrealistic, most of the asuran combat animations are unrealistic. It’s a fantasy MMO. The fact that we get to see and experience things which aren’t in the real world is part of the fun.

Awesome post.

from what i gather the upset about this is that they’re robots with totally ridiculous designs (high heels, overly detailed… and why the hell do they have an idle animation?)

as an asexual male (yeh yeh… dont go there, i will never be able to explain it to someone… there was an article i read somewhere with a nice quote… but i forgot to bookmark it and/or note the quote) i find it ridiculous that a robot(… thing) designed to defend kryta would look as it does

Zomaarwat.3912:

bhagwad.4281:

For me, I have a problem with the forms. But it’s NOT about the following.

1. It’s NOT about feminism or objectifying women
2. It’s not about sexuality or nudity
3. It’s not about getting offended. I’m somehow missing that bone

It’s about a machine – and a very obvious machine at that – having completely extraneous parts that serve no function. Mind you, these machines are NOT being made to look human ala terminator. No skin, no hair, no lips, no eyes. But they have boobs. And bums. And high heels! And that too not normal boobs, bums and heels. Huge, massive ones!

So my problem is this…what are the developers trying to achieve? Are they trying to make them look like women? Obviously not. Are they trying to make them feminine? Possibly. But then they would have had just normal curves, normal waists, and if necessary (though I don’t see how), normal heels.

So I’m left with no conclusion other than the fact that the developers just wanted to put in those parts for kicks to pander to the male player base.

Its obviously padding to protect them. Or maybe theyre for storage?

I’m with you, Zomaarwat. I think those features are very much functional, but not with the functions of their biological analogues. For all we know, those may be the prime locations for control circuitry, fuel cells, or a self-destruct mechanism.

Linguistically Inept.6583:

from what i gather the upset about this is that they’re robots with totally ridiculous designs (high heels, overly detailed… and why the hell do they have an idle animation?)

as an asexual male (yeh yeh… dont go there, i will never be able to explain it to someone… there was an article i read somewhere with a nice quote… but i forgot to bookmark it and/or note the quote) i find it ridiculous that a robot(… thing) designed to defend kryta would look as it does

Idle animation prevents Rusted Tin Man Syndrome. (Say “oil can.”)

Theplayboy.6417:

Shiren.9532:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Shiren.9532:

The audience of the game isn’t you and your personal tastes. Some people might like to see something sexualised. Judging from all the human females running around in skimpy armour I’d say a large number of players care a great deal about that. Are they all people who should grow up because they want something from their fantasy MMO that’s different to what you want?

I don’t think the number of players running around in skimpy outfits, is a good excuse to justify objectification of women in games as a whole. MMO’s especially have a tendency for immature designs, that over-sexualize women. I personally don’t think that’s tasteful, or healthy.

There are plenty of girls who play GW2 and go for the “skimpy” outfits. I watched the GW2 stream where someone from ArenaNet was playing a human female ele and showing people how to get started in GW2. It stood out to me that she was very excited to buy a purple bag (her whole character was purple, hair, clothes, bag etc). As I watched her play, I was amazed at how I could see up the character’s skirt as she ran, it was designed to stand out (I’m not claiming that she chose that armour, obviously it’s every human female’s starter armour, I’m just pointing out that this kind of stuff exists already and it’s perfectly fine). The starter clothes are far more sexual than the robots, and unlike the robots they are actually supposed to represent humans (which the player controls if you want to view that as another way to make it wrong – males creating attractive female avatars subservient to their every key press – it’s not as sinister and some people in this thread would like us to believe).

Video games are always going to present idealised versions of people. The men will generally have trim, buff bodies and the women will be trim and curvy. I don’t really see why there is a problem with these as options, and I actually think it’s narrow minded to suggest it’s something which specifically targets females. Norn males will often go shirtless and have very masculine and muscular bodies. One of the key characters for this chapter (Braham) is even showing a nipple, and Logan is your stereotypical pretty-boy.

Guild Wars 2 doesn’t objectify women, it goes to great lengths to do the opposite (to the point where I think the story is dumbed down to accommodate this agenda). There is an entire race which was designed to portray females as masculine to the point where maternal females aren’t the norm and the main physical difference between males and females are their tails (and neither asura nor charr females use the female armour models). The human kingdom is ruled by a Queen, not a King which is standard in the fantasy genre. She’s not as formidable as Olenna Tyrell from Game of Thrones, but she’s certainly not portrayed as weak. I suspect her character was designed to appeal to females more so than males. In many ways, her relationship with Logan is a stereotypical gender reversal (the queen is almost portrayed as asexual while Logan is painfully written as a clingy, love-sick puppy dog – another way the story goes out of its way to promote females at the expense of male characters). Several factions in Tyria are lead by a female (Order of Whispers, Vigil, Sylvari etc) to the point where I think the females are outweighing the males in the power/numbers ratio. Destiny’s Edge is made up of three females and two males, the Living Story so far has only one male protagonist (Braham) but four female protagonists (Rox, Kasmeer, Kiel, Marjory).

If you played GW2 and think that it teaches people to think of women as objects, you haven’t paid attention to anything past the character customisation screen. Some people seem to think that if something is sexual (especially if it’s the female form) it’s somehow degrading or morally objectionable. It’s not, it’s the context which matters most, and in the context of GW2, women are standing in a pretty good place. It’s the height of irony to me that this thread is so large during a month where the story focuses around the Jubilee of a female queen. The Watchknights, while clearly emphasising the female form, are not portrayed in a sleazy way. They aren’t sex bots, they are potent fighters. As far as it being unrealistic for them to be shaped the way they are, boob armour is unrealistic, magic is unrealistic, giant cat people are unrealistic, almost every greatsword skin in the game is unrealistic, most of the asuran combat animations are unrealistic. It’s a fantasy MMO. The fact that we get to see and experience things which aren’t in the real world is part of the fun.

Awesome post.

They still don’t need areolas.

They still don’t need areolas.

They don’t need heads, or arms, or legs, or eyes, or feet, or anything else for that matter.

They could just be spheres that roll around and have retractable blades for rolling into people.

Bovinity.8610:

They still don’t need areolas.

They don’t need heads, or arms, or legs, or eyes, or feet, or anything else for that matter.

They could just be spheres that roll around and have retractable blades for rolling into people.

You missed my point. When things start having areolas, nipples and [ since the word is filtered, I will deem it the hole between the legs ], it starts at least to me, expressing sexual things.

You missed my point. When things start having areolas, nipples and [ since the word is filtered, I will deem it the hole between the legs ], it starts at least to me, expressing sexual things.

Not to be snarky, but if you look at Watchknights and see “Sexual things” then…well…ok, I don’t really know what to say.

It’ll suffice to say that no one – male or female – that I know thought “Sex” when seeing the big clockwork battle robots.

There are a couple of things that keep coming up in this thread I think need addressing.

1. Just because a woman thinks something isn’t sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist. If your wife/gf/friend/mom/whoever says, “I don’t have a problem with high heels on a robot,” that doesn’t make it A-OK anymore than a woman saying it isn’t OK makes it automatically not OK. This argument comes up a lot in feminist-related things, and it’s really not an argument. It’s just opinion: a girl thinks it’s ok. Maybe even an unofficial poll of all the girls you know says it’s ok. That’s great, but so what.

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.

I’m not prepared to launch myself into the midst of this debate, but I do think it’s important to recognize these points if you’re really trying to talk about this.

1. Just because a woman thinks something isn’t sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist. If your wife/gf/friend/mom/whoever says, “I don’t have a problem with high heels on a robot,” that doesn’t make it A-OK anymore than a woman saying it isn’t OK makes it automatically not OK. This argument comes up a lot in feminist-related things, and it’s really not an argument. It’s just opinion: a girl thinks it’s ok. Maybe even an unofficial poll of all the girls you know says it’s ok. That’s great, but so what.

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.

The opposite is true too, though. Just because a woman (or a man deciding he needs to defend women) is offended, it doesn’t make it “sexism”.

Sadly, that seems to be the criteria nowadays. If a woman is displeased by something I say or do – for any reason – then it’s “sexism” because she says so.

Bovinity.8610:

1. Just because a woman thinks something isn’t sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist. If your wife/gf/friend/mom/whoever says, “I don’t have a problem with high heels on a robot,” that doesn’t make it A-OK anymore than a woman saying it isn’t OK makes it automatically not OK. This argument comes up a lot in feminist-related things, and it’s really not an argument. It’s just opinion: a girl thinks it’s ok. Maybe even an unofficial poll of all the girls you know says it’s ok. That’s great, but so what.

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.

The opposite is true too, though. Just because a woman (or a man deciding he needs to defend women) is offended, it doesn’t make it “sexism”.

Sadly, that seems to be the criteria nowadays. If a woman is displeased by something I say or do – for any reason – then it’s “sexism” because she says so.

Take a breath and re-read Sitkaz’ post, specifically sentence two.

Bovinity.8610:

It’ll suffice to say that no one – male or female – that I know thought “Sex” when seeing the big clockwork battle robots.

Exactly and this is why game designers need to start treating their audience like mature people instead of wrongly assuming that we’ll have this puerile reaction.

Take a breath and re-read Sitkaz’ post, specifically sentence two.

Yeah yeah, I see it. =P

Somewhere in the OK’s I got lost.

Sitkaz.5463:

There are a couple of things that keep coming up in this thread I think need addressing.

1. Just because a woman thinks something isn’t sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist. If your wife/gf/friend/mom/whoever says, “I don’t have a problem with high heels on a robot,” that doesn’t make it A-OK anymore than a woman saying it isn’t OK makes it automatically not OK. This argument comes up a lot in feminist-related things, and it’s really not an argument. It’s just opinion: a girl thinks it’s ok. Maybe even an unofficial poll of all the girls you know says it’s ok. That’s great, but so what.

2. Just because something’s done a lot already doesn’t make it OK either. People keep saying, All MMOs have stuff like this. Greek art has stuff like this. Etc. Well it’s not like the people who are against it don’t know that. It still doesn’t make it OK and it still isn’t an argument, it’s just a situation.

I’m not prepared to launch myself into the midst of this debate, but I do think it’s important to recognize these points if you’re really trying to talk about this.

1. If a majority of the people do think its OK to put heels on a robot does that make it OK? If the honest truth is that a majority of people didn’t even notice the heels, breasts, or butt on the Watchtower Knights does that make it OK? If an extreme minority of extremists doesn’t think its OK does that not make it OK?

2. The bottom line here is that you’re partially correct in your #2 statement. This sort of stuff is everywhere and to put it succinctly, “That’s OK”. The solid truth is that if it wasn’t OK it wouldn’t be present in this game or most other places in the first place. Thus, its OK!

Clear enough?

Bovinity.8610:

a man deciding he needs to defend women

How about you drop this ridiculous “white knight” attack and argue the ideas on their merits rather than insinuating any man on the other side is in it for ulterior motives. It’s the oldest bullkitten derail in the book. It makes you look pathetic.

How about you drop this ridiculous “white knight” attack and argue the ideas on their merits rather than insinuating any man on the other side is in it for ulterior motives. It’s the oldest bullkitten derail in the book. It makes you look pathetic.

Wow, sensitive much? I never referred to you or anyone else in this thread. It was clearly a general statement about “women or men defending women”.

The context was crystal clear, actually.

Really though, sensitive a bit?

Bovinity.8610:

You missed my point. When things start having areolas, nipples and [ since the word is filtered, I will deem it the hole between the legs ], it starts at least to me, expressing sexual things.

Not to be snarky, but if you look at Watchknights and see “Sexual things” then…well…ok, I don’t really know what to say.

It’ll suffice to say that no one – male or female – that I know thought “Sex” when seeing the big clockwork battle robots.

My main point is the intentions of the creator. One can draw a naked women as art and another draw the same thing but with sexual intentions even though it may be the exact same creation.

In regards to these robots, I see no reason for them to have such detail as areolas. Forgive me for repeating myself but people can’t seem to read or can’t comperhend AREOALS. Not the breasts, not the butts, not the high heels, at least for me, but the areolas.

As said before if they were robots created by a sexy vampire or a succubus it would make sense for them to have sexual themes, nipples, areolas, the southern region since its censored otherwise.

So in short, I feel the intentions of the creation was of a sexual nature and not just an artistic one or one based with another reason such as given example above.

This thread is still going? :P

I would have never even noticed these details if I hadn’t read this thread. Bit OT, but I’m still waiting for my speedo so I can match my mini Faren.

Meriem.3504:

Bovinity.8610:

You missed my point. When things start having areolas, nipples and [ since the word is filtered, I will deem it the hole between the legs ], it starts at least to me, expressing sexual things.

Not to be snarky, but if you look at Watchknights and see “Sexual things” then…well…ok, I don’t really know what to say.

It’ll suffice to say that no one – male or female – that I know thought “Sex” when seeing the big clockwork battle robots.

My main point is the intentions of the creator. One can draw a naked women as art and another draw the same thing but with sexual intentions even though it may be the exact same creation.

In regards to these robots, I see no reason for them to have such detail as areolas. Forgive me for repeating myself but people can’t seem to read or can’t comperhend AREOALS. Not the breasts, not the butts, not the high heels, at least for me, but the areolas.

As said before if they were robots created by a sexy vampire or a succubus it would make sense for them to have sexual themes, nipples, areolas, the southern region since its censored otherwise.

So in short, I feel the intentions of the creation was of a sexual nature and not just an artistic one or one based with another reason such as given example above.

They have such detailed areolas because the artist designed them that way. Is it at all possible that your feelings about the artists intent are incorrect and that you are overreacting?

I wouldn’t say the areolas are detailed. They are just raised circles. Has any ever thought they might be pasties?

Speaking of pasties, Anet please put pasties a the gem store.

Tamaki Revolution.3548:

This thread is still going? :P

I would have never even noticed these details if I hadn’t read this thread. Bit OT, but I’m still waiting for my speedo so I can match my mini Faren.

Apparently are a some immature people here who are uncomfortable by feminine looking robots.

Theplayboy.6417:

Meriem.3504:

Bovinity.8610:

You missed my point. When things start having areolas, nipples and [ since the word is filtered, I will deem it the hole between the legs ], it starts at least to me, expressing sexual things.

Not to be snarky, but if you look at Watchknights and see “Sexual things” then…well…ok, I don’t really know what to say.

It’ll suffice to say that no one – male or female – that I know thought “Sex” when seeing the big clockwork battle robots.

My main point is the intentions of the creator. One can draw a naked women as art and another draw the same thing but with sexual intentions even though it may be the exact same creation.

In regards to these robots, I see no reason for them to have such detail as areolas. Forgive me for repeating myself but people can’t seem to read or can’t comperhend AREOALS. Not the breasts, not the butts, not the high heels, at least for me, but the areolas.

As said before if they were robots created by a sexy vampire or a succubus it would make sense for them to have sexual themes, nipples, areolas, the southern region since its censored otherwise.

So in short, I feel the intentions of the creation was of a sexual nature and not just an artistic one or one based with another reason such as given example above.

They have such detailed areolas because the artist designed them that way. Is it at all possible that your feelings about the artists intent are incorrect and that you are overreacting?

As I said, I * feel * that it was done in a sexual way. Could I be wrong? Yes as I am not 100% but given other elements in the game, some of the outfits, the size of the breasts and I don’t mean there is anything wrong with having big and/or huge breasts as selection but the fact most of them are DD+ with little choice of smaller ones, leads to look at that.

I do not mind sexual theme things to an extent of course but there is a time and place for it and sometimes that is just the theme of the game.

Dragon Crown for example I find very humorous and the art is for the most part excellent, I personally do not like the amazon. Her exggerations don’t seem to flow well as the others do. I expect in that game 3 things, huge bouncing boobs, giant pecks and food. Not sure if food is big thing in DC but it was in the 2 previous games. But the way the art and theme of the game is done works.