Guild Wars 2

My take on this thread:

OP wants certain armor sets that she named to look more ‘kitten’. She feels that in comparison to the male version of these sets, the lack of coverage detracts from the ‘kittenness’. While I agree there is a coverage disparity, the ‘kittenness’ of a set of armor is kinda subjective. OP asks for option for female version more like male, which seems reasonable, though considering the way art assets work may not be viable from an financial perspective for Anet to do.

Close-minded white knights chime in about skimpy armor, ignore various threads proving that skimpy armor is not even the majority in this game, don’t add much. Probably hope to score points with IRL female OP.

People start talking about unrealistic, skimpy armor, ignoring that armor in this game protects characters from trebuchet rounds, dragon’s breath, and other physical attacks from Kaiju sized enemies that would cause any reasoning person to realize, because of the physics involved, that clearly the magical wards on the armor is what is doing the protection, not the physical form of it.

Debate should be focused on whether having multiple art assets per gender for an armor set is a good idea and feasible. It may very well be, and I certainly support more choices (so long as those assets don’t take away from the minimal development my WvW sees

Removing Restrictions: Cultural Armor. You heard it here first.

Flissy.4093:

thartalion.2756:

Flissy.4093:

You forget that even though you purchase the item, it still remains the property of ArenaNet and/or NCSoft.

You’ll be refunded the 800 gems. It’s so unlikely you will get your actual $ back because that would involve another retailer.

M’kay. I don’t really care who’s the owner of what here.

My point is, i bought an “apple” and now the seller is telling me “Hey, you see that guy over there? He didn’t like that i sold you an apple, so i’ll take your apple back and here’s a banana instead. Oh and if you don’t like bananas, i can give you a credit to buy more… bananas, ok?”.

Hum, no?

They can do what they like with their property and there’s nothing you can do about it. At most, they’ll lose a customer.

This is a logical fallacy I often seen on forums in MMOs. ArenaNet in fact will likely lose thousands and thousands of customers that this one customer is representative of. This concept is how one person answering a survey, for example, can represent thousands in a research study.

And this is what boggles my mind about this decision. The number of paying customers that will, in essence, have been baited and switched and will not spend more real cash in the cash shop could be very large. It doesn’t matter if the EULA covers them legally, I can’t see how the brand is not severely hurt by this, moreso than opening the cultural armor door (which probably isn’t the worse thing in the world).

Dusk in from a Frozen Maw chest. I’ve vowed never to complain about RNG in MMOs again.