Guild Wars 2

Last night I fought the “flame ring” boss 14 times. I lost every time.

I was able to get him down to half health once, but most times I would be dead in moments.

I am positive I could beat this boss, but due to the camera, lack of effects loading, no circles showing on the floor, enemy not loading, FPS drops, and time wasted setting up the fight again, I can’t justify trying anymore.

I was fighting the game more than the boss and for me that isn’t fun. Again, the challenge to totally cool, but when you factor in the extra and often random issues as I stated in my original posts, it becomes much too frustrating.

I have decided to no longer attempt this content until they address some of the issues.

Gnashblade was cool
I’m sure you’d agree
but his claim to fame
was RNG

If he had won,
we’d never be free,
from the costly and random
Black Lion Key

So, Fractals, or not
It’s so easy to see
It would have been bad
for you, and for me

I truly understand,
just how you feel,
but your wallet will thank us
that we voted for Kiel

I’m a thief…what do I have to do?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

1) If you want to beat it, you need to retrait if you’re set up incorrectly. Trail and error. Anet’s not gonna tell each player how to play within their skill range. If you do better as a pure Zerker rather than PVT, trail accordingly. Same with armor setups. This challenge wasn’t meant for everyone anyway, so you gotta do what you gotta do in order to win. If that means paying 100 Gold to respec, that’s your choice.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re arguing against here? I never said that spending money wasn’t an option, nor did I state that we shouldn’t “do what we gotta do” to win. My argument was that because many of the boss fights are unforgiving, and the cost of losing (time and money) is so high, it can be frustrating to not even have the time/understanding to figure out what changes to make.

I’m not complaining about the difficulty, I’m saying that it would be nice to be able to either have some place to test out these mechanics, or not have the penalty for experimentation be so unforgiving.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

2) If no one gives you a rez when you die, you Waypoint and run back. Pretty simple concept. If you don’t like that, be sure you win next time you go in.

It’s not a difficult task, or a hard concept to grasp, Smooth. The issue is that it is a needless waste of time. And I am sure you’re aware of how ridiculous your next statement is.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

As for the queue, I see no problem. The fights are fast enough, and it gives other players the opportunity to watch and learn.

Watching someone fight the first boss, and the third, and the fourth….when you’ve already beat them, from a fairly far distance, really isn’t all that informative. And while I agree they have the potential to go by relatively quickly, when you add up all the rest of the time it takes to get tickets, WP, run up, choose fight/gambits, repair, etc….it can add up.

Faowri.4159:

Women choosing what to wear on their own bodies is pretty different to designing a character with no agency of its own to be sexualised.

There are a few different levels going on here.

First, when designing background characters, it makes sense to depict them in a way that is representative of the population around them. Because they’re not actual sentient beings, but we’re trying to give the illusion they are, it makes sense to dress them as though they’re integrated into the world around them.

Secondly, the Watchknights are not sentient beings that have a choice. They are robots. We design all kinds of robots in media and real life that suit our needs. This is a totally different subject concerning robots, but as of yet, robots are not capable of understanding what it means to be sexualized (consciously), so to argue that it’s a “victim” of sorts doesn’t really make sense in my eyes.

Faowri.4159:

Besides which, do you not stop to think that the reason female cosplayers have such a gigantic pool of skimpy costumes to pick from is because, I don’t know, the media is a little oversaturated with them?

I’m not sure this totally applies to GW2. The armor sets are fairly even with only a very few exceptions.

Faowri.4159:

Everything has its time and place. For me, the watchknights fit neither.

That is fair.

For me, I think they fit very well in the context of the story. Strong, towering female robots, that are capable of defending the queen and her people. They are designed to have a strong female presence and beauty that reflects Queen Jennah and the designs around her.

:)

Sitkaz.5463:

I really like what you’ve said here but I notice you’ve contradicted what you said earlier. You said “…despite the sexualized nature of the design…” but now you say “they are by no means presented in a sexual manner.” I can see how both might be true, eg. the design is sexual but the aren’t used in a sexual manner because they fight rather than acting sexy or having sex, but you can probably see how the division might not be clear to everyone. To some, their sexualized design presents them in a sexual manner, so they are indeed promoting the stereotype of woman as sex object.

I know I said I wouldn’t dive into the debate but I found your reply thoughtful and interesting so it pulled me in.

Ya, I’m having a lot of trouble trying to explain what I mean when I say sexualization vs. sexual.

Let me give an example that might help.

Imagine that you’re looking at a photo of a nude woman, taken in a field of flowers. This image is sexualized in the sense thakittens purpose is to focus on, an accentuate the female figure. Now, imagine a poster for a bikini model hanging in a mechanics shop. While it’s still sexualized, it’s purpose is to be sexual, meaning to evoke a sexual response.

Where that line is drawn can differ from person to person, but at some point one has a different meaning than the other.

In the case of the Watchknights, they are indeed sexualized (in that they focus on female features), but they’re not sexual (in that they’re not designed to evoke a sexual response). To further support this, I have mentioned that the characters themselves are not put into situations in which they are required to be sexual.

So, for me, the Watchknights are sexualized, but they’re presented in a way that doesn’t reduce women to objects. They have purpose, meaning, and value. They also have cost me a lot of silver in the arena, so they’re not exactly projecting a helpless and incapable female.

Faowri.4159:

The short answer is that men are idealised to be something most men want to be (according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Women are often idealised to be something men want to look at/own (again, according to designers/marketing/stereotype). Read up on the “male gaze” for a full answer here.

I wanted to expand on this if you don’t mind.

While I agree with you that some developers are creating characters that men want to be, I also think that the industry often creates male characters that they think we should be.

I personally don’t want to be a muscle-bound, jarhead, rage filled, emotionless, violent, space marine, but so many games promote this idea that to be a man, is to go out and subject yourself to violence, and heartache, all without ever protesting, or expressing emotion. You are just expected, as a man to be strong, confident, and do your duty.

I feel this can have a potentially negative impact on how men learn what it means to be a man.

Faowri.4159:

There are certainly grounds for discussing the presentation of male characters in video games as harmful, but it’s strange how people usually only want to bring it up when other people are discussing the presentation of women and the female form, as a way of shutting the latter down. There is no reason both cannot be discussed in equal terms, but ultimately power fantasies, while potentially negative, are still empowering for men, and sexual fantasies tend to be limiting for women.

I agree, we should be discussing these subjects. I do think the conversations are happening, I just don’t think they’re often taken very seriously. When we do hear about males and games, it’s often linked to violence.

Based on my observations, it appears that there are a lot of people discussing what impact games have on male players, but it is quite rare for them to get the exposure that conversations about females get.

I think much of this is a result of this general idea that as a man, you are expected to just deal with things. If you don’t like how a video game makes you feel, suck it up or people will call you names and call you any number of derogatory terms. You’re called overly sensitive, or a “girl” if you express your emotional response to games.

This is often why I feel the only time you really hear anyone discuss the other side is in conversations about women, because it’s an opportunity to have your voice heard, in a conversation where people are listening. Unfortunately, people are often responded to with terms like, “Sure thing dudebro!” or “Another privileged white male” or sarcastically, “Oh what about teh menz?!”

Faowri.4159:

So there are representation issues in GW2, no matter how progressive it has been on certain fronts. If you are concerned about the representation of men, by all means, create a forum thread on it. Nobody’s stopping you. People talking about the watchknight issue are not stopping you. It doesn’t have to be either/or. I have actually engaged in a lot of discussion online about the problems with the stereotypical presentation of ‘masculinity’ when it’s brought up. Have you?

Yep, I have, but not here. I never felt it was appropriate to bring it up on this forum until now, but it’s nice to see people discussing it.

Muchachowitz.6057:

I am far too lazy to read the full topic. I’m not offended at all, but the design does strike me as silly. Less so because of the gold-plate lingerie/robot nipples, and more because of COMBAT HEELS.

:)

I would rather have combat heels in battle than a plush Charr backpack

Meriem.3504:

Forgive for me saying but you do need to read. I said in posts, it is my opinion or I * feel * this way. I don’t think I can make it much more clearer that it is my opinion.

Also I also explained my reasoning which appears you either did not read and/or understand.

I read. I understand it is your “feeling” and your opinion. That doesn’t mean I don’t have something to say about it. You shared your feelings, and opinion, and I shared mine. Welcome to the forums!

I also read your reasoning…I just didn’t agree.

Sitkaz.5463:

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.

The problem is that many times what is, and isn’t sexist is also a matter of opinion. One of my major issues with feminism is that it is really an ambiguous term. So many people have a different idea of what feminism means, and this often leads to disagreements about what does and doesn’t fall under the “cloud” of the ideology.

So, what ends up happening is you get people who claim something is sexist, and then you have people who claim that same thing isn’t. Who is right?

The official definition of sexism is:

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexist adj. & n.

In terms of the Watchknights, we can easily argue that despite the sexualized nature of the design, there are in no way discriminated against. As for the stereotyping of of social roles based on gender, well this one is strange for me as well.

You have robots, designed with feminine traits, that are tasked with defending the city from hostile threat. They are towering robots that are capable fighters, and are designed to have a presence in the city.

So, despite their sexualized nature, they are in no way promoting stereotypes that I can see.

Sitkaz.5463:

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.
.

You’re right here. This is the appeal to antiquity fallacy. While it’s fair to mention the comparison between what societies deem to be art, and sexual material, we can’t say that because it’s been done that way, it makes it ok.

So, what we need to do is take the design in context and ask ourselves if the design, in the context of the game, is promoting any particular stereotype, or is giving any message that promotes negativity towards a specific gender, race, religion, etc.

My opinion is no.

I have written a lot here as to why, but I will summarize what I’ve said. While these robots have feminine traits, they are by no means presented in a sexual manner. Their role in the game is by no means that of derogatory, or demeaning. The fact that they have features that some find offensive, is not the same thing as being sexist.

There are many cultures that have different ideas about what is considered sexually explicit. For example, today on a popular game site there was a story showing to what degree some countries will censor cartoons that in most other places don’t even raise an eyebrow.

We need to be very careful not to let our emotions cloud the true meaning behind something. When we do this we often forget to remain objective and rational. We see implied areola on a robot in a video game, and become convinced it must be sexist, overly sexualized, or even pornographic.

We need to look past our initial emotional reaction and approach these topics with some critical thinking.

Meriem.3504:

They still don’t need areolas.

You are correct, they don’t need areolae.

But, and I don’t mean to sound rude here, they also don’t need to be designed with your specific version of what you deem to be appropriate.

I understand if you don’t like that design choice, and that is your prerogative, but who are you to say what a design does, or doesn’t need? I noticed in a subsequent post by you that when you start adding certain “parts” it makes things sexual.

There is a big difference between sexualized and sexual. A mother feeding her baby in public is not sexual. A statue/painting of a woman on the side of a Greek building is not sexual. A female/male nude drawing is not sexual.

This distinction needs to be kept in mind when talking about art.

Broadicea.8294:

Here are three robot designs which have plainly female characteristics without being overtly hyper-sexualized to the point of absurdity.

Yes, and?

Those artists, for whatever reason decided to design those robots in that style. To say that those are “better” artistic representations of a female robot is completely subjective, nor does it take into consideration the context.

Projecting your own personal ideal of what you think is feminine, is completely subjective.

Anyway, this topic has been discussed in another thread. I suggest you guys all hop over there and read it so you don’t rehash the same arguments.

Here

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.

Here is how I would have done it (working within the confines of the game).

I would have given the players the choice to fly in a balloon as it is now. If the player chooses to take the balloon, they are placed inside, with the pilot, the people you just escorted, and perhaps a few more players.

It would travel along a path towards DR at a height that wouldn’t break the game (we can go pretty high in this game on most maps.

After traveling for a bit, it would hit a loading screen (clouds, sun shining, the balloon breaking through), and you would find yourself sailing over the clouds.

This would give a chance to talk to others, listen to the NPCs give additional information about the story, and such.

Now….here is where I think this would be cool! AIRSHIP ATTACK!

Sometimes (not all times) the pirates could attack. They could slide down ropes on the sides and start shooting the balloon/basket. Your goal would be to fight them off using ranged weapons (everyone has ranged weapons). Some could get close to the basket to allow for melee attacks as well.

The airship could circle around, creating some amazing visuals while the fight goes on. If you are successful, the airship takes off, and a loading screen lands you in DR. If you’re not successful however, the NPC says, “We’re going down!” and a loading screen puts you on a random map, in a random location where you now must escort everyone to a new ballon (two on every map).

This…to me anyway would have been much more exciting.

The reason is because when the tickets were first introduced, ANet rewarded each player on the account with 5 tickets. Some sneaky players realized that by starting new characters, they could obtain new tickets.

It only took a few moments to create and delete new characters, so tickets were easy to get.

ANet, wanting players to spend real money, realized this was a mistake, so instead of simply stopping the emails, they made them soul bound.

So, in ANets eyes it worked because players are now “encouraged” to grind tickets, but for the players it sucks because it doubles, triples, or quadruples the time required to gather tickets, and fight in the ring.

Band-aid fix for a poorly thought out design.

Lue.6538:

As for lazy game design, theres only so many mechanics you can use, and when the game doesn’t use the “holy trinity” it alters quite abit what mechanics you can use that actually pressures the players, the approach GW2 is taking is quite frankly new, so I’m withholding any statements of what is or isn’t lazy designs.here you can actually see the combatants from abit closer.

I don’t have a problem with new mechanics, but good game design (IMO) teaches players while it goes, or gives players opportunities to experiment without a high cost.

The Gauntlet requires players to jump through a lot of hoops before they can even enter the ring. Most players, who have become familiar with their current setup are suddenly tossed into a fight with an unknown opponent, with unknown mechanics, without any real way of figuring out before hand what to do (aside from third party sites).

So, what can end up happening is that players are hit with a new mechanic, killed, and thrown out of the ring (or the time runs out without any indication of how long you had to begin with, or have left), and required to start all over again.

The player is then required to begin costly experiments in the hopes that something will work. However, because many bosses have multiple mechanics, what you’ve just learned to counter, may be only one thing in a chain of mechanics, requiring players to once again start over.

So, when I’m saying “lazy” I’m not talking about the mechanics, or the difficulty. I am talking about everything surrounding the fight. Nothing else has been properly fleshed out to allow players the opportunity to learn, adjust, experiment, or practice. If you don’t have good gear, or weapons (or the ideal combination, or the right character), you may never know why something isn’t working.

I would have liked to see them offer a section that gave players a minimal/free chance to practice similar mechanics. Allowing other players a place to socialize, discuss, and try would be much more MMO and less single player Dulfy.

I dunno, I could go on with a bunch of ideas, but the point is that it is lazy to just throw bosses into a game for a relatively high cost, and then not build structures around those bosses to help players learn and adapt without penalty.

This was a missed opportunity for sure.

I think almost everyone who read the description felt they were going to ride a balloon. The marketing jargon was very misleading, and the first time I clicked on a balloon and it sailed off without me in it….well, I was like, “pfffffftt…..lame!”

I think this is just another result of the “Living Rush” content.

Thanks for your response. I would like to expand a tad if you don’t mind.

Lue.6538:

Regarding 12, because you’re arguing from the standing point that Liadri actually instantly kills you without you having a chance at trying out the mechanics and thus figuring out how the fights work. This is a false claim as we have huge red circles showing us where to avoid standing, white vortexes that combined with the boons the boss have gives you a hint to what you’re meant to do, and walking into one of the visions of mortality one time will be enough to tell you to avoid doing it again.

To be fair, there is more than just the battle with Liadri. For example, there is a boss that shoots a fire ring. Now in almost all other places in GW2 I can run though fire, and take some amount of damage.

In this fight however, crossing the fire line means instant death. Getting shot by the fire is almost instant death, and if you don’t keep moving after that, it is instant death.

When you step in there the first few (or in my case 5) times, and each time these new mechanics happen, you are required to react. If you choose poorly, you start over. Other examples of this is the boss with the tornados. I got knocked around and killed over 20 times in that fight before I got lucky and the boss got “stuck” on the side of the dome.

Lue.6538:

Regardless of how you do content, people are going to go to the wiki or dulfy or curse or mmo-champion or whatever other source you may think off that might provide them with a quick fix for their failing, that is not the contents fault, that is the mentality of the players.

There are of course some players that will, by default open a wiki, or watch a video. Many though, prefer to play the game. I have completed all but one jumping puzzle in the game, and I didn’t use an external source for any of them. The reason was because there was no time pressure involved.

I never felt like I only had a short time to complete the task, so if it got the better of me, I simply came back another day and tried again. In the case of the Living Story, players are under much more pressure to use their time efficiently. That means they can’t afford to casually work out the mechanics of a boss fight.

Third party sources will always be relied upon by some players, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for lazy game design.

Lue.6538:

However 9 is also a blatant lie, you’re not required to spend gold on this aside from the repaircosts, which you will easily cover by the time you’ve farmed the tickets, combined with the full reward of 3.5g (50s,1g,2g) you’re actually able to obtain quite a profit from it. There is no requirement nor necessity for the various buffs and while they do help, it is as always perfectly volountary to actually buy and use them, this is again not at all related to the content.

Well, a lie might be a bit of an exaggeration. This content scales all players up to level 80. It doesn’t however scale armor or weapons up. So, if you’re having issues fighting one or more bosses due to your current armor / weapon configuration, you may be required to spend gold to adjust to the fight.

Upgrading weapons and armor, buying food, and better accessories are all examples of where a player may be required to spend gold.

So, I don’t think it is fair to say it is a lie, I think it falls within the realm of reasonable possibility.

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!”

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

Correct me if I’m wildly wrong but I think you’re meaning the difference in emotional responses can be compared to a bunch of male surfers chilling on the beach with their suits half undone versus a male stripper going about his business. Since female surfers generally wont sit about topless (on popular beaches anyway in my country) we wont see their chests bared for all and the emotional response, from both sexes, would be higher if they ever did. Seeing feminine chest construction on these robots is eliciting this same response.

I’ve had a terrible cold all week so maybe I’ve gone off track here.

Well, of course context matters. A woman breastfeeding is not considered sexual by most because the context is not sexual. Just like many times when humans are posing nude for art, it’s not sexual in nature….there is sexuality, but it’s not sexual.

However, there can be no argument that typically (unless you live in places like Europe were nudity is much more accepted), society has a much higher emotional response to topless women because of what I feel are additional emotions/chemicals released. That’s not to say that men don’t also evoke a sexual response when going topless (men and woman often get sexually aroused at the sight of a naked mans torso), but the difference is that we’re more used to seeing it as a society, so the additional non-sexual responses are not as present (but still are to some degree because men aren’t always topless).

So ya, if we just take the surfers….topless surfers of both genders may still turn the heads of people on the beach, but a topless female would evoke additional emotions (not necessarily sexual), because of the added “novelty” or rarity of it all.

Now, if this was a nude beach, men and women would still be gazed at by others in a sexual nature, but because the presence of female breasts is so much more the norm, the additional “whoa” factor wouldn’t be there.

EDIT:

To keep this on topic. In this case, what we are seeing in terms of the design of the Watchknight robot is a slightly pushing the norms of what we have typically seen in GW2.

Not only is this character different from most of the female, and robot representations we have seen, but they have features that are arguably more sexualized than what we’re used to seeing.

This creates those additional emotional responses that I’m talking about above. When people mix in their bias, preconceived notions, and personal comfort levels, it is no wonder that it has caused a stir by some people.

However, the biggest problem is that some people are taking this character, applying the emotions they’re feeling, and making conclusions based on that. Some, as we have seen are not able to handle this and resort to outbursts of emotions and insults.

Some, more mature gamers are able to find a medium area where they are questioning and discussing, but they’re not overly offended by it. And then you have those who are on the other end of the spectrum that simply don’t have any problem with this design, and can’t understand why anyone would be offended by it.

No one is necessarily wrong in how they feel, but when they start to shame, or insult others for feeling differently, that is when it bothers me.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and I can’t force anyone to like, or dislike the design of these characters. Everyone has the right to love it, hate it, or be indifferent to it. My hopes are that ANet does not pull a Stephen Spielberg and pander to one group or the other. My hopes are that they’re professional and mature enough to be able to understand that it is ok to explore art in the game. Some will love the Watchknights and hate the fuzzy pink Quaggan hats, and some will love the mini-pet kittens, but hate the Charr Molten Facility bad guy.

The game is rated T for teen, and I would hope that would mean that players and ANet could maintain a maturity level that doesn’t allow this game to turn into a sanitized, politically correct, everything is safe, game.

Tharium.7325:

Yep I was very disappointed when I first saw these sexbots.

At no time are they performing anything of a sexual nature, nor is there any implication they were designed for such a purpose. A very juvenile conclusion.

Tharium.7325:

I just thought it was being very juvenile of ANet to make these robots with such obviously highly exaggerated female sexual characteristics. Clearly these robots were meant to appeal to all the sad little men who play this game as female characters with the largest possible breasts and dress them up in the skimpiest clothing they can find. I wish ANet was mature enough not to indulge these sad lonely men and didn’t include some of their kittentier armour designs like that split skirt that shows the characters underwear that seemingly 90% of female light armour users have.

I wish some people were mature enough to be able to view implied nudity without resorting to calling people names and making gross, and demeaning generalizations about them.

Tharium.7325:

To all the people saying it’s fine and shows powerful women let me point out some things. In ancient art that features the nude human form men and women are given equal representation. Also body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

You have obviously never taken an art history class. Would you like some examples of exaggerations of male and female features in ancient art?

As well, who are you to say what is more, or less sexually appealing?

Tharium.7325:

Also being a powerful woman does NOT mean prancing about fighting monsters in high heels with massive breasts wearing little more than a bikini. That is not empowering women, if you think it is then you have a lot of growing up to do. Are modern day female soldiers given tube tops and mini skirts to fight in so they can show as much skin as possible? No they wear the exact same things the male soldiers wear.

What a woman wears does not make them less capable or less valued. Anyone who thinks the proportions of a woman’s body dictates their abilities, value, or femininity has a lot of growing up to do.

Tharium.7325:

I wish there were more game developers who had the balls to break away from these childish representations of women that have become far too common in video games and instead give us realistic and believable female characters. Look at some of the strong women in history like Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Elisabeth I and so on. None of these women had to off go around in bikinis to be taken seriously so why can’t more women in video games do the same?

I wish some gamers were able to look objectively at art. I wish some gamers were able to understand the concept of stylization and interpretation in art and its purpose. I wish some gamers were able to understand that to have everything depicted as 100% accurate just so we don’t insult anyone would not only be impossible, but boring as well.

And to add, you are comparing real life women to a stylized version of a female robot. This is not meant to be a realistic representation of a woman. These robots are meant to be stylized versions of women, with the intention of being fighting machines.

This is not an advertisement for Dove soap. And if you want a realistic depiction of female, then what characteristics would you have?

We see stylized versions of humans all the time in popular media. Males and females are often exaggerated for various reasons. These reasons are many, and I would be happy to go into them for you, but the point is that not everything is meant to be, or needs to be a realistic representation of a human. To argue that they do, would be to argue against some of the most iconic aliens, robots, and monsters in all of popular media.

bhagwad.4281:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Yep.

Well, that’s just ridiculous.

zenleto.6179:

kimeekat.2548:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

Nearly every woman I know will go a little crazy at seeing a hot male torso, not to mention muscular arms and athletic legs. I don’t know where in western culture you are but you’re nowhere near where I am.

I agree, and there are plenty of examples to support this.

The difference I think, is that because our societies have accepted male toplessness for so long, the novelty of it has worn off to some degree. Now, stay with me because this is going to be a tad difficult to explain.

In my opinion (I would really like to find some studies supporting this), there are different feelings that come into play when experiencing something rare. For example, when you visit an amusement park, or your favourite band in concert, there are a lot of emotions present that most of us wouldn’t consider to be sexual in nature.

The novelty, and rarity of the event makes it exciting. When it comes to female and male chests, I would argue that both are still equally sexualized. The difference is that because male nudity is typically more common/accepted, some of the additional emotional elements are not as strong as they are when you see the relatively rare female breast.

This is hard to explain, because I feel that people often lump the additional emotional responses into the sexual response, and assume it’s all one emotion.

Why this matters is because when we are talking about male sexualization, I think we need to remember that certain male chests are often viewed as very sexual by both genders. And there is an additional novelty involved when someone we admire takes their shirt off (like some of the more popular actors out there).

So, when we’re talking about the sexualization of the genders, I think we need to remember that while sexualization of both genders upper bodies still exists, males simply have become more accepted.

And…as you can guess, this means that in the context of this Watchknight, I don’t think the equivalent is male genitalia…that would be female genitalia. The Watchknight does not possess such an organ.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

How about the various skimpy female armors that show underwear, or underboob?

But lets get one thing clear, I’m not saying that the whole game is pandering to this demographic, but a lot of MMO’s in general are. And this is simply following that trend, and I don’t think it’s a good development.

Yes, and what about male armors that show bare chests, or draw attention to, or simulate male genitalia? What about the half naked blue guy shown above, or the fact that when your armour breaks you are only wearing boxers?

I just think there is a bit of a false conclusion being drawn when you say that the only gender that this appeals to. Worse is when we assume the only ones that these are designed for are horny young males.

kimeekat.2548:

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

I would beg to differ. I just watched a movie where Matthew Mcconaughey took his shirt off, for no real reason (Mud). There are countless examples of where bare male chests are sexualized, from games, to magazines, to media, etc.

Would you like to see examples of sexualize male chests / upper bodies in media? How many would it take before you were convinced it exists? Even if I were to concede that what you’re saying is true, that still doesn’t mean you just skip down the line and go straight for male genitalia.

If anything you could argue there is no male equivalent to female toplessness, but even that is a stretch.

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

bhagwad.4281:

Wake me up when Anet designers create a male nude character with a prick. A big one – not like David’s little appendage. Actually, let them make a small one first. I’ll go with that

You are going to continue to use this argument, and simply ignore any criticism aren’t you?

Let me put this simply for you. You are not talking the same thing. There are no females in GW2 that have their genitalia exposed. There are, males with their chests exposed, and now one instance of a feminine robot with implied areola.

By continuing to make this ridiculous comparison, you are distorting the issue.

Are you confident enough to address my criticism?

Kal Spiro.9745:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

I prefer to think of it as the Straw.

Hmmm…that could be one explanation. Do you think that perhaps it could also be a result of a heightened sensitivity, brought on by the frequency and veracity in which this topic is discussed?

Kinda like how you never notice Volkswagen Beetles until you start playing the game “punch buggy?”

The problem with humans is we are very good at pattern recognition, but not so good at decoding those patterns. So, we tend to see patterns in things, and the more we’re subjected to something, the more we see patterns in them. This is why, as I mentioned before, people who believe in UFO’s or conspiracies, or religious figures in toast, or paranormal activity, or psychics, tend to see false positives.

I’m not saying that these issues don’t exist, I’m just careful to label something as evidence at first glance. It is really easy to shout “sexism” and point fingers, it takes a lot more care and understanding to look at all the evidence, and form conclusions based on that.

In the case of GW2, I think there is an equal amount of sexualization and objectification. I also believe that much of it fits within the context of the story. I don’t see this particular character to be any worse than some of the other characters, however because it is such a new and interesting addition, it has turned heads.

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

Zefiris.8297:

Nah, Sarkeesian’s videos are pretty accurate – it has a reason nearly every single “counter video” has laughably bad arguments and tends to meander around itself. Even the better ones tend to drown in sexist arguments.

Where is your evidence to support this? If you’re going to claim they’re “laughable” and sexist, you had better back that up with something more than a vague statement.

Zefiris.8297:

The damaging part is the guys who are so angry that a woman DARES to criticize media, and consequently sent her thousands of death/rape threats.

Sorry, but this is a fallacious argument and holds no water in this discussion.

Zefiris.8297:

And you guys keep damaging the conversation with your meaningless rage about her. You know why she got 150k money? Because you people kept attacking her with such absurd fury that most of the sane gamers figured that the mere fact the angry people were this mad proved that Sarkeesian had a point Otherwise you lot wouldn’t have stooped so low to to kitten /death threat on this extent.

Another inaccurate and fallacious argument full of assumptions.

Just so you know, the reason I didn’t respond anymore than this is because I’m fairly certain you have your mind made up and to try and counter your claims would only serve to drag this conversation down.

I’m confident that those who prefer critical thought, will spend time looking into the entire story.

bhagwad.4281:

I’ll agree when Anet brings out nude models of men with pricks. But I’m guessing they won’t do that. Hmm….I wonder why.

You’re still comparing implied areola with male genitalia huh? Interesting.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

DarksunG.9537:

Except there is no factual evidence that this is harmful at all. If it were, people would have equal reaction to ALL the “objectification” in games. It’s really about what you don’t like & other people are ok with. People call it immature because it makes them sound right.

I didn’t say it was harmful, I said that it isn’t healthy, as in: It’s not healthy to the medium as a whole. It makes computer games look bad, especially to female gamers (but also to male gamers). It reinforces this perception of videogames being sexist towards women, which they kinda are.

These types of games (MMO’s) are played by men and women alike, it’s pretty evenly split these days. So it would be nice if games became less focused on the male demographic with this sort of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

What evidence to do you have to support the claim that this game is focused on the male demographic and is pandering to the lowest common denominator? Please post examples.

BlueSoda.6297:

I agree with the person who made this thread. I was actually offended by their design when I first saw them, being a female myself. The reason: Why do they have high heels and huge breasts? The breasts of these “warriors” are function-less, just filled with gears.

You’re offended by high heels and large breasts? Why?

bhagwad.4281:

People here are saying that those who dislike the watchknights are getting morally superior/offended. I say the reverse is true. It seems that some people here are hell bent on making others shut up. Accept that others have a different viewpoint, and if you want to argue about it, let’s do that.

I don’t think anyone is telling anyone to shut up. I think both sides are trying to provide points and counter points.

The only time when people are asking people to “shut up” is when they start throwing around words like, sexism, patriarchy, male power fantasy, etc. Those are not helpful to the conversation, and I’m happy to see for the most part they’ve disappeared from the discussion.

Kiriwar.7382:

-snip-.

Sounds reasonable.

The Watchknights are sort of a gold/bronze/yellow colour, with intricate patterns that almost represent vines.

However….do you perhaps think that using stereotypical designs and colors such as pink, butterflies, flowers, and the like are more detrimental to both genders?

Kiriwar.7382:

-I recall someone saying that mesmers tend to have long and flowy robes, -snip-

If you look at the WatchKnights, they have forearm, thigh, and boots that appear to resemble form fitting armour. They have a long, graceful appearance by using pleasing curved metal plates.

I’m not sure how long, flowing robes are feminine. There are lots of long robes for males in the game as well, and throughout history many males wore long, flowing robes.

Kiriwar.7382:

-Their faces are incredibly scary.-snip-

Why would you not want your knights to be intimidating? Look at masks from ancient cultures and you will notice that most of them are designed to evoke fear into the enemy.

What you seem to be implying that femininity is defined by how “womanly” your face looks. I’m not even sure what that means. How do you define “womanly face?” To what standards do you feel best represent womanly and femininity?

Kiriwar.7382:

-Poses also of course. I think they already use the female staff stance. It’s feminine but I don’t really like it imo, it seems too vulnerable. They could probably use a different one that is both feminine and strong. I recall a picture I saw while browsing google, it was a knight fully armoured and you could not tell their gender offhand. But just the way they stood, it was a very confident stance, you just -knew- it was a woman. A lot of the picture’s comments were asking the creator if it was a woman too. We dunno if it was but regardless of the gender, the pose let us think it was a woman without showing us anything else regarding gender.

Well, we need to be somewhat reasonable here. ANet reuses the assets they have available to them, and because of the short release schedule of these Living World updates, it doesn’t seem practical, or economical to re-motion capture a stance for one character, in the short term at least.

That said….again, I’m very confused. Why do you think it looks vulnerable? They are standing with their backs straight, their heads high. They are shifting their weight in a way that doesn’t seem hesitant or unsure. And when they fight, they fight like any other creature in the game.

Kiriwar.7382:

-Regarding the Chronomancer’s design from GW1 (http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-06/gwe-concept-chronomancer1.html) , yeah I know it has boobs but if you just get rid of the boobs you could tell the difference between them because of small details – the man is much more bulky, and the woman is more… sleek? sorry I can’t think of the better word atm but I hope you guys know what I mean

Yes, but what you’re doing here is making boobs taboo. Boobs…ahem, breasts are a biological fact of being a human female. There is no shame in having them, nor is there any shame if they’re larger, or smaller.

Sure, they could have created smaller, slimmer, less muscular designs and not put breasts on them, but why?

I don’t think we have any reason to treat breasts like a dirty secret. Women have breasts. To argue that you can only be feminine if your breasts are within a certain range, or perkiness, or nipple size/shape, or whatever is not fair. You are not feminine or not based on your breasts.

Angelina Jolie recently had a double mastectomy, do you feel she is more, or less feminine now?

Kiriwar.7382:

There’s probably a lot more things I can think of but it’s escaping my mind right now

I applaud your efforts, but from my perspective, all you did was replace one set of gender stereotypes, with another set. In my eyes you didn’t really explain why your choices are more feminine than the current design.

It appears to me, and I don’t mean to be rude, that you are defining feminist qualities based on your own preconceived notions. You seem unwilling to accept that femininity isn’t defined by how small or large your features are, how “womanly” your face is, or how curvy your butt is.

There is no perfect woman that defines all women. They are all different, and they are all beautiful in their own way. To say that one version is better, or worse than another is insulting and damaging to everyone. And certainly women don’t need to wear certain colors, flowers, or butterflies to be considered more feminine.

P.S. I am wearing a MLP shirt and I’m 35 years old….what does that make me?

Kiriwar.7382:

My gripe with the Watchknights is that their inclusion of T&A is just lazy design. I did do an eyeroll when I first saw them. There are so many ways to show femininity without resorting to T&A.

I’m not meaning to sound like a jerk here, but you described what you believe to be true about the WatchKnights, but you never really gave any examples of how you would have improved them.

I personally would like to hear your ideas. How could these been designed to show femininity differently?

WatchTheShow.7203:

The PowerPuff Girls did have a male counterpart. They were called the RowdyRuff Boys.

I think you still get my point.

Lily Miranda.5407:

Are people actually attracted to the watch knights? I don’t find them sexy at all. Is this really what people find appealing these days?

Yes. I’ll be honest, they are attractive, but let me explain.

I don’t find them attractive in the sense that I wish my girlfriend looked like a giant metal robot, and given the chance I would make sweet, sweet, love to it.

I find them attractive from the perspective that they emulate qualities that I find attractive. For example, they are confident and powerful looking. They have pleasing details and shapes. They have an aura of sexuality, without looking/acting like an object (I wouldn’t hit on one in real life).

There is nothing wrong with finding features in fictional characters attractive. I’m sure I’m not the only one who had a crush on Betty from Archie, or Thelma from Scooby Doo. These characters have designs that some people can appreciate.

The problem is when people then shame people for having these feelings. As we’ve seen in this thread, the idea that young males are sitting at home, walking around the WatchKnights with one hand on their keyboard and the other on a sock, is insulting to all males (and females).

When I was recently in Italy, I saw a lot of artistic representations of nude people in various poses. I was able to view them, and appreciate the beauty of them, without it being some creepy male fantasy. The reason is because I understand the difference between sexuality and sex….if that makes sense.

Weindrasi.3805:

Those of you who don’t see the overt sexualization in the watchnights need to open your eyes. Creating a robot using the female anatomy, including all the nude details, is one thing. I’m not protesting that. But when it’s a nude female robot with high heels, a supermodel figure, enormous balloon breasts, and a bum designed to draw the eye PLUS the fact that there are no male nude watchnights—that is clearly SEXUALIZATION, not just nudity.
It’s disturbing, it’s sexist, and it degrades women. I agree with the thread creator.

It is very sad that you see all those things as degrading to women. It is sad to me that you don’t see towering feminine robots, tasked with protecting the queen and her people as empowering.

bhagwad.4281:

Norns going topless fits in with lore. Asura’s building floating cities fits with the game designer’s own explanations of their world. Internal consistency. For example, just because star wars and star trek are fantasy worlds with their own crazy rules doesn’t mean that Kirk can one day start using the Force…because well…it’s fantasy right?

We need to step back for a moment because this is one of those conversations where we are mixing things up to suit our argument. I want to take this back to basics.

The arguments are that the design of these WatchKnights are both impractical in that high heels are not conducive to fighting (for humans at least), and therefore adding them was done so only to make them sexualized.

Now. We need to break this down into two parts.

1. Are high heels on a fighting robot, inconsistent with the realism of the rest of the game?

My argument is no. The reason is because high heels are just as impractical as not wearing a shirt when you live in the snow, or building floating platforms that you can barely jump to, just to get to a crafting station.

I will admit that it is new, and different, but it is no more or less impractical than many other design choices in this game.

2. Does the inclusion of these sexualized robots make the game sexist?

I would again argue no. The reason as pointed out by a few, there are other examples of sexualized characters in the game. They’re all sexualized to different degrees, but it is by far one sided.

This idea that everything has to have an equal at all times is honestly just not true. Just because we have feminine robots, doesn’t mean we have to have masculine ones. Just because leader of the Sky Pirates is female, doesn’t mean we have to have a male antagonist as well.

For example, if there is a show called…say, Powerpuff girls that feature three female superheroes, I don’t expect that they have to add Powerpuff boys into the show just to keep everyone happy. There is nothing wrong with a story that features one gender/race/sexual preference. What we need to do is make sure that we don’t skew one one of those to a disproportionate level.

So, bring it back to GW2. It is okay that there are only female robots, because we have males in other parts of the game keeping things equal. No one complains about there being no king, because we have male leaders in other parts of the game. No one complains that Mai (leader of the Sky Pirates) was a woman, because we have male antagonists as well in other parts of the game.

bhagwad.4281:

Fair example. Though they should have put him in high heels (that’s a joke btw). Or if not, with a massive erection just to balance things out. But if I remember correctly, he doesn’t have anything between his legs. So not really a male after all.

So, you’re saying implied areola, are the same as a “massive erection?” Are you also saying that it’s not male because it doesn’t have male parts, therefore it doesn’t count in this discussion? You really wanna use that logic?

I’ll give you a moment to think that over.

bhagwad.4281:

When we talk about practicality we are doing so in the context of the game. So in-game, it’s the Norn’s nature to go shirtles, and asuras are these super tech science dudes so that’s internally consistent. It would weird for example if the Norn’s were to suddenly build a floating city.

You’re not talking about the same thing. What you’ve done is used the appeal to antiquity fallacy. You’re basically saying that because one set of established rules have been around longer, they are therefore true/accepted/good.

bhagwad.4281:

So we’re talking about internal consistence – what we call willing suspension of disbelief as long as the fantasy world plays by its own crazy rules whatever they are.

Exaclty. We agree.

bhagwad.4281:

High heels are not consistent with a scenario of an engineer building robots for defence. The boobs, heels and butts had to be deliberate design choices. As in someone had to sit down and say “Hmm…I’m going to put these in even though they serve no purpose whatsoever”. Since it’s a fact that by default no one starts out thinking in terms of high heels and extra wide hips.

And here is where I disagree.

Again, there is no difference between this design choice, and the choice for Norn to go topless in freezing temperatures. It is no different from Asura creating floating platforms that require crazy jumps to move around cities. It is no different than wearing a dress to fight a dragon.

bhagwad.4281:

So it’s perfectly valid to raise questions. It seems a lot of people here are eager to stifle this whole discussion. Just to be clear – no one is complaining about nudity, sexuality as such. The problem for me is that these are being used to specifically target young male gamers and I find that just a bit insulting that Anet thinks I’m that shallow.

It’ll be nice if we also had bots with sizeable pricks as well. Then I don’t think anyone would object. But we only get female nudes and not males. Why?

Your conclusions are unsupported. You are making assumptions and generalizations.

I find it a bit insulting that you would assume that young male gamers are so out of control and immature that they “get off” on feminine robots. I find it insulting that you assume that the designers created this robot for the purpose of praying off the hormones of young males.

Let me spin this another way. I applaud ANet for including designs that treat me like an adult. Amongst the plethora of cutesy, fuzzy, sanitized designs in this game, ANet finally included a mature design. I thank ANet for assuming that I am mature enough to view the design without getting all bent out of shape at the implied areola, or the shape of it’s robot butt.