A veiw on Female characters and Armor. {Discussion}

[Phisi]

I would go with something along the lines Mass Effect's armour. You can still see all the 'features' of both sexes but they are clearly armoured. Sex sells but I probably wouldn't play a game where all the females are wearing bikinis as I don't like the look of them and I mean really, people don't go around in bikinis all day. But to be honest, if a developer does decide to have all women in bikinis then I don't really care. I won't buy it but I don't see any problem with it. That may just be because I'm an easy going guy but you have the choice to buy it or not.

 

[Evidencebased]

This tumblr has some really cool art of female armor, and not just for/from games:

http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

These vary from the minimal/flexible stuff all the way to full plate, and I think they're all pretty awesome. Certainly I would like it if games would let female characters have armor that looked this good and still wasn't pure T&A.

Edit: to be clear, a lot of these are based on games, or are concept art, and I wish this kind of stuff would show up more often.

 

[Stall]

....
... Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to juxtapose those two words anyways?

No, it is not an oxymoron, look up "willing suspension of disbelief". And for me chainmail bikinis reducing damage as good as full plate armor, is definitely destroying my suspension of disbelief.

So why is it just that then? Why doesn't the fact that the mage doesn't have their limbs fly off when they get attacked by a giant broadsword destroy your suspension of disbelief? Why doesn't the elves and the orcs ruin it? Why doesn't magical leather armor that protects as well as plate armor destroy it? Why doesn't the fact that people are still capable of incredible feats of athleticism and are still incredibly mobile while wearing full plate armor destroy it? Why doesn't FUCKING MAGIC destroy it?

That's a really, REALLY specific and trivial thing that ruins your suspension of disbelief, especially given the rarity and rather vanilla nature of it. I mean, out of every nonsense fantasy cliche and trope, it's that one specific, minor one that ruins it for you? It sounds like you are just trying to invent a reason to hate the mythical "chainmail bikini" (I, of course, use mythical since the so-called "chainmail bikini" is incredibly rare).

Let me tell you: that reason doesn't work. Try to invent a better one please. There is no reason to hate skimpy armor, other than being a prude or just someone who likes to *****, which isn't unusual from the gaming community. It's the most asinine, trivial, pointless thing to "hate on" ever.

 

[Evidencebased]

....
... Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to juxtapose those two words anyways?

No, it is not an oxymoron, look up "willing suspension of disbelief". And for me chainmail bikinis reducing damage as good as full plate armor, is definitely destroying my suspension of disbelief.

So why is it just that then? Why doesn't the fact that the mage doesn't have their limbs fly off when they get attacked by a giant broadsword destroy your suspension of disbelief? Why doesn't the elves and the orcs ruin it? Why doesn't magical leather armor that protects as well as plate armor destroy it? Why doesn't the fact that people are still capable of incredible feats of athleticism and are still incredibly mobile while wearing full plate armor destroy it? Why doesn't FUCKING MAGIC destroy it?

That's a really, REALLY specific and trivial thing that ruins your suspension of disbelief, especially given the rarity and rather vanilla nature of it. I mean, out of every nonsense fantasy cliche and trope, it's that one specific, minor one that ruins it for you? It sounds like you are just trying to invent a reason to hate the mythical "chainmail bikini" (I, of course, use mythical since the so-called "chainmail bikini" is incredibly rare).

Let me tell you: that reason doesn't work. Try to invent a better one please.

All those things are explained in the game's created universe, though. The game gives some sort of reason for things like elves and orcs (magic), the athleticism (magic and badassery) and the magic (uh... still magic. Kind of self-explanatory.) The rules of the game universe are different than our own, but at least they're consistent. We're okay believing things like "a spell will make you super strong" because that's the kind of thing the game has established spells do. But there isn't any attempt at explaining the skimpy girl armor in a plausible way; the game generally isn't like "oh, female skin is extra super tough but overheats easily, hence the lack of coverage!" or even something like "men prefer layering protective spells on their armor, women prefer spells directly on their skin, blah blah" that would at least give us a chance to believe it. Instead the game just sort of ignores this inconsistent armor -- wait, we need to collect and wear armor but somehow it transforms into a bra for ladies? -- and that weird gap in the game's consistency can break the suspension of disbelief.

 

[aussiebee]

I gotta say, the second one looks like it is designed to (I'm talking in game here, bear in mind) intimidate - you see someone coming at you casting fireballs who looks like a glowing demon, yeah, it's more intimidating than someone coming at you wearing a bikini. The second picture's armour is not meant to just "look good", it's obviously aiming to look like a badass, and imo it does a decent job of it, especially for a cloth wearer.

Also, iirc, you can choose to not show helms... and your head is the only place you really get to 'customise' anyway. So there goes your argument that you miss out on seeing your customised character

In general, yeah, I would like to see more options for the in-between/neutral armour choices in a lot of games; something that isn't massively slutty or ridiculously overdramatic. That being said, a lot of the time that in between option simply doesn't fit in with the aesthetic that the developers are aiming for. WoW *is* colourful and dramatic and kinda cartoony. CoD *is* extremely dull and brown and grey. But that's what they want it to look like to try and get a specific feeling of the game across.

TLDR: whichever extreme it goes, a lot of the time it's a deliberate design decision, you just have to see what angle they were aiming for.

 

[Stall]

All those things are explained in the game's created universe, though. The game gives some sort of reason for things like elves and orcs (magic), the athleticism (magic and badassery) and the magic (uh... still magic. Kind of self-explanatory.) The rules of the game universe are different than our own, but at least they're consistent. We're okay believing things like "a spell will make you super strong" because that's the kind of thing the game has established spells do. But there isn't any attempt at explaining the skimpy girl armor in a plausible way

You are aware that you can find dozens upon dozens of inconsistencies in a world's universe if you read into it like that, correct? Your other examples were very shallow, but you really dug into female armor, as it is an object of spite for you. Of course you can find inconsistencies about female armor if you really, REALLY look to find them like you did. You can do the same thing about any aspect of a fantasy game with the exact same results. The internal mythos of a universe isn't perfect, and if you subject it to scrutiny, then you'll find flaws and inconsistencies in every waking aspect of the game. Why is it just THIS specific, minor one that is so egregious?

Even further, a single inconsistency isn't grounds for absolute dismissal. You are really playing fast and hard with the concept of "suspension of disbelief" here.

 

[Evidencebased]

All those things are explained in the game's created universe, though. The game gives some sort of reason for things like elves and orcs (magic), the athleticism (magic and badassery) and the magic (uh... still magic. Kind of self-explanatory.) The rules of the game universe are different than our own, but at least they're consistent. We're okay believing things like "a spell will make you super strong" because that's the kind of thing the game has established spells do. But there isn't any attempt at explaining the skimpy girl armor in a plausible way

You are aware that you can find dozens upon dozens of inconsistencies in a world's universe if you read into it like that, correct? Your other examples were very shallow, but you really dug into female armor, as it is an object of spite for you. Of course you can find inconsistencies about female armor if you really, REALLY look to find them like you did. You can do the same thing about any aspect of a fantasy game with the exact same results. The internal mythos of a universe isn't perfect, and if you subject it to scrutiny, then you'll find flaws and inconsistencies in every waking aspect of the game. Why is it just THIS specific, minor one that is so egregious?

Even further, a single inconsistency isn't grounds for absolute dismissal. You are really playing fast and hard with the concept of "suspension of disbelief" here.

Goodness, you're getting worked up about this! I'll try to explain better:

When it comes to suspension of disbelief, I'm willing to accept things like orcs and elves because the game creators usually try to make them fit logically into my understanding of the world. Orcs are big and strong, elves are pretty, okay, none of that conflicts with things I already believe because it's not like I've ever seen an orc or elf nor have an opinion about how they should be. Ditto magic; if the game wants to tell me that magic works a certain way I'm fine with that, because it doesn't conflict with any of my common sense (because my common sense doesn't even deal with stuff like magic.) There is no cognitive dissonance with totally foreign concepts like that.

But when it comes to more mundane things, like how clothing should work, I have more knowledge about that and therefore a stronger idea of what is "realistic" or not. I've felt the strength of cloth vs. metal vs. skin, and suddenly being told that they are equally good protection is jarring because it conflicts with my firmly-established perception of reality. You can tell me that orcs can benchpress horses and I'm like "sure, why not, they look pretty beefy!" because I don't have decades of experience telling me that's wrong. But if you try to tell me some half-naked human chick is impervious to swords I'll say "wait, what?" because I've always thought of half-naked humans as very vulnerable to sharp weapons, and I'll balk at having to ignore that logic for no apparent reason.

It doesn't mean I'll throw the whole game out, but it's a weakness in world-building when there are those "wait, what?" moments over simple things like armor. I'd prefer for games to avoid those interruptions as much as possible; fully clothing their female characters is a good start.

 

[Dogstile]

Except, men dont ***** about the sexist male characters in games.

Really? Did you not see the giant amount of taking the piss out of gears of war's over the top muscles? It actually happens all the damn time.

OP:

I actually think this will cheer you up on the subject of female armour. Yes, it goes to a blog. No, its not mine, I think its a genuinely relevant to the discussion.

Spoiler

http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

Women fighters can look good in actual armour. WOW is just silly in the sense that they think reasonable armour is five full inches of steel plate for the minimum. Then they swap to the extreme of "oh, using cloth instead? WEAR NOTHING".