Scantily clad characters in gaming-General discussion READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Recommended Videos

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
I don't particularly like it either way most of the time though not so much because of realism. A lot of fully covered armours aren't either or at least wouldn't be used the way they are. I just don't really like the aesthetic but if both genders are scantly clad its not going to piss me off and make me ditch the game unless they are also terrible with animations and camera angles. It's not just the clothing that makes this shit horrible. Even when guys are scantly clad they generally still get to look somewhat powerful and be the hero where girls often get scantly clad and weak.


nomotog said:
Alhazred said:
I'm all for armor being stylish and revealing, provided an excuse is given to why the characters choose to forgo the protection more modest armor provides.

Off the top of my head, here are some reasons why a fantasy character might wear revealing armor:

The character doesn't have the means to create and maintain a full suit of armor (a barbarian tribesman, for instance).

The character's religious beliefs cause them to reject armor, instead putting their faith in the faith in the God/s.

The character specialises in parrying and dodging attacks, forgoing armor for increased agility.

The character is so obscenely powerful that normal attacks simply cannot harm them; they can wear whatever they wish into battle.
It's easy to think of reasons a character wouldn't need to wear armor, but just because a character doesn't need to wear armor doesn't mean they would dress scantily. Thinking of reasons for a character to wear something like a chainmail bikini is a lot harder. If a character has a reason or motivation to wear or more not wear clothes, that is fine. It's kind of a good thing too. A characters look should reflect their character. Though some times, I ponder which comes first. Was the sexy outfit picked to reflect the character or was the character made to support the sexy outfit.
People keep saying this stuff is totally ok if its justified with the characters and it can be but I don't see developers adopting this attitude resulting in less scantly clad female characters. It's more likely for them just slap the seductress archetype or "different culture" excuse on them all which would be even worse.
 

MoeMints

New member
Apr 30, 2013
65
0
0
Its only context sensitive for me.

Like take Fire Emblem for example.
http://imgur.com/UcX6sbC
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
Ieyke said:
Glademaster said:
Well yeah if you want to kill the joke. Also as already said the actual ability to move does not come with the armour it is sold separately via the final implant. More important, if you took one look at that armour with knowing nothing of the back story would you say it gives great mobility? The fist is several times bigger than the head. It is just taking the piss out of how impractical the armour looks.
Sorry.
Jokes regarding Lord Calgar (i.e. Space Marines) are sorta lost on me.
I'm far too familiar with him and the fact that he's a 9 foot tall cyborg whose arms, legs, and parts of body and head have been replaced with bionic parts. The fact that the Gauntlets of Ultramar, to him, are as natural and comfortable as if they were his own hands (because a lot of the time they essentially ARE), and that he holds court in his fortress while wearing them and delicately drinks Macraggian wine out of ordinary sized wine glasses that look tiny between his fingers.
The fact that Power Fists in general aren't impractically huge armored gauntlets like in WoW or whatever, but rather massive strength amplifying robotic fists/arms designed for smashing and squeezing enemies, and tearing apart tanks and fortifications.
I'm in too deep!
To me it sounds like a medieval knight looking at a car and going "Look how impractical that carriage is. It has no place to hook up horses!"
My brain just goes ...uh...no.
Well that's fair enough but also part of the joke as far as I'm concerned to laugh at how this looks to people not familiar with the lore.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
Schadrach said:
...what you didn't tell him is that we're using 2e D&D rules, in which a lower armor class is better.
Ahh THAC0, it makes sense in a mad science kind of way. Also I suppose if you're wearing less armor it gives you the bonus to your DEX, which is good for rogues and similar classes to just tumble around the battlefield and not get hit at all.

Zira said:
Last time I used an image to show what I think of a topic, I almost received a moderator warning, but there's no better way to explain my view than this image here:

ImageSnip

To make sure mods aren't on my case, I will elaborate what this artwork says: if both males and females are sexualized, it's perfect. If neither males nor females are sexualized, it's perfect.
If only one gender is sexualized and the other isn't... it's not wrong per se, but it clearly shows that the game is aimed only at males (or, in the extremely rare cases of a reverse scenario, only at females).

And there's nothing wrong in making a game aimed only at one gender. What IS wrong is when all videogames do that, and implicitly say that all videogames should be only aimed at one gender (heterosexual males).

The problem isn't sexism per se, but how most videogames are sexist.
Yep.


TL;DW "That's the issue ladies and gentlemen. Not too many half-naked ladies in games. Not enough HALF. NAKED. DUDES."

Of course there is the issue that a lot of the time there's a muscular, half-naked man in a game it may be created and marketed more to serve as a power fantasy for the presumed straight male player rather than as fanservice for straight women and those in the LGBT community who like to look at men. Not exactly an insurmountable problem though.

EDIT: Lol
Now I'm starting to wonder how deeply Sterling is embedding his opinions in my subconscious.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
Zira said:
To make sure mods aren't on my case, I will elaborate what this artwork says: if both males and females are sexualized, it's perfect. If neither males nor females are sexualized, it's perfect.
If only one gender is sexualized and the other isn't... it's not wrong per se, but it clearly shows that the game is aimed only at males (or, in the extremely rare cases of a reverse scenario, only at females).
Two wrongs don't make a right.