Sexy fantasy armor...

[Ryotknife]

Mages are common in skyrim. Most bandit camps have a least one spellcaster. Also, the vampires who attack towns and the townspeople far more often than plain ole thugs do. Thalmor are chocked full of mages and the people of skyrim are under constant threat from them.

Yes, some bandit camps have a mage, and a bunch of other people who use nothing more than sharp and pointy things to kill with. Vampires generally use that little lifesteal spell. And Thalmor are, like other mages, a bit rare in Skyrim. I fail to see why the conventions of armor should revolutionize because there's like 3 mages for every 50 common soldiers.

Regardless, Armor as a concept is impractical in a fantasy setting. Funny enough, a chainmail bikini would be more practical than "normal" armor because it wouldnt weigh you down.

And then some random bandit gets a lucky shot on your... anything because the designers thought sex appeal was more important than actual armor. That is, if you don't die of exposure, or get your nipple caught in the mail, or trip and get a nice gash somewhere. If you want to argue for lightweight armor as more practical, leather armor is the only thing that works, because it actually protects you, whereas a chainmail bikini exists because you can't get away with just drawing the women naked.

Listen, if this was say...Lord of the rings, armor as a concept still has value (mostly because magic was kinda lame and incredibly tame). But in say World of Warcraft, wearing armor is completely unrealistic. But thats fine, because its FANTASY. If you can get past the fact that wearing heavy armor in most fantasy settings is an incredibly stupid idea, that magic is unrealistic, and that many fantasy creatures are unrealistic, then it seems weird that people are hanged up over adding boobs to armor for aesthetic purposes considering that armor IS aesthetic in those worlds.

"FANTASY" is the lamest freaking argument that anyone, anywhere, in pretty much any argument can ever pull. Fantasy does not mean that whatever shows up in the thing is beyond criticism or stupidity because "fuck you it's fantasy." Fantasy means that the world is just different, with different rules and entities than ours. Harry Potter whipping out a light saber in the finale wouldn't fly because of "fantasy;" Jon Snow sniping Tywin from the Wall in book 6 wouldn't fly because of "fantasy;" and putting specially crafted armor between you and harmful things, but only if your male because women have to have dat sex appeal shouldn't fly because of "fantasy."

But magic flies because of "fantasy", people being able to not only survive but shrug off hits that would leave a person, armored or not, into a fine paste is fine because of "fantasy". You seem to be applying this reasoning only when it suits you, and then ignore it when it doesnt suit you.

For the same reason that being able to survive being hit by a being 100x larger than yourself doesnt break immersion (or being able to create energy or mass out of NOTHING), adding boob plates should not break immersion. If you dont like how it LOOKS, that is 100% fine.

 

[Ryotknife]

Except they still will. See TERA for example. People upheld TERA armor on a certain race as a prime example of the evil of female skimpy armor, completely glossing over the fact that the male armor was just as skimpy.

Dont get me wrong, if your game has skimpy female armor then by all means add skimpy male armor. I applauded when DOA added costumes that were just speedos for the guys. I am all for adding more customization options, but i am not for removing customization options.

It's still better than upholding a double standard though. And the skimpy female armor in TERA was pretty ridiculous. Like, some of it was really bad, and a lot of it was ugly IMO. What are people supposed to do? Not call skimpy armor skimpy? Not call ridiculous armor ridiculous?

You (royal you, seriously who came up with this language?) can call it ridiculous, just dont use it in an argument about sexism considering that the armor was not sexist.

 

[RevRaptor]

Wait hold on, timeout.

Is there ANY fantasy setting in which armor as a concept is practical? In skyrim for example you have people (and weapons) shooting lightning, ice, fire, or paralization. Sometimes multiple at once! Then you have dragons and giants and other such lovely creatures who would make armor pointless due to the sheer amount of force they hit with. The ability to shoot lightning bolts would make any metal based armor pointless by itself. Realistically, you would be better off not wearing any armor at all or something like leather in Skyrim and focus on mobility other than against other non magic humanoids.

If armor, as a concept, is impractical in that world then i dont see why sexy fantasy armor is any worse. So long as you are fair about the sexy armor (ie optional)

I mean, wearing heavy armor in the Soul games is even worse than adding boob plates as many of the enemies are the size of a house (if not bigger)

Actually metal armour would be a pretty handy thing to have on once the wizards start chucking electricity around.
Here's a Faraday Suit in action.
Chainmail + electricity = awesome

 

[Ryotknife]

But magic flies because of "fantasy", people being able to not only survive but shrug off hits that would leave a person, armored or not, into a fine paste is fine because of "fantasy". You seem to be applying this reasoning only when it suits you, and then ignore it when it doesnt suit you.

You are continuously missing the point. Realism is not really the point because, obviously, magic and dragons and whatever aren't realistic. Consistency within the universe, though, is important, which is why Harry Potter, Jedi Knight or Jon Snow, sniper wouldn't fly, because they contradict their own universes.

If there was an actual reason given why women were forbidden by the laws of fantasy nature from wearing real armor and boob plate didn't pose a greater threat to their lives than just going in leather, then it might fly, but such a thing is never given. They just expect everyone to accept that women have to wear armor with ornamental boobs because that's how D&D or whatever else started this stupid trend did it so shut up. Even if there were, they'd have to work really hard to make it actually meaningful beyond "this lets us make sexy armor with actual reason" if they wanted it to be seen as anything other than a hallow excuse.

uh huh

and do they ever give a reason why someone can survive and shrug off lightning bolts, or other magical spells that would destroy entire buildings (or even cities) as nothing more than an annoyance? Or being attacked by a giant? Why "leveling up" allows you to face creatures and opponents that would realistically be impossible for your character to defeat no matter how hard s/he trained? Your whole argument comes down to realism, but realism doesnt fly in a fantasy setting, or else it WOULDNT BE A FANTASY SETTING.

Hell, we have games in which people use swords and guns (like modern guns, not muskets) and the two are just as effective as each other and they never explained it.

Explaining why the fantasy setting is that way is kinda rare. Attack on Titan explain why cannons and guns are not effective against titans, but once again that kind of explanation is rare.

 

[mecegirl]

Except they still will. See TERA for example. People upheld TERA armor on a certain race as a prime example of the evil of female skimpy armor, completely glossing over the fact that the male armor was just as skimpy.

Dont get me wrong, if your game has skimpy female armor then by all means add skimpy male armor. I applauded when DOA added costumes that were just speedos for the guys. I am all for adding more customization options, but i am not for removing customization options.

It's still better than upholding a double standard though. And the skimpy female armor in TERA was pretty ridiculous. Like, some of it was really bad, and a lot of it was ugly IMO. What are people supposed to do? Not call skimpy armor skimpy? Not call ridiculous armor ridiculous?

You (royal you, seriously who came up with this language?) can call it ridiculous, just dont use it in an argument about sexism considering that the armor was not sexist.

You (singular you) don't have the authority to tell people what they can call sexist without proof. If it fits the pattern then it fits the pattern. When the game came out even the skimpy options for the male characters were less skimpy than the female ones. And while any female chracter could have a skimpy option, only one race of male characters had skimpy options. As it was, there were already female armor designs like this

Spoiler

But as far as the male armor designs went an exposed chest was about it.

Spoiler

I don't even know if they have a male equivalent to that strappy armor though. I looked up the game when it first came out and left it be because I wasn't interested. Hopefully all things are equal now.(And I'm looking now just to see if I can prove myself wrong) But with the way things were I can see why people would point the game out.

 

[Ryotknife]

Except they still will. See TERA for example. People upheld TERA armor on a certain race as a prime example of the evil of female skimpy armor, completely glossing over the fact that the male armor was just as skimpy.

Dont get me wrong, if your game has skimpy female armor then by all means add skimpy male armor. I applauded when DOA added costumes that were just speedos for the guys. I am all for adding more customization options, but i am not for removing customization options.

It's still better than upholding a double standard though. And the skimpy female armor in TERA was pretty ridiculous. Like, some of it was really bad, and a lot of it was ugly IMO. What are people supposed to do? Not call skimpy armor skimpy? Not call ridiculous armor ridiculous?

You (royal you, seriously who came up with this language?) can call it ridiculous, just dont use it in an argument about sexism considering that the armor was not sexist.

You (singular you) don't have the authority to tell people what they can call sexist without proof. If it fits the pattern then it fits the pattern. When the game came out even the skimpy options for the male characters were less skimpy than the female ones. And while any female chracter could have a skimpy option, only one race of male characters had skimpy options. As it was, there were already female armor designs like this

Spoiler

But as far as the male armor designs went an exposed chest was about it.

Spoiler

I don't even know if they have a male equivalent to that strappy armor though. I looked up the game when it first came out and left it be because I wasn't interested. Hopefully all things are equal now. But with the way things were I can see why people would point the game out.

(gives you a side-ways glance) you asked a question and i answered it. If you dont want me to answer your question, then dont ask me a question. If you meant it as a rhetorical, then im sorry i dont pick up on subtlety. But thats my fault, not yours.

 

[mecegirl]

(gives you a side-ways glance) you asked a question and i answered it. If you dont want me to answer your question, then dont ask me a question. If you meant it as a rhetorical, then im sorry i dont pick up on subtlety.

Uhh yeah you answered it. And I did expect you to answer it because I was genuinely curious. You seemed miffed that people pointed Tera out, but as far as I can see its understandable why they did. Like, you can't expect people not to notice that the armor types for female characters in the game are more skimpy than the male ones. Good on Tera for pushing the boundaries with the shirtlessess I guess? But that pales in comparison to strappy metal underwear. But like I said maybe now they have changed things and there is a strappy metal underwear set for the male characters. I'm looking for one now but I haven't found one yet(not that that's proof it doesn't exist I just haven't found it yet.)

 

[Ryotknife]

(gives you a side-ways glance) you asked a question and i answered it. If you dont want me to answer your question, then dont ask me a question. If you meant it as a rhetorical, then im sorry i dont pick up on subtlety.

Uhh yeah you answered it. And I did expect you to answer it because I was genuinely curious. You seemed miffed that people pointed Tera out, but as far as I can see its understandable why they did. Like, you can't expect people not to notice that the armor types for female characters in the game are more skimpy than the male ones. Good on Tera for pushing the boundaries with the shirtlessess I guess? But that pales in comparison to strappy metal underwear. But like I said maybe now they have changed things and there is a strappy metal underwear set for the male characters. I'm looking for one now but I haven't found one yet(not that that's proof it doesn't exist I just haven't found it yet.)

miffed? Nah. Im not angry or anything, im just anti-drama. Apprehensive might be a better fit. I will admit thats the first time ive seen that female armor picture, most of the stuff ive seen for females were low cut chests with thigh high leggings.

But like i said, i support thongs for all, so long as its optional and you are not pigeonholed into wearing it. Besides in every MMO ive been in there is usually a dozen people of each gender running around X city in nothing but their skivvies.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Ill just say this as best i can, as far as i can guess, the game industry still views video game as a male dominated hobby, thus they will try to appeal to the male gamer more with armor/clothing that show off women's figures. Its not right but thats how i think it is. But in the same aspect theres also those games that over sexualize everyone, Dragon's Crown comes to mind.

 

[mecegirl]

(gives you a side-ways glance) you asked a question and i answered it. If you dont want me to answer your question, then dont ask me a question. If you meant it as a rhetorical, then im sorry i dont pick up on subtlety.

Uhh yeah you answered it. And I did expect you to answer it because I was genuinely curious. You seemed miffed that people pointed Tera out, but as far as I can see its understandable why they did. Like, you can't expect people not to notice that the armor types for female characters in the game are more skimpy than the male ones. Good on Tera for pushing the boundaries with the shirtlessess I guess? But that pales in comparison to strappy metal underwear. But like I said maybe now they have changed things and there is a strappy metal underwear set for the male characters. I'm looking for one now but I haven't found one yet(not that that's proof it doesn't exist I just haven't found it yet.)

miffed? Nah. Im not angry or anything, im just anti-drama. Apprehensive might be a better fit. I will admit thats the first time ive seen that female armor picture, most of the stuff ive seen for females were low cut chests with thigh high leggings.

But like i said, i support thongs for all, so long as its optional and you are not pigeonholed into wearing it. Besides in every MMO ive been in there is usually a dozen people of each gender running around X city in nothing but their skivvies.

Well, they had their reasons for the drama. Obviously don't watch every minute of each video. But cycling through can show the differences between basic female and male armor for each class and each race. Some are tame, others are just weird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jY93URHChU&index=1&list=PL1C5CABD92A43AEA3

 

[CloudAtlas]

You claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

There's a humorous irony in that statement. If one claiming something doesn't occur doesn't make it so, why does the other claiming it does exist somehow make it so?

Only if what I was claiming there is factually wrong. You are free to prove that.

Only to some extent. Immersion (not only, but also) depends on internal inconsistency, which is not subjective. How sensitive you are to specific violations of internal consistency, THAT is in the eye of the beholder.
And as it happens, many people became quite sensitive when it comes to unreasonable female armors, thanks to discussions like these. They just notice it immediately.

That's a mighty fine opinion you've got going there. Careful not to forget it's not fact.

You are free to show me that internal consistency doesn't matter, that my statement is, in fact, just an opinion. As long as you don't, though, I see no need to revise my statement.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I disagree with people who say that sexy/revealing armor is wrong and should be abolished from games at all costs.

Good thing no one here has actually said that. Don't let that stop you from pretending they have though.

Just making my stance clear. You didn't need to respond if you don't feel that way, but I've seen plenty of people on these forums in the past who say that and my post was intended for them - not you.

I somehow doubt that. I can't remember having ever encountered such an opinion here.

The problem isn't solely "practicality" or "realism." It's when men get to be dressed practically and realistically whereas women get lingerie because "fuck you, men need to masturbate to this video game!"

I'm not seeing the issue here considering the target demographic that said games are typically played by. It's catering to them. Is there something wrong with catering to demographics now? It's fantasy, anything is allowed IMO and nothing is "bad" as far as I'm concerned. If there was a fantasy MMO where all the men ran around in underwear and women wore full armor sets, I'd be fine with it - I can understand that it's catered to an audience that I'm not part of.

You quoted the wrong person here, but I share the sentiment, so I don't mind.

You seem the thing with putting sexy armours in otherwise pretty grounded, 'realistic' worlds is that game designers are willing to violate internal consistency just for the sake of tititilation, and internal consistency is a quality of any virtual world (apart from the totally absurd ones anyway). Now you claim that "anything is allowed and nothing is bad", that is, that internal consistency doesn't matter, but if you thought it through, you'd realize what an absurd claim that is.

Oh, and how generous of you to proclaim that you'd be fine if there were games that don't cater to your preferences in this regard. Not that this is a pretty easy thing to say when you belong to the group that is catered to ALL THE TIME.

Yet Skyrim has you instantly killing enemies by shouting at them. Sounds like authenticity and believability are completely up to opinion. My own opinion is that in fantasy anything is allowed, I'm open to it.

The existence of magic doesn't make the world unbelievable in any other regard. But yea other posters before me have already argued how absurd such a statement is, no need for me to do the same. Whatever fantastical elements there might be in some fantasy world, we still expect the world to operate believable within its own set of rules.

And for what it's worth, many people still believe in magic, and many more did in earlier times. And all those monsters and undeads and vampires and what not you see in fantasy games, they're often based on creatures that people believed to be real too. In this sense, many fantasy games are much more grounded than you believe them to be.

Perhaps it's to whine about that 1% of Japanese/Korean games that decide to specifically pander to the male demographic. Oh no, how dare they :O

Yea, only 1% of games from only two countries pander specifically to "men" (well, boys), and all other games don't... sure... whatever you believe buddy.

 

[Loonyyy]

Actually metal armour would be a pretty handy thing to have on once the wizards start chucking electricity around.
Here's a Faraday Suit in action.
Chainmail + electricity = awesome

That video is awesome. He's showing remarkable restraint. I'd jump around yelling about "I'M SHOOTING LIGHTENING FROM MY HANDS!"

I'm always suprised how few people know about Faraday cages, they're so damn cool.

 

[Thyunda]

I think the truly fascinating thing about this thread is the amount of people who will dismiss 'internal consistency' on the grounds of 'magic isn't realistic'. The Secret World had armour stats generated entirely from invisible talismans, while the visual outfit was entirely down to the player's aesthetic choices. I don't remember many, if any, sexualised clothing sets for female characters despite it being modern clothing and there being an in-universe reason why armour is unnecessary.
That's all it would take to justify most of this. In Skyrim, you are a being who draws power from the souls of dragons. As you level up, you become tougher, and the fact is you become on par with at least a demigod by the time you can take a direct hit from a giant. That's why that is. Beyond that, you're gonna find armour pretty useful.

At least one opinion in this thread is that internal consistency has no bearing on immersion, and that's a frankly bizarre stance to take. If the internal consistency breaks, so too does the immersion.

Who is even making this armour? For every set of chainmail bikinis, somebody has painstakingly crafted those links. This means there's a standard within the game's world where blacksmiths universally decided that women don't want practical armour.

"Excuse me sir, can I get some of that plate mail?"
"Men only."
"I don't understand - it looks like it'd fit."
"Men only."
"Please?"
"Chainmail bikini?"
"Platemail cuirass."
"Men only."

 

[wulf3n]

Only if what I was claiming there is factually wrong.

Everything is factually wrong until proven otherwise, which you didn't do. As such we have a situation with two claims, neither of which with evidence and one saying "saying" is not enough, hence the irony.

It mostly has to do with one side going off of the easily supportable assumption that creators base at least parts of their work in reality while the other decides that anything labeled "fantasy" can never be held to any standard of consistency or realism, regardless of how realistic or consistent their creators try to make it.

Key word; Assumption.

The only "standard" in any work of fiction is what the creator decides and "realism" in a fantasy setting is purely subjective.

Would you say it's wrong to assume that creators of more grounded fantasy works "are trying to portray a believable, authentic world" just because it's labeled fantasy?

I would say they're trying to create a world. Believable and authentic is purely interpretation.

Or would you rather try and argue that GRRM has rejected every aspect of reality when creating Westros just because he threw dragons and blood magic into the mix?

I would say GRRM rejects the aspects of reality that don't fit with the story he's trying to tell.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Only if what I was claiming there is factually wrong.

Everything is factually wrong until proven otherwise, which you didn't do. As such we have a situation with two claims, neither of which with evidence and one saying "saying" is not enough, hence the irony.

It mostly has to do with one side going off of the easily supportable assumption that creators base at least parts of their work in reality while the other decides that anything labeled "fantasy" can never be held to any standard of consistency or realism, regardless of how realistic or consistent their creators try to make it.

Key word; Assumption.

The only "standard" in any work of fiction is what the creator decides and "realism" in a fantasy setting is purely subjective.

Would you say it's wrong to assume that creators of more grounded fantasy works "are trying to portray a believable, authentic world" just because it's labeled fantasy?

I would say they're trying to create a world. Believable and authentic is purely interpretation.

No it's not. If you believe being able to fly around in jet fighters in Skyrim makes for a more believable and authentic experience is "purely interpretation", then... well let's just say your idea of authenticity is very different from the general consensus.

Or perhaps, since you frequently make posts like these, you're just arguing for arguing's sake. Only in sexism-related debates in game forums are you asked to prove a common sense statement like "many creators are trying create believable, authentic worlds". No, I'm not playing this game. That's too stupid.

 

[Albino Boo]

Female skin does not equate to "adding sexuality". I think the idea that the nude female body equates to sex is part of the problem, like if a woman's breast is shown that is sexual, but men can run around topless all they like and it is not. What they are wearing is irrelevant to sexuality, instead that is actual body language and behavior separate and regardless of what they are wearing.
FOR example:

is not thought of to be sexual, but it would be if it is a woman although MANY women warriors actually did fight topless.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/517/cache/roman-statue-may-depict-female-gladiator_51794_600x450.jpg

Dont kid yourself because some female gladiator's armor means the that breast were not sexulised. Extrem sexaul violence was a stock in trade in the arena. You could see women being raped by specially trained animals, followed by the naked crucifiction of some woman and then setting bears on them and to finish off, the rape and execution of pre-pubescent girls. All done in carnival atmosphere, you could place bets on which naked woman the bear would kill first or laugh at the woman being raped by a giraffe.

In many nations where the Abrahamic religions have had strong influence, they force women to cover their breasts and shame them as "sluts and whores" if they show skin. This is bullying them to conform to anothers beliefs and I find the view that one should force their beliefs onto others in such a manner intolerable.

Women tribal warriors in Americas, Africa, Gauls, Celts and others also fought topless or naked and they were not performers as well. I use the gladiators as an example because I see those represented in more games, however, more often women are left out entirely as well.

The greco-roman ideal of womanhood dictated that any woman who left the house was a slave or a whore. Some of the earliest writing in existence is fragment of Sumerian legend recounting how Inanna stole the secrets of kingship from Enki by getting him drunk and bearing her breasts, thats from around 5000 years ago. It has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion.

 

[elvor0]

Key word; Assumption.

The only "standard" in any work of fiction is what the creator decides and "realism" in a fantasy setting is purely subjective.



I would say they're trying to create a world. Believable and authentic is purely interpretation.

Well just think of it this way then. Even if it is a fantasy world, they almost always have humans. Humans which are almost always biologically exactly the same as real humans. If within that world the humans deem it necessary to wear full plate to protect themselves, because it has been established that just like in real life, being stabbed in the stomach is going to kill you, why do only the Men wear proper armor and the females have to wear plate bikinis? That's an internal inconsistancy, it's independant of the fact that there are dragons and fireballs. If there was an option between bikini and proper armor that would be fine, but it makes no sense that there ISNT the option to wear proper armor. Because if it's shown that humans still have the same weaknesses as they do in real life, then it isn't believable that all the women wear armor with key points of defence missing because...because of no reason.

The only reason is that the artists decided it would look hot. Because even if we are expected to believe that blacksmiths are making these plate bikinis, why the fuck would the women wear it over proper armor, when the proper version would fit them just fine?

Essentially this armor showcases my point.

Spoiler

 

[Thaluikhain]

Extrem sexaul violence was a stock in trade in the arena. You could see women being raped by specially trained animals, followed by the naked crucifiction of some woman and then setting bears on them and to finish off, the rape and execution of pre-pubescent girls. All done in carnival atmosphere, you could place bets on which naked woman the bear would kill first or laugh at the woman being raped by a giraffe.

Er, do you have a citation for that? Because I'd not heard that. Exceedingly nasty executions and topless gladiatrices, yes, but not rape, or animal rape.

Wouldn't be that much of a surprise, though, I'd just not heard of it.