Sexy fantasy armor...

[CloudAtlas]

Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "form fitting" modern armor "it fits women"? The US military in particular has a problem where pretty much all of its stock is based off a narrow range of male dimensions, making it impractical but "better than nothing" for female soldiers to wear.

The US military has problems with body armor for their female soldiers because men just tend to have larger frames. The armors are just too large for the women overall. Body armors tailored towards female frames would be more form-fitting in the sense that they fit better to female frames, but form-fitting in this context is usually used to describe sort of elastic, skin tight attire. But even when female soldiers get body armors perfectly tailored towards their frames, they will still be bulky and not 'emphasize the female form' or anything like that. They won't look "sexy" like, say, Mass Effect's FemShep's armor, for example.

 

[The Lunatic]

Snip

Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about.

But, if I ever need 1950s standards for sexualisation, I'll give you a bell.

Also, I said he was "Creepy", really not that massive of a slight. I'm a furry. I'm probably most people's idea of creepy too. The rest is entirely of your thinking, I'm afraid.

Unless you're about to admit you've hacked his PC and personally gone over his modlist or somehow put surveillance in his room then I'd like to know just how you'd know what kind of mods it is that he talked about when he said sexy armour considering the guy never even gave his definition of said concept.

Given we're all apparently allowed to make sweeping assumptions, I'm going to say, yes. I definitely did this.

 

[Hagi]

I've plenty on the Skyrim Nexus. I've seen plenty on Loverslab.

I know extremely well what kind of mods are out there.

From the skin-tight leather outfits to the chain-mail bikinis. From the panties and lingerie to all kinds of piercings and chains. From schoolgirl outfits to cowbells. From entire assortments of various 'plugs' to mods that make just about every single body part that could conceivably jiggle do so and then some more.

The purpose of all of these remains exactly the same as the purpose of Red Sonja's bikini. To titillate, to arouse, to excite and to lust after.

The combination of titillation, lust and erotica with violence, blood and death has been pretty much present in every society we know of. And it's never been the same as sexual violence, as violence for the sake of sexual gratification.

It's merely the combination of what's generally seen as two of our most base instincts, to fight and to fuck. Simply because they're present at the same time, in the same piece of fiction does not automatically mean they're mixed.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I like both kinds really, but I lean towards the "non practical ones".

I find those more fascinating than practical armor. I want to see how far would some people go without getting the "this is simply too explicit to show in a mature game".

 

[Piorn]

Sexy armor has it's place as a visual story telling medium.

Like when a character is too occupied with looks instead of practicality, you can make an interesting point about vanity by having him/her stabbed in the e.g. gigantic cleavage hole of the armor right in the heart.
Or an extravagant magic user who doesn't need armor and makes his magic as much of a show as a fight.
Or when the culture has grown so decadent that the armor has lost any practical meaning and is only used ceremonially.

Nothing is inherently bad.

 

[Artemicion]

Whether there is something wrong with you liking that or not is not the question.

The question is whether a world is better for being designed in such a way, in a way that satisfies your preferences. Skyrim might be "less boring" for you if many of its women wear ridiculous sexualized armors, but it certainly is less internally consistent for it. Because Skyrim very much tries to portay a "realistic" world, and incidentally an equal opportunity world too, and ridiculous sexualized armors, for only one gender at that, just have no place in such a world. It destroys immersion.

OH NO MY IMMERSION ANYTHING BUT THAT NOOO. Actually immersion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not saying sexy armor makes it more immersive for me, but I'm no less immersed by it's presence. Also, whose question is that? It's not mine, and it's not the original poster's.

Also also, there are plenty of lore-friendly sexy armor and clothing mods. Whenever someone hears "sexy armor mod" they immediately jump straight to the Slave Leia, which is simultaneously humorous and idiotic. You don't have to be naked to be sexy, and sexy doesn't always mean naked.

Trading off internal consistency for titillation might be worth it for you personally, but that's it. Don't suggest that it would be realistic (as you do in the following posts) or that Skyrim's world might be objectively better for it.

Yes, because all of those fictional references of mine are realistic, and I also said that Skyrim is objectively better because of my sexy armors.

I don't have a problem debating my opinions, but I definitely do have a problem with people putting words in my mouth. Don't do it.

Personally, I find the third one to be troubling. Can you explain what's "boring" about not having sexy armour?

Oh no. Skyrim may very well still be boring WITH sexy armor. It's not the sexy armor that makes it not boring, it's the addition of more content. I make it less boring for me with sexy armor (among new houses, quest lines, followers, enemies, and many, many, many other things). Perhaps I should have more accurately defined that my post was of my preference alone.

Also, I said he was "Creepy", really not that massive of a slight. I'm a furry. I'm probably most people's idea of creepy too. The rest is entirely of your thinking, I'm afraid.

Maybe instead of posting ad hominem attacks in the forum, you actually start a debate with a valid argument. If you did that, I wouldn't consider your attitude to be incredibly bigoted. Though it was pretty funny when you said this:

James Bond? Jason Borne? These people are just buff heroes, they're not sexualised, they're just in shape.

I guess being athletic is sexualisation now. Gee, who knew.

Nevermind the fact that James Bond [http://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=2868] is a sex symbol, you go so far as to say that men can't be sexy, they can only be in shape. I actually LOL'd at the blatant ignorance on show.

Who the fuck are talking about? Because it's not Dead Raen. He never said he got "sexual gratification" form killing people in this thread. You're straight up attacking a straw-man right now.

Seriously, where the hell did this sexual gratification from murdering people come from?

 

[elvor0]

Nevermind the fact that James Bond [http://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=2868] is a sex symbol, you go so far as to say that men can't be sexy, they can only be in shape. I actually LOL'd at the blatant ignorance on show.

Yup, this scene is totally not sexy:

People get funny about men being sexulized in that way though, I've seen casino royale on american channels a couple of times, and that bit where he actually comes out of the water, for some reason been cropped so it's an upper body shot as opposed to a full body, presumably so men don't catch the gay from seeing Daniel Craigs pouch.

However, I'll agree that men don't get the "piece of meat" view to any of the same degree. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Batman in Batman Forever, Snake and Raiden in Metal Gear, and James Bond in that one scene. James Bond may be a Sex Symbol, but he's not Sexualized, nor in the same way women are. Women fancy him because he's good looking and cool as fuck, beside that one scene the camera doesn't oogle his body like women get. To my memory Jason Bourne didn't get gratuitous arse or crotch shots either.

 

[WanderingFool]

For me, I like good looking armour that is actually practical (and no, even if it's full plate, boob plates aren't practical) and could properly work. A lot of designers don't seem to understand that there are plenty of examples of proper historical armour that both looks visually appealing or is exotic that could work in fantasy games. You don't need silly, over-the-top designs that only people who can suspend the largest of disbelief could get into.

Of course, if you're into purely fictional armour, that's fine, to each their own. But to me, there has to be at least some degree of practicality to it for me to take it seriously. Same goes for weapons.

I feel the same way, while I can like and maybe even enjoy sexy armor, Doesnt change the fact that a suit of armor that looks like a fucking walking tank when worn by a guy, suddenly looks like like something designed by Victoria Secret when worn by a girl.

Also, I cant stand huge swords like this:

Spoiler

 

[CloudAtlas]

Actually immersion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

Also, whose question is that? It's not mine, and it's not the original poster's.

It was your statement. You stated there's nothing wrong with someone liking sexy armors. I stated that this is not the question here. Which it isn't.

Also also, there are plenty of lore-friendly sexy armor and clothing mods.

No, there are no lore friendly "sexy armor" mods (i.e. mods featuring distinctily sexualized armor) for Skyrim. In the world of Skyrim, all female warriors wear reasonable armors (apart from mild boob cups). Female characters in general are (almost) not sexualized whatsoever in Skyrim; the most you get in terms of titilation is a bar maid with cleavage.
Thus, no "sexy armor" will be be consistent with what you see in Skyrim otherwise, and consequently no "sexy armor" can be lore friendly.

 

[Nickolai77]

Sexy fantasy armour's also a really cheap advertising gimmick to get the attention of guys as much as it is a design feature, and both have been overused to the extent that it has now become a prominent issue in how women in video games are portrayed. Advertisers and certain video game developers are both equally to blame here.

There is a time and a place for "sexy fantasy armour"- In porn obviously, but also in certain games which are a bit comedic, tongue in cheek or satirical in their general style. What I don't like though is seeing sexy fantasy armour in more serious games, because there's no need for it, it's lazy design and it often objectifies female characters which puts of females in real life from playing those sorts of games.

It's perfectly possible to make attractive, tasteful and practical female armour. I'm certainly not against female characters being designed in a way which compliments the female form- the key thing however is that it should be designed in a tasteful way if you're making a serious game.

 

[mecegirl]

Naked will not work for a member of a S.W.A.T team for instance. Nor would exposed breasts(male or female) or an exposed midsection(male or female). There are too many bullets flying around to forgo at least some padding. And that's what bullet proof vests and the like were made for. Yes, they cover up the body. But how is that a bad thing?

It's amusing to picture a woman being asked to wear a bullet proof vet and her responding that it's no better than trying to put her in a Burka, though.

I wanted to make a point, but when looking at the rest of what you said, I thought I'd make a second one, as well. The whole "some groups go topless" thing is definitely true. Even in the Northeast of what's now the US it wasn't uncommon for women of indigenous tribes to go topless: in appropriate weather. I mean, yeah, this goes to what you said about women and climate: just because women weren't ashamed of their breasts doesn't mean they went around in the middle of a Noreaster completely naked.

But more to my original point, based on this.

What bugs me about the "putting women in burkas" thing is that I don't otherwise disagree with her whole premise. I'm fine with the idea of socketed armour where you can put the best mods on any armour you damn well please. The problem comes in with this repeated insistence that I'm somehow oppressing women (and on par with a rather misogynistic culture) because I want my characters to wear sensible clothes. Which sort of undermines the choice afforded by armour sockets/slots in the first place. Not to mention, that's its own brand of shaming.

It gets really touchy when the subject intersects with Middle Eastern women and their choice to cover themselves. By all means forcing the burka on anyone is wrong, but that has little to do with why some women choose to wear say a hijab. Some western feminists can be very pushy with their beliefs, when really all that matters is if an individual has free choice to follow their own path. So to say that they have to bare themselves in order to be truly liberated is no different than saying that one has to always be covered. Just like a woman who chooses to wait until marriage to have sex is just as "sexually liberated" as a woman who has chosen to have multiple partners.

In this case though we aren't even really talking about what a woman would wear in everyday life, but what she would wear to do a specific task. And preferring one type of fantasy armor over another is just a preference. Some people may prefer a Conan type of world and the armor that comes with it. Others may prefer a Aragorn type of world and the armor that comes with it. It's no different from preferring a dystopian future to a utopian future. It's only an issue because content creators will create an Aragon type of world and only have the women dress like they come from a Conan type of world(the same would work for the opposite situation but we never see the opposite situation). As if we aren't supposed to notice the difference and question why she is dressed for the wrong climate and type of combat. Unless she is a recent immigrant she would adhere to whatever armoring conventions are common in her culture. Not wear what the men wear but with strategically placed cutouts.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

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

I welcome sexy impractical armor in fantasy-themed games (e.g. fantasy MMOs or RPGs) where realism is not really a priority.
People who point at sexy armor saying "that's not practical!" or point at heels saying "how can she fight in that?!" are probably missing the point of videogames, especially when they'll happily ignore the fact that said character is throwing magic spells, running at supersonic speeds or swinging around a car-sized sword.

Of course this is something that entirely boils down to preference, I'm OK with people saying they want a few more options with full-covering female armor. Express your opinion and the developers/artists may take the ideas onboard if enough people want it. But don't demand it as if it's your right or "gamer entitlement" as we know it

 

[Rebel_Raven]

And I just stumbled across this:
http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/

And I remembered seeing this which talks about the problems with fantasy armor:
<youtube=lIwFTU7zAbg>

Honestly, videogames, movies, etc, these things are fantasy, and I can easily suspend disbelief enough to enjoy some fanservice, nice designs, etc.

Still, expecting everyone to have that suspension of disbelief, and seeing boobs that put SNK, and Tecmo-Koei to shame is a bit much. Not everyone likes it, not everyone tolerates it, and as much as I like it, it doesn't need to be the norm as it pretty much is, still. It can still exist, though.

You may want to see this (slightly NSFW), well ok it's not the same thing per say (talking about girls clothing in fighting game but it's still similar but I suppose it's no brainer that the clothing they wear in games is not pratical in real life.

Yeah, one thing videogames have going for them is that clothes are rarely fluid, and almost never fluid when against skin. Wardrobe malfunctions aren't a huge concern.

Thinking about it, though, while the video you link has merit in that there's limits to physics, and double sided tape, odds are every character has their outfits tailored to them, and have time, and work put into them. A custom fit might help avoid wardrobe malfunctions, even in some absurd designs.

If those outfits offere something, though, it seemed like mobility was high amongst what's offered. Aside from the realities of having to adjust clothes, anyhow.

A point of view I have is that few fighting game characters wear what they fight in all day, every day, so the idea of looking stylish for a bit is something more natural.
Honestly though, outfits might be more interesting if they were the sorts of things a combatant would wear in public.

Looking at the big picture, though, Ivy's outfit might be worn temporarily as a form of psychological warfare.

I wouldn't discount the notion of escapism. Maybe the inability to get away with dressing in such outlandish clothes can make some of it appealing, even if it's just in a virtual space.

But this is just me rambling.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Can we please stop with the obvious hyperbole that sexy armor is everywhere? It gets pretty annoying.

 

[lacktheknack]

What if I find practicality sexy? Huh? What then?

Doublets and correctly shaped cuirasses totally turn me on.

So where's my gratuitous practicality fanservice?

This.

I'm sick and tired of people acting like "boob plates" are somehow good design. They're TERRIBLE design, they'll guide blades directly into your sternum. D:

"Well designed" female armor is almost identical to male armor: It will squash the boobs down and out of the way of the flying blades. So I speak for the practical fetishists when I request MOAR SQUASHED BOOBS! MOAR SQUASHED BOOBS!

(And if you doubt the squashiness of boobs, watch a well-endowed woman have a mammogram. To quote my mother, "It's like pizza dough.")

 

[CloudAtlas]

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

Who said that? My strawman sense is tingling.

I welcome sexy impractical armor in fantasy-themed games (e.g. fantasy MMOs or RPGs) where realism is not really a priority.
People who point at sexy armor saying "that's not practical!" or point at heels saying "how can she fight in that?!" are probably missing the point of videogames, especially when they'll happily ignore the fact that said character is throwing magic spells, running at supersonic speeds or swinging around a car-sized sword.

Many games, even fantasy games, are trying to portray a believable, authentic world though. Like Skyrim, for example. You claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. As much as you claiming things that didn't actually happen make them so (see above).

But what do I know? Maybe everything is like you say. Maybe developers clearly spending a lot of time on achieving such an authentic feel is no indication for this authenticity to be "a priority" after all. Maybe players looking to immerse themselves in games, players looking for game worlds that feel consistent, authentic, real even, maybe those players are all missing the point of video games - this point apparently being within your authority to decide for each and everyone. Maybe players would indeed not complain if railguns suddenly pop up in your semi-realistic fantasy world, because as you so aptly demonstrated, internal consistency is something that does not matter, and if it matters to you, you're playing it wrong.
Maybe.