Do sexualized character or armor designs bother you?

[StaceyPowers]

Do you feel bothered by sexualized character or armor designs? In terms of promoting social change, I’d like to see more realistic designs. But aesthetically, I admit I like them sometimes.

[killamch89]

Not really - I mean some of them are a bit over the top but I'm not that affected by it. I'm more concerned about the gameplay - the only way I'd have any real issue is if it was done to promote some kind of agenda.

[The Blackangel]

I'm not a religious zealot or a 17 year old boy. So that's a no.

[Crazycrab]

This kind of thing has been a peeve of mine for a while now.  At the end of the day it's all about context, take this for example:

 

 

Now obviously as a practical piece of armour this is beyond idiotic.  Not only does it not protect anything but it puts all the weight on her shoulders and other joints which is where you want it the least if your swinging a sword.  As a piece of art however, it looks really cool so if your game or movie is a fantasy that is not supposed to be realistic anyway I could accept it.  But if you're making a historical epic and you've got Joan of Arc leading the charge at Orleans wearing something like that then it's fair to say I wouldn't be the only one flipping my shit!  Now before anyone starts it's not just with women either:

 

 

I've got no issue with sexy armour but just keep it where it belongs.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Crazycrab

[Reality vs Adventure]

That is some heavy duty armor on her shoulders. But in battle, intimidation or underestimation is half the attack or feint. So if a woman knows her combat skills, it may pay to wear something skimpy to throw them off, same with underwear and a cape in 300. I would say that in real life that just wouldn't happen and they will wear some kind of protection. Then again, in 300, the Spartans were going to fight to their death. Half nude is a good feint especially when you know your prowess and any underestimation from the enemy will add to the head count. As far as the woman, would you swing like a mad man if tits were flapping around? You would probably pause, and that is enough to get you killed. Many warriors would paint their bodies and if you were a huge mf, you would want to show your muscle against your opponent. So 50/50 I say that is realistic. 

For me, I have to say show me the skin. 

[Crazycrab]

7 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

That is some heavy duty armor on her shoulders. But in battle, intimidation or underestimation is half the attack or feint. So if a woman knows her combat skills, it may pay to wear something skimpy to throw them off, same with underwear and a cape in 300. I would say that in real life that just wouldn't happen and they will wear some kind of protection. Then again, in 300, the Spartans were going to fight to their death. Half nude is a good feint especially when you know your prowess and any underestimation from the enemy will add to the head count. As far as the woman, would you swing like a mad man if tits were flapping around? You would probably pause, and that is enough to get you killed. Many warriors would paint their bodies and if you were a huge mf, you would want to show your muscle against your opponent. So 50/50 I say that is realistic. 

For me, I have to say show me the skin. 

 

I think your being WAY to forgiving.  The Spartans in the actual Battle of Thermopylae wore a full bronze chestplate, not the bullshit nothing in the movie.  Never trust Hollywood.

 

I know where you're coming from.  The Celts used to charge into battle wearing next to nothing to intimate the enemy but that is a rare exception.  The reality is tactic doesn't really work. If your a soldier and you see your enemy running towards you with their "tits flapping around" then survival instinct will kick in over the distraction and you will kill them.  I'd much rather have the confidence that what I'm wearing is offering at least some protection or camouflage over "Hey, look at these abs!"

Edited April 21, 2021 by Crazycrab

[Withywarlock]

It's not so much sexualised as impractical armour that bothers me, and even then I can suspend my disbelief a little. Dark Souls has it right with its fantastical but also believable (if debunked by martial artists and historians) armour, whereas World of Warcraft (see above with femme Arthas Menethil) I'm as 'bothered' with the armourkini as I am the hulking spaulders that crush characters' skulls each time they run.

Whether it's a power fantasy or sexual fantasy I don't mind. At the end of the day it's a display of creativity. ^^

[The Blackangel]

Celts wore at most leather armor, because they were still able to move well and had some protection. I know my clan always wore leather armor on their chest, arms and legs. When we would attack another clan, we always armored up with hard leather armor. When we were the ones being attacked, often times we didn't have time to get armor on. But it didn't stop us from fighting. And I'm sitting here typing this, so that is proof that some of us survived.

[m76]

I don't like completely wacko armors, but that doesn't only mean overly sexualized, it can be a pauldron that is higher than the character itself, or a headpiece that looks like it weighs 2 tons and serves no purpose whatsoever. 

What I really take issue with is the deliberate de-sexualization of characters. When their obvious goal is to make characters completely unappealing.

I play games as a form of escapism, and as such I prefer characters in them to be attractive. At the bare minimum the player character. But it doesn't hurt if some of the NPCs look nice too.

It was such a relief to play Cyberpunk 2077 where most characters were on the good side of the spectrum as opposed to games like Mass Effect Andromeda where they ugflified even the asari whose primary lore trait is that they are attractive to all species equally. But the modern twitter dwelling game designers view games as a platform for their politics and no lore is sacred to them.

Edited April 21, 2021 by m76

[Shagger]

19 hours ago, killamch89 said:

Not really - I mean some of them are a bit over the top but I'm not that affected by it. I'm more concerned about the gameplay - the only way I'd have any real issue is if it was done to promote some kind of agenda.

 

1 hour ago, m76 said:

I don't like completely wacko armors, but that doesn't only mean overly sexualized, it can be a pauldron that is higher than the character itself, or a headpiece that looks like it weighs 2 tons and serves no purpose whatsoever. 

What I take issue with is the deliberate de-sexualization of characters. When their obvious goal is to make characters completely unappealing.

I play games as a form of escapism, and as such I prefer characters in them to be attractive. At the bare minimum the player character. But it doesn't hurt if some of the NPCs look nice too.

It was such a relief to play Cyberpunk 2077 where most characters were on the good side of the spectrum as opposed to games like Mass Effect Andromeda where they ugflified even the asari whose primary lore trait is that they are attractive to all species equally. But the modern twitter dwelling game designers view games as a platform for their politics and no lore is sacred to them.

 

Again, we're back to this idea of "keep politics out of games" in favour of creative freedom. That's fine on paper, but the problem is people use that excuse to selfishly pick and choose what creative freedoms they want defended to the point whare they even pick and choose what even qualifies as somebody else's creative freedom. That's hypocritical and is actually what draws this "unwanted politics" into the discussion in first place. It is not up to you, you as in the audience, what qualifies as creative freedom and what doesn't barring obvious limits of morals, good taste and common sense.

 

If the designers want a scampily dressed, big breasted warrior maiden with greaves shaped to a bakini line and a breastplate the size of an eyepatch, then that's their choice, just expect some ridicule because, and let's be honest, it is nothing more than nonsensical fan service. Likewise, if a designer wants characters to be more representative of how real people look, complete with warts,  buck teeth and fat asses, that is also thier choice and, again, its not your place to question that and it certainly isn't anything more to do with politics than the scantaly clad warrior maiden. 9/10 times people play the politics card because they don't like to admid they would rather have a bit of moronic titillation rather than respect what the developers wanted to do because they would use the "creative freedom" argument in defence of fan service, and maybe have even done so in the past.

 

EDIT: Additionally, the same "politics vs creative freedom" hyporcisy isn't limited to the way a character looks or how sexulised (or desexulised) they are. It can also apply to a developer's creative choices on a characters race, ethiticity, background, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on. I see it all the time and it never fails to piss me off. 

 

Skimpy armour doesn't really bother me and I could even appricite it as a bit of harmless fun. Hell, the character in my avatar (Velvet from Tales of Berseria) is one of the most blatant examples of fan service in a game I can immediately think of. The difference is that Velvet can be appreciated in so many other ways because she is a very fleshed out and well written character and the way she looks does have at least some context and is addressed with some self-aware honour on the dev's part. Besides, video games are no more guilty of this sort thing than moves and TV shows, and the they cast their characters rather than design them, so one could argue that's even more vain.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Shagger

[m76]

48 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

 

Again, we're back to this idea of "keep politics out of games" in favour of creative freedom. That's fine on paper, but the problem is people use that excuse to selfishly pick and choose what creative freedoms they want defended to the point whare they even pick and choose what even qualifies as somebody else's creative freedom. That's hypocritical and is actually what draws this "unwanted politics" into the discussion in first place. It is not up to you, you as in the audience, what qualifies as creative freedom and what doesn't barring obvious limits of morals, good taste and common sense.

It's more keep escapism in games. I don't want to see dreary average or ugly characters in games. I see enough average people in real life thank you very much.

They can make all characters as ugly as they want, if that's the way they want to exercise their creative freedom. I'm not encroaching on their right to make games with ugly people. But don't call me names, when I refuse to buy such products. And especially don't suggest that I just want to whack off on games.  I can appreciate beautiful people without wanting to put my manpart in them.  I prefer good looking men over ugly men as well, despite not being sexually interested in them. Or trans people or gay characters. But you and I both know very well that many of these game designers do it just to spite the fans. And then go on to call them toxic manbabies on twitter when they complain about making characters dreary and bland.

48 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

If the designers want a scampily dressed, big breasted warrior maiden with greaves shaped to a bakini line and a breastplate the size of an eyepatch, then that's their choice, just expect some ridicule because, and let's be honest, it is nothing more than nonsensical fan service.

You are going for the hyperbole. There is a huge difference between making Asari faces look completely average and unremarkable against lore, and bikini armor.

 

48 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

Likewise, if a designer wants characters to be more representative of how real people look, complete with warts,  buck teeth and fat asses, that is also thier choice and, again, its not your place to question that and it certainly isn't anything more to do with politics than the scantaly clad warrior maiden. 9/10 times people play the politics card because they don't like to admid they would rather have a bit of moronic titillation rather than respect what the developers wanted to do because they would use the "creative freedom" argument in defence of fan service, and maybe have even done so in the past.

It is obvious when it is political and when it isn't. That's the difference between say The Last of Us II which wants to accurately represent people after a zombie apocalypse. And Mortal Kombat 11, that is a completely nonsensical fantasy to begin with, but suddenly they are concerned with how much skin fighters show, but for some reason they only cover up female fighters and not male ones. Yeah, right, I don't buy the realism and practicality excuse they given for one second. I believe that is 100% percent a political decision in line with 3rd wave feminism that ironically hates attractive females and the men who show them attention.

48 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

EDIT: Additionally, the same "politics vs creative freedom" hyporcisy isn't limited to the way a character looks or how sexulised (or desexulised) they are. It can also apply to a developer's creative choices on a characters race, ethiticity, background, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on. I see it all the time and it never fails to piss me off. 

Just because some people who speak about de-politicizing games do it for wrong reasons doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. It pisses me off too, when people claim the Last of Us 2 is political. Representation alone is not political.  The whole game is built around ambiguity and some people cannot see that even when it dances on their nose.

 

48 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

Skimpy armour doesn't really bother me and I could even appricite it as a bit of harmless fun. Hell, the character in my avatar (Velvet from Tales of Berseria) is one of the most blatant examples of fan service in a game I can immediately think of. The difference is that Velvet can be appreciated in so many other ways because she is a very fleshed out and well written character and the way she looks does have at least some context and is addressed with some self-aware honour on the dev's part. Besides, video games are no more guilty of this sort thing than moves and TV shows, and the they cast their characters rather than design them, so one could argue that's even more vain.

Everybody wants fleshed out and comlpex characters, you are not alone in that. It's very presumptuous to assume others just want bikini armor and no personality.

in the end video games are an outlet to do things we would not do in real life. And some devs are trying to deprive us from doing just that. Because they assume they are better than us and want to teach us a moral lesson. But our morals are all and well, we know the difference between a game that in unreal and the real world which is real. Having female characters in a fantasy fighting game show skin doesn't make me respect women in the real world any less.

[Shagger]

3 hours ago, m76 said:

It's more keep escapism in games. I don't want to see dreary average or ugly characters in games. I see enough average people in real life thank you very much.

They can make all characters as ugly as they want, if that's the way they want to exercise their creative freedom. I'm not encroaching on their right to make games with ugly people. But don't call me names, when I refuse to buy such products. And especially don't suggest that I just want to whack off on games.  I can appreciate beautiful people without wanting to put my manpart in them.  I prefer good looking men over ugly men as well, despite not being sexually interested in them. Or trans people or gay characters. But you and I both know very well that many of these game designers do it just to spite the fans. And then go on to call them toxic manbabies on twitter when they complain about making characters dreary and bland.

 

No, game creators do not represent social/political minorities in games to spite anyone. I'm not saying such efforts of inclusion in entertainment media are always selfless, I'm not ignorant, but they aren't meant to spite anyone. Any "toxic manbaby", and I do indeed make no apologies for calling them that,  or anyone else who feels spited by these efforts are the ones with the problem, and a big one at that. 

 

I get what you're saying about video games being a form of escapism meant to empower the player within a fantasy, I truly understand and agree with that, but that doesn't mean video can't have a message. In fact, that could even be essential. Just because someone doesn't like the reflection of themselves that message sends back to them it doesn't mean that game dev's are deliberately trying to be "holier than thou". A mature individual would try to better themselves in the wake of such an experience instead of pissing and moaning.

 

That's why I disagree. I don't believe that genuine campaigns to de-politicise games for right reasons exist, or at least it's not even close to scale you claim. It's almost never about games preaching a message that's morally suspect or getting stifled through ploitcal censorship (not to be mistaken with traditional censorship). It's almost always centred about controversies surrounding gay characters, female leads, reflections of real world race and discrimination issues and, of course, sexualisation. I've said it before, these theme's exsist in games because all fictisous writing reflects reality to some extent, no matter how audacious the fantasy they've created. So to not want these issues be reflected in fiction is to not want to see them reflected in reality, it's that simple. And those who don't want to see these issues reflected in reality want to live in a reality whare they don't exist. Like I've said, time and again, they are the ones with the problem and creators of fiction are not responsible for that. 

 

And it certainly doesn't mean game develpers are trying to stop you or any of us "doing what we can't do in life", that is nonsense. The whoal of a video game is fantasise and be empowers otherwise it's not a video fame anymore, why would any game dev do that? One can get immersed in MK, Mass Effect or any other (good) game just because the characters are showing a little less flesh. If one can't, then again lies with the player, not the game nor it's developers. 

 

Of course there are instances whare games (and other media) take pushing a message too far, but that line lies far beyond just not liking the message it's trying to share. It lies far beyond altering a camera angle to better frame a facial expression instead of a character's ass or cleavage. It lies far beyond Sonya Blade's costume actually resembling something the character might actually wear instead of some slutty cosplay. It lies far beyond a characters armour showing less skin, but is more realistic. Like I already said, I have no issue with skimpy armour even if it is a bit nonsensical, but I see the manbabies who complain about MK's characters showing a little less skin as being at least as entitled, ignorant and immature as what I would describe as the "Professionally Offended" spending thier time finding things to complain about. They are two half's of the same stupid. 

 

You keep going on about the Asari in MA:A, but if I'm rembering correctly the the game had technical issues and inferiorities that affected character models throughout the game and wasn't a deliberate attempt to make the characters uglier. So unless you have proof to the contrary, I'm gonna have to assume that story came from yet another idiot themselves trying to drag politics into the discussion whare it wasn't actually relevant.

[Reality vs Adventure]

I think what would solve most issues is character customization, gear options, and even gender options. AC Valhalla you actually can switch from female to male anytime. That game also has a variety of tattoos to place on the character whether it is head, arms, back, or chest. So that is very cool to me, and you always have that option to cover up or show off. Another thing is that is a cultural past time too if you want to get into every aspect of warriors showing a bit of skin. When I'm riding around having fun then I would be more revealing in the gear. I like to be more realistic at times and I would put the helmet on etc. So give us these options. Once again referring back to Valhalla, I love being able to play a man's role or a woman's. I usually don't like playing the typical male we always see over and over, but being a viking in that atmosphere just works perfectly. I play the male more so than the female. But I can easily switch roles and put my mind into the female character and I think having that choice is awesome. It puts to rest controversy if you aren't forced to play a half naked guy or gal.

And remember, armor sometimes is hierarchical or fashionable. There are many examples where armor has intricate designs. Sometimes for battle, other times to show off around the castle. Marines have formal wear for ceremonies and battle wear. We should have fun and it's ok if you want Kassandra in a bikini while walking through a fishing village in the Mediterranean. Maybe she was in a hurry to battle and put on her pants and not the top. I go through all these roles. Even as the male, I would have his shirt off with the tattoos showing, and go all out fuck the world Valhalla style. To be offended by sexualization and get political on it is oppression. There are women in this world who want to be able to show their faces and skin. Most of the time it is the man that oppresses them. But if it is a woman who simply thinks the gear is offensive to her, then she should have the option to dress the character as she wants. But don't ever oppress the creators or myself as a consumer if you are offended by skin. Play as you like and I'll play as I like. We can do that in one game if given the options. If not, then the game will lose customers one way or another. 

 

[m76]

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

No, game creators do not represent social/political minorities in games to spite anyone. I'm not saying such efforts of inclusion in entertainment media are always selfless, I'm not ignorant, but they aren't meant to spite anyone. Any "toxic manbaby", and I do indeed make no apologies for calling them that,  or anyone else who feels spited by these efforts are the ones with the problem, and a big one at that. 

I said the exact same thing in another paragraph and how it pisses me off when people cry wolf at that.

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

I get what you're saying about video games being a form of escapism meant to empower the player within a fantasy, I truly understand and agree with that, but that doesn't mean video can't have a message. In fact, that could even be essential. Just because someone doesn't like the reflection of themselves that message sends back to them it doesn't mean that game dev's are deliberately trying to be "holier than thou". A mature individual would try to better themselves in the wake of such an experience instead of pissing and moaning.

They seem to think that everyone wants a reflection of themselves in games, which is an outrageous assumption. They think a black person cannot enjoy a game unless the hero of the game is also black.  And other minorities as well. And this goes beyond the gaming industry into all of the entertainment industry.  It's kind of ironic that they think they fight against racism by assuming every minority is racist and every woman sexist, etc.

 

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

That's why I disagree. I don't believe that genuine campaigns to de-politicise games for right reasons exist, or at least it's not even close to scale you claim. It's almost never about games preaching a message that's morally suspect or getting stifled through ploitcal censorship (not to be mistaken with traditional censorship).

There is no campaign, it's just individuals speaking up, but they are immediately shut down regardless of the criticism's validity.

 

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

It's almost always centred about controversies surrounding gay characters, female leads, reflections of real world race and discrimination issues and, of course, sexualisation.

That's where the problem lies, said discrimination issues are not real, they are not backed up by any real world statistic, it's disregarding reality. If I see a representation of that of course I get upset, because it paints a biased and harmful image that itself fuels division and hate.

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

I've said it before, these theme's exsist in games because all fictisous writing reflects reality to some extent, no matter how audacious the fantasy they've created. So to not want these issues be reflected in fiction is to not want to see them reflected in reality, it's that simple. And those who don't want to see these issues reflected in reality want to live in a reality whare they don't exist. Like I've said, time and again, they are the ones with the problem and creators of fiction are not responsible for that. 

As I've said these issues do not exist in reality in the way it is represented in the media and in entertainment. There are racist cops for sure, but the police as an institution is not racist. The complete nutjobs who want to "defund the police" are anarchists. Representing these ideas as reality is very harmful. We have just almost moved beyond race and now some are outright advocating for segregation.  The creators of fiction themselves declare numerous times that they don't care about the IP, they just see it as platform to "speak out about issues".

 

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

And it certainly doesn't mean game develpers are trying to stop you or any of us "doing what we can't do in life", that is nonsense. The whoal of a video game is fantasise and be empowers otherwise it's not a video fame anymore, why would any game dev do that? One can get immersed in MK, Mass Effect or any other (good) game just because the characters are showing a little less flesh. If one can't, then again lies with the player, not the game nor it's developers. 

A game's hero should be heroic, a character we look up to, what we aspire to be. If heroes can be fat, overweight, out of shape, uncharismatic, then what's the point? 

I'm sorry, but I do want good looking inspirational and charismatic heroes.

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

Of course there are instances whare games (and other media) take pushing a message too far, but that line lies far beyond just not liking the message it's trying to share. It lies far beyond altering a camera angle to better frame a facial expression instead of a character's ass or cleavage. It lies far beyond Sonya Blade's costume actually resembling something the character might actually wear instead of some slutty cosplay. It lies far beyond a characters armour showing less skin, but is more realistic. Like I already said, I have no issue with skimpy armour even if it is a bit nonsensical, but I see the manbabies who complain about MK's characters showing a little less skin as being at least as entitled, ignorant and immature as what I would describe as the "Professionally Offended" spending thier time finding things to complain about. They are two half's of the same stupid. 

If they had said they wanted to make costumes in MK more realistic and applied that equally to all characters that is a defensible position. But applying it selectively to sexy female outfits is sheer hypocrisy and that bothers me. I admit that is the reason why I never purchased MK11, because of the dismissive attitude. Why can't the game have both and let the player choose which they want? I might even have chosen the more covered up version myself.  You need two parties to have a controversy. And the instigators in this case are clearly the developers. They knew their fanbase, and they knew their expectations, yet they decided to go against it anyway. If I go and ask for a coffe in the shop for 20 years, and I always get the same thing, but after 21 years they suddenly give me decaf and say no more coffee for you toxic manchild of course I get upset and complain about the service. I don't think that is entitlement, it's reasonable expectation.  Why won't street fighter get a similar controversy? Because they don't try to "reform" their fans out of liking sexy female characters.

 

15 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

You keep going on about the Asari in MA:A, but if I'm rembering correctly the the game had technical issues and inferiorities that affected character models throughout the game and wasn't a deliberate attempt to make the characters uglier. So unless you have proof to the contrary, I'm gonna have to assume that story came from yet another idiot themselves trying to drag politics into the discussion whare it wasn't actually relevant.

The technical issues were related to animations, and it was blown way out of proportion in my opinion. It is my observation that the none of the characters in ME:A have traditionally beautiful faces. I make up my own mind, I don't need anyone else to tell me what I should think about games. In ME1 and ME2 most characters were very good looking, in ME:A none of them are. Not just the Asari are ugly in it, but humans as well, but the Asari stand out because the are supposed to be good looking by lore. So the representation excuse does not fly in their case.

Of course they deny all accusations of it being a deliberate design choice, but then are they really using incompetence as their defence? That isn't exactly a win for them either.

[Heatman]

On 4/20/2021 at 11:01 PM, The Blackangel said:

I'm not a religious zealot or a 17 year old boy. So that's a no.

Exactly, there is no link up with religion and gaming characters being in such form or their armor designs. If such bothers me, then I'm definitely sick in the head.