This thread is actually something that I have seen be an issue in New World as well, but it's even worse over there. They basically went so far down the gender neutral route they over-corrected and now literally everyone in the game looks like a dude until you do a very, very close up look of their faces. From the Cosmetic sets we see and a few of the models we have been shown I don't see ashes making the same mistake... as much. I understand the refusal to over-sexualize women in our fantasy game, that's fine they want to keep things from being sexual.
There is however a difference between feminine charm and lustful over-sexualization and I hope that we can strike a balance without going down the stupid route New World has chosen.
As a woman, given what we have seen from pre-order packs I am not worried. There are so many women in vocal positions at Intrepid and it shows in the costume concepts. I'm appreciating the lack of sexualization in armor sets and the general stylishness of them. If I want to look pretty give me a good costume. I have buckets of other games for when I want to wear 'thot' armor.
But in the end I personally don't mind having both in a game. It's just that when you have both the demand for the 'thot' armor goes up drastically compared to the nonsexualized and the devs rightfully make the business decision to invest in the cosmetics that sell best. Intrepid is already taking a stance by saying no in the first place. It's harder to resist greed when the results are more tangible. But hey if they did manage to 'keep producing both types despite that' more of my money to them.
Here I am wanting oversized sweaters and things that look comfy. At the same time, Leather armor that is "revealing" in certain situations, plays nothing short of exploitatious. Rather, it may play in favor of diverting devious eyes from the tip of a blade. Like a magician and his tricks.
See, I don't like the classic "distraction" excuse.
I just can't see any dude being so distracted by a woman's body that he ignores her stabbing his face. I know I'm not a typical example of a guy, but I can't believe we're all that easily dooped in a life or death situation.
I suppose a study needs to be done, or something, but I don't see half naked women as being an effective distraction.
I think armor should focus on practicality first, and appearance second. If you wear cloth armor (or just clothing), sure, show midriff. Otherwise, more serious armor shouldn't bare any part of the torso.
Funny thing is, in medieval times women used their beauty to their advantage. Men are week to beauty, women are usually weaker to strength. It's kind of like a weakness diagram in gacha games 😂
If you show me orc, elfs, dragons, and dwarfs in Conan than we can talk !!!
and Conan is the best example of stripper armor!!!
Conan is in the Hyborian Age, basically age of myth but even before Greeks. 10k BC is pretty cool history. Writer supposedly inferred he is descended from someone like Conan
This thread is actually something that I have seen be an issue in New World as well, but it's even worse over there. They basically went so far down the gender neutral route they over-corrected and now literally everyone in the game looks like a dude until you do a very, very close up look of their faces. From the Cosmetic sets we see and a few of the models we have been shown I don't see ashes making the same mistake... as much. I understand the refusal to over-sexualize women in our fantasy game, that's fine they want to keep things from being sexual.
There is however a difference between feminine charm and lustful over-sexualization and I hope that we can strike a balance without going down the stupid route New World has chosen.
As a woman, given what we have seen from pre-order packs I am not worried. There are so many women in vocal positions at Intrepid and it shows in the costume concepts. I'm appreciating the lack of sexualization in armor sets and the general stylishness of them. If I want to look pretty give me a good costume. I have buckets of other games for when I want to wear 'thot' armor.
But in the end I personally don't mind having both in a game. It's just that when you have both the demand for the 'thot' armor goes up drastically compared to the nonsexualized and the devs rightfully make the business decision to invest in the cosmetics that sell best. Intrepid is already taking a stance by saying no in the first place. It's harder to resist greed when the results are more tangible. But hey if they did manage to 'keep producing both types despite that' more of my money to them.
I agree on this part, the "bikini" armour should be cosmetic, but the more realistic gear should actually be the main equipment you find in the world.
However, "bikini" armour shouldn't be store only cosmetics obviously, so there is some source of it from pure gameplay xD
This thread is actually something that I have seen be an issue in New World as well, but it's even worse over there. They basically went so far down the gender neutral route they over-corrected and now literally everyone in the game looks like a dude until you do a very, very close up look of their faces. From the Cosmetic sets we see and a few of the models we have been shown I don't see ashes making the same mistake... as much. I understand the refusal to over-sexualize women in our fantasy game, that's fine they want to keep things from being sexual.
There is however a difference between feminine charm and lustful over-sexualization and I hope that we can strike a balance without going down the stupid route New World has chosen.
As a woman, given what we have seen from pre-order packs I am not worried. There are so many women in vocal positions at Intrepid and it shows in the costume concepts. I'm appreciating the lack of sexualization in armor sets and the general stylishness of them. If I want to look pretty give me a good costume. I have buckets of other games for when I want to wear 'thot' armor.
But in the end I personally don't mind having both in a game. It's just that when you have both the demand for the 'thot' armor goes up drastically compared to the nonsexualized and the devs rightfully make the business decision to invest in the cosmetics that sell best. Intrepid is already taking a stance by saying no in the first place. It's harder to resist greed when the results are more tangible. But hey if they did manage to 'keep producing both types despite that' more of my money to them.
I agree on this part, the "bikini" armour should be cosmetic, but the more realistic gear should actually be the main equipment you find in the world.
However, "bikini" armour shouldn't be store only cosmetics obviously, so there is some source of it from pure gameplay xD
I strongly disagree. If it isn't in store only it's going to be wildly popular in cities and pollute the over all world feel. Im ok with this, but only if it means the devs are getting paid for said pollution. I have other games I can go to if I want to see hundreds of dancing avatars in skimpy clothing.
This thread is actually something that I have seen be an issue in New World as well, but it's even worse over there. They basically went so far down the gender neutral route they over-corrected and now literally everyone in the game looks like a dude until you do a very, very close up look of their faces. From the Cosmetic sets we see and a few of the models we have been shown I don't see ashes making the same mistake... as much. I understand the refusal to over-sexualize women in our fantasy game, that's fine they want to keep things from being sexual.
There is however a difference between feminine charm and lustful over-sexualization and I hope that we can strike a balance without going down the stupid route New World has chosen.
As a woman, given what we have seen from pre-order packs I am not worried. There are so many women in vocal positions at Intrepid and it shows in the costume concepts. I'm appreciating the lack of sexualization in armor sets and the general stylishness of them. If I want to look pretty give me a good costume. I have buckets of other games for when I want to wear 'thot' armor.
But in the end I personally don't mind having both in a game. It's just that when you have both the demand for the 'thot' armor goes up drastically compared to the nonsexualized and the devs rightfully make the business decision to invest in the cosmetics that sell best. Intrepid is already taking a stance by saying no in the first place. It's harder to resist greed when the results are more tangible. But hey if they did manage to 'keep producing both types despite that' more of my money to them.
I agree on this part, the "bikini" armour should be cosmetic, but the more realistic gear should actually be the main equipment you find in the world.
However, "bikini" armour shouldn't be store only cosmetics obviously, so there is some source of it from pure gameplay xD
I strongly disagree. If it isn't in store only it's going to be wildly popular in cities and pollute the over all world feel. Im ok with this, but only if it means the devs are getting paid for said pollution. I have other games I can go to if I want to see hundreds of dancing avatars in skimpy clothing.
Look no further than FF14's main cities to confirm this statement.
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
Did you say "pollute"...?
The hypocrisy is over 9000
Yeah. I missed your endearing outrage and figured it was the easiest way to get it.
It showed days ago
Ah well it is easy to miss sometimes. I get busy with life and all that jazz. Hope you are having a good day mate.
Sydney lockdown
Ah your in lockdown? Sorry to hear that.
Edit: Oh you edited after I responded. If that was all you said in the Tulnar thread you wouldn't have gotten the response you got. That's really off topic though. Wanna talk about what female armor you'd like to see in game?
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
I would definitely see them not playing favourites as they would have to make the set equally reasonable for the males as much as for the female in-game models.
Even looking at gladiator armours, there would have to be some form of cover up for the females especially in a game with the rating they're going for.
It's not the best example but it gives a generalisation without sexualising anything.
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
I would definitely see them not playing favourites as they would have to make the set equally reasonable for the males as much as for the female in-game models.
Even looking at gladiator armours, there would have to be some form of cover up for the females especially in a game with the rating they're going for.
It's not the best example but it gives a generalisation without sexualising anything.
Yeah the first image is pretty close to 'thot' armor. I wouldn't say it quite cross my threshold though so you wouldn't get complaints from me if ashes added something similar, though the left (her right) chest piece on the female would look /better/ and slightly further from my personal 'line' imo if there was more cover where the armor already is. My actual complaint with the picture is the female models proportions aren't anatomically correct. But art is hard and it isn't /that/ far off, just very slighty too thin a waist.
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
I would definitely see them not playing favourites as they would have to make the set equally reasonable for the males as much as for the female in-game models.
Even looking at gladiator armours, there would have to be some form of cover up for the females especially in a game with the rating they're going for.
It's not the best example but it gives a generalisation without sexualising anything.
Yeah the first image is pretty close to 'thot' armor. I wouldn't say it quite cross my threshold though so you wouldn't get complaints from me if ashes added something similar, though the left (her right) chest piece on the female would look /better/ and slightly further from my personal 'line' imo if there was more cover where the armor already is. My actual complaint with the picture is the female models proportions aren't anatomically correct. But art is hard and it isn't /that/ far off, just very slighty too thin a waist.
The second picture looks cool to me.
yeah, it's why I said it wasn't the best example. It was more of the armour and not the figure of the model.
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
I would definitely see them not playing favourites as they would have to make the set equally reasonable for the males as much as for the female in-game models.
Even looking at gladiator armours, there would have to be some form of cover up for the females especially in a game with the rating they're going for.
It's not the best example but it gives a generalisation without sexualising anything.
Yeah the first image is pretty close to 'thot' armor. I wouldn't say it quite cross my threshold though so you wouldn't get complaints from me if ashes added something similar, though the left (her right) chest piece on the female would look /better/ and slightly further from my personal 'line' imo if there was more cover where the armor already is. My actual complaint with the picture is the female models proportions aren't anatomically correct. But art is hard and it isn't /that/ far off, just very slighty too thin a waist.
The second picture looks cool to me.
yeah, it's why I said it wasn't the best example. It was more of the armour and not the figure of the model.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If it's store cosmetics, it's the same set for male characters as it is for female characters. There would be some cover-up for the female version.
Bikini-armor is typically more sword and scorcery v high fantasy.
I think we have some cosmetics that show some skin... just not to the level of bikini-armor.
If it's store cosmetics, it's the same set for male characters as it is for female characters. There would be some cover-up for the female version.
Bikini-armor is typically more sword and scorcery v high fantasy.
I think we have some cosmetics that show some skin... just not to the level of bikini-armor.
I'm going to disagree as High Fantasy is High Fantasy. Sword and Sorcery is still part of high fantasy.
To be fair, bikini just means two piece hence the "bi" as "mon"kini refers to one piece.
Everyone is different and can perceive anything as being sexual to either themselves or others.
Technically that armour and waist garments would still be considered a two piece set.
in the perspective that many different cultures in RL may play this game, some would even find that set offensive.
In another perspective, maybe players want their character to be perceived as being so strong that they dont need to wear armour that covers up everything from head to toe.
I dont see thing so much as black and white as it's more of spectrums from one extreme to another.
If it's store cosmetics, it's the same set for male characters as it is for female characters. There would be some cover-up for the female version.
Bikini-armor is typically more sword and scorcery v high fantasy.
I think we have some cosmetics that show some skin... just not to the level of bikini-armor.
I'm going to disagree as High Fantasy is High Fantasy. Sword and Sorcery is still part of high fantasy.
To be fair, bikini just means two piece hence the "bi" as "mon"kini refers to one piece.
Everyone is different and can perceive anything as being sexual to either themselves or others.
Technically that armour and waist garments would still be considered a two piece set.
I also agree that Sword and Sorcery tend to be high fantasy, but the genre is unique and can definitely be low fantasy.
I also agree everyone has different definitions of what feels sexualized vs not. It's largely a 'know it when I see it' type thing for me.
For example midriff exposure in some contexts do depending on the rest of the armor set, but sometimes it doesn't.
Inner thigh exposure when there is outer thigh protection almost never registers that way to me because of the mobility and heat ventilation required for certain agile fighting styles.
Chest exposure is probably the most easy to trigger the feeling of 'this is sexualized' to me.
Face exposure varies a lot depending on class for me. But is also the most forgivable if there are covered options.
I'm sure some people agree on all those points, others only some, others none.
It's not as easy as 'what percentage of skin is showing' to me. Context matters a lot. And as a result, is hard to have a singular standard, hence why I am happy intrepid has so many female voices who have a strong influence in the input. More perspectives the better.
To be fair, bikini just means two piece hence the "bi" as "mon"kini refers to one piece.
Everyone is different and can perceive anything as being sexual to either themselves or others.
Technically that armour and waist garments would still be considered a two piece set.
bikini - a very brief two-piece swimsuit for women
bikini - A bikini is a women's two-piece swimsuit featuring two triangles of fabric on top that cover the woman's breasts, and two triangles of fabric on the bottom: the front covering the pelvis but exposing the navel, and the back covering the buttocks.
bikini - a very brief, close-fitting, two-piece bathing suit for women or girls. a very brief, close-fitting pair of bathing trunks for men or boys.
bikini - Very brief, legless swimming trunks.
I suppose "very brief" could be subjective.
Sure, there are places where women showing any skin other than hands is offensive.
In the early 1900s, showing the male's navel probably would have been offensive, too.
If it's store cosmetics, it's the same set for male characters as it is for female characters. There would be some cover-up for the female version.
Bikini-armor is typically more sword and scorcery v high fantasy.
I think we have some cosmetics that show some skin... just not to the level of bikini-armor.
I'm going to disagree as High Fantasy is High Fantasy. Sword and Sorcery is still part of high fantasy.
To be fair, bikini just means two piece hence the "bi" as "mon"kini refers to one piece.
Everyone is different and can perceive anything as being sexual to either themselves or others.
Technically that armour and waist garments would still be considered a two piece set.
I also agree that Sword and Sorcery tend to be high fantasy, but the genre is unique and can definitely be low fantasy.
I also agree everyone has different definitions of what feels sexualized vs not. It's largely a 'know it when I see it' type thing for me.
For example midriff exposure in some contexts do depending on the rest of the armor set, but sometimes it doesn't.
Inner thigh exposure when there is outer thigh protection almost never registers that way to me because of the mobility and heat ventilation required for certain agile fighting styles.
Chest exposure is probably the most easy to trigger the feeling of 'this is sexualized' to me.
Face exposure varies a lot depending on class for me. But is also the most forgivable if there are covered options.
I'm sure some people agree on all those points, others only some, others none.
It's not as easy as 'what percentage of skin is showing' to me. Context matters a lot. And as a result, is hard to have a singular standard, hence why I am happy intrepid has so many female voices who have a strong influence in the input. More perspectives the better.
very good point.
It's not like all males will be attracted to the females and all females will be attracted to the males. Maybe even people find the Tulnar attractive, it's hard to say and best not to discriminate unless that individual is directly and/or intentionally offending you by their actions.
Everyone is unique in their own way. People find different features attractive, but that doesn't always have to instantly resort to them being sexual. Yes, sometimes attraction can lead to sexual intent but it's not the only path as it can be quite tangential. There are plethora's of reasons why people design things the way they do. It's not the best choice to jump to conclusions right away.
Comments
As a woman, given what we have seen from pre-order packs I am not worried. There are so many women in vocal positions at Intrepid and it shows in the costume concepts. I'm appreciating the lack of sexualization in armor sets and the general stylishness of them. If I want to look pretty give me a good costume. I have buckets of other games for when I want to wear 'thot' armor.
But in the end I personally don't mind having both in a game. It's just that when you have both the demand for the 'thot' armor goes up drastically compared to the nonsexualized and the devs rightfully make the business decision to invest in the cosmetics that sell best. Intrepid is already taking a stance by saying no in the first place. It's harder to resist greed when the results are more tangible. But hey if they did manage to 'keep producing both types despite that' more of my money to them.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Funny thing is, in medieval times women used their beauty to their advantage. Men are week to beauty, women are usually weaker to strength. It's kind of like a weakness diagram in gacha games 😂
Oh god, not Shit of Sigmar again
Grey Wardens didn't get treated well for quite a while... at least their armour is epic as always
Conan is in the Hyborian Age, basically age of myth but even before Greeks. 10k BC is pretty cool history. Writer supposedly inferred he is descended from someone like Conan
I agree on this part, the "bikini" armour should be cosmetic, but the more realistic gear should actually be the main equipment you find in the world.
However, "bikini" armour shouldn't be store only cosmetics obviously, so there is some source of it from pure gameplay xD
I strongly disagree. If it isn't in store only it's going to be wildly popular in cities and pollute the over all world feel. Im ok with this, but only if it means the devs are getting paid for said pollution. I have other games I can go to if I want to see hundreds of dancing avatars in skimpy clothing.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Look no further than FF14's main cities to confirm this statement.
The hypocrisy is over 9000
how is it any different than what you see at a public beach?
In a high fantasy game, the look of the armour doesn't depict what it protects or does.
In my perspective being a high fantasy game, I see the game more as a:
" how do you want your character to look "
vs
" what does this actually protect?"
Medieval Realism vs Medieval High Fantasy
Now, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree or disagree with what people prefer for either gender to wear.
Yeah. I missed your endearing outrage and figured it was the easiest way to get it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
It showed days ago
I just want the devs to make as much money off it as possible to the point that it stifles demand for it. If it goes against ashes design philosophy its the fairest solution to still allowing for it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Ah well it is easy to miss sometimes. I get busy with life and all that jazz. Hope you are having a good day mate.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
That's understandable. I may not necessarily agree with making them cash shop exclusive but I can understand your desire to want them to be successful.
The way I see it, there is going to be lots of different armour assortments and transmogrifications to choose from. It's not like the one gender is going to show more skin than another... or in Tulnars case. fur and scales? lol
Yeah I generally preffer if there is any sexualization they go the Dead or Alive route and give both sexes eye candy options. Most games don't tend to though because the male sets sell less and over time they just make what sells most. I want more than a token set for male avatars if they are going to be in the game.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Sydney lockdown. How about you let people like whatever they want?
You seemed very holier than thou when I said that beast races look bad.
Ah your in lockdown? Sorry to hear that.
Edit: Oh you edited after I responded. If that was all you said in the Tulnar thread you wouldn't have gotten the response you got. That's really off topic though. Wanna talk about what female armor you'd like to see in game?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I would definitely see them not playing favourites as they would have to make the set equally reasonable for the males as much as for the female in-game models.
Even looking at gladiator armours, there would have to be some form of cover up for the females especially in a game with the rating they're going for.
It's not the best example but it gives a generalisation without sexualising anything.
Yeah the first image is pretty close to 'thot' armor. I wouldn't say it quite cross my threshold though so you wouldn't get complaints from me if ashes added something similar, though the left (her right) chest piece on the female would look /better/ and slightly further from my personal 'line' imo if there was more cover where the armor already is. My actual complaint with the picture is the female models proportions aren't anatomically correct. But art is hard and it isn't /that/ far off, just very slighty too thin a waist.
The second picture looks cool to me.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
yeah, it's why I said it wasn't the best example. It was more of the armour and not the figure of the model.
Yeah no worries. Your ideas came across fine.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Bikini-armor is typically more sword and scorcery v high fantasy.
I think we have some cosmetics that show some skin... just not to the level of bikini-armor.
These are all really good examples of stuff I hope is in ashes.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I'm going to disagree as High Fantasy is High Fantasy. Sword and Sorcery is still part of high fantasy.
To be fair, bikini just means two piece hence the "bi" as "mon"kini refers to one piece.
Everyone is different and can perceive anything as being sexual to either themselves or others.
Technically that armour and waist garments would still be considered a two piece set.
In another perspective, maybe players want their character to be perceived as being so strong that they dont need to wear armour that covers up everything from head to toe.
I dont see thing so much as black and white as it's more of spectrums from one extreme to another.
I also agree that Sword and Sorcery tend to be high fantasy, but the genre is unique and can definitely be low fantasy.
I also agree everyone has different definitions of what feels sexualized vs not. It's largely a 'know it when I see it' type thing for me.
For example midriff exposure in some contexts do depending on the rest of the armor set, but sometimes it doesn't.
Inner thigh exposure when there is outer thigh protection almost never registers that way to me because of the mobility and heat ventilation required for certain agile fighting styles.
Chest exposure is probably the most easy to trigger the feeling of 'this is sexualized' to me.
Face exposure varies a lot depending on class for me. But is also the most forgivable if there are covered options.
I'm sure some people agree on all those points, others only some, others none.
It's not as easy as 'what percentage of skin is showing' to me. Context matters a lot. And as a result, is hard to have a singular standard, hence why I am happy intrepid has so many female voices who have a strong influence in the input. More perspectives the better.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
High Fantasy is a sub-genre of Fantasy.
Sword and Sorcery is also a sub-genre of Fantasy.
bikini - a very brief two-piece swimsuit for women
bikini - A bikini is a women's two-piece swimsuit featuring two triangles of fabric on top that cover the woman's breasts, and two triangles of fabric on the bottom: the front covering the pelvis but exposing the navel, and the back covering the buttocks.
bikini - a very brief, close-fitting, two-piece bathing suit for women or girls. a very brief, close-fitting pair of bathing trunks for men or boys.
bikini - Very brief, legless swimming trunks.
I suppose "very brief" could be subjective.
Sure, there are places where women showing any skin other than hands is offensive.
In the early 1900s, showing the male's navel probably would have been offensive, too.
very good point.
It's not like all males will be attracted to the females and all females will be attracted to the males. Maybe even people find the Tulnar attractive, it's hard to say and best not to discriminate unless that individual is directly and/or intentionally offending you by their actions.
Everyone is unique in their own way. People find different features attractive, but that doesn't always have to instantly resort to them being sexual. Yes, sometimes attraction can lead to sexual intent but it's not the only path as it can be quite tangential. There are plethora's of reasons why people design things the way they do. It's not the best choice to jump to conclusions right away.