Sathrago wrote: » 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.
wolfwood82 wrote: » Fooshyy wrote: » 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.
Fooshyy wrote: » 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.
Nagash wrote: » Atama wrote: » Here’s a practical suit of armor that’s feminine without being exploitative. I’m hoping their female armor is equivalent. love the grey warden armour here is one I love
Atama wrote: » Here’s a practical suit of armor that’s feminine without being exploitative. I’m hoping their female armor is equivalent.
BCG wrote: » If you show me orc, elfs, dragons, and dwarfs in Conan than we can talk !!! and Conan is the best example of stripper armor!!!
JustVine wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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.
Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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
JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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.
George Black wrote: » Did you say "pollute"...? The hypocrisy is over 9000
JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Just putting this out there, 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.
George Black wrote: » JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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
JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Just putting this out there, 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Just putting this out there, 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
JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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.
George Black wrote: » JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » JustVine wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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
JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Just putting this out there, 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Just putting this out there, 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.
