JustVine wrote: » 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. 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.
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.
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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » JustVine wrote: » 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. 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.
Amist wrote: » I'll give a few examples based on class that still have a feminine element, without being too sexual.RogueFighterClericTankMageRangerBardSummoner
Dygz wrote: » 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Dygz wrote: » 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.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I'm going to disagree as High Fantasy is High Fantasy. Sword and Sorcery is still part of high fantasy.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » 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.
JustVine wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Dygz wrote: » 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.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
Conrad wrote: » 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. We can agree to disagree. If female players choose to go for bikini armour, let them. Locking this sort of cosmetics is stupid regardless of how ppl might look at it. And considering female players do like dressing in such a way, pay walling it is pointless. Just don't make it the actual gear appearance... unless some sort of gladiator armour, since I would assume it would look like gladiator armour. Pollute doesn't really fit that definition. You say that as if it's a bad thing. A bad thing are furries. Bikini armour is just a style. Hell, worse is being able to wear a tuxedo as your armor cosmetic. THAT would be closer to polluting than some bikini armour. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other female players don't. And you can't say they won't because you aren't the other female players.
Cadror wrote: » Cypher wrote: » Love how every time someone asks for attractive (or “hot”) sets for female characters, all those who oppose the idea start screeching “bikini armor no good!”. Like, do you people realize those of us (male or female) who want our female characters to look hot DON’T literally mean wearing bikinis. I mean for crying out loud is that all you can come up with? I"m not sure if this is a reply to my armor idea, but in case it is, it wasn't entirely out of just wanting to see it, there's also the functionality to think of. If a wrap-cross top does get added to the game, it would be best for agility stats due to how simple it is.
Cypher wrote: » Love how every time someone asks for attractive (or “hot”) sets for female characters, all those who oppose the idea start screeching “bikini armor no good!”. Like, do you people realize those of us (male or female) who want our female characters to look hot DON’T literally mean wearing bikinis. I mean for crying out loud is that all you can come up with?
JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » 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. We can agree to disagree. If female players choose to go for bikini armour, let them. Locking this sort of cosmetics is stupid regardless of how ppl might look at it. And considering female players do like dressing in such a way, pay walling it is pointless. Just don't make it the actual gear appearance... unless some sort of gladiator armour, since I would assume it would look like gladiator armour. Pollute doesn't really fit that definition. You say that as if it's a bad thing. A bad thing are furries. Bikini armour is just a style. Hell, worse is being able to wear a tuxedo as your armor cosmetic. THAT would be closer to polluting than some bikini armour. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other female players don't. And you can't say they won't because you aren't the other female players. Hmm pollute isn't quite the right word yes. I was honestly saying it to tease George. I meant more so that, ashes has clearly started their over all intention for how they want cosmetics to feel relative to this topicl, bikini armor would go against that. Im generally fine with most things that break the asthetic intended if you are willing to pay for them to limit the effect on the populations over all asthetic. As I have said multiple times in this thread I don't mind said armor. I play other games that have that asthetic and enjoy myself in those spaces. I have made no claims on the opinions of others. And since it is a side bar I put this at the bottom, but in what way are tuxedos and bikini armor not equal in terms of 'not achieving ashes announced asthetic'
Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » 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. We can agree to disagree. If female players choose to go for bikini armour, let them. Locking this sort of cosmetics is stupid regardless of how ppl might look at it. And considering female players do like dressing in such a way, pay walling it is pointless. Just don't make it the actual gear appearance... unless some sort of gladiator armour, since I would assume it would look like gladiator armour. Pollute doesn't really fit that definition. You say that as if it's a bad thing. A bad thing are furries. Bikini armour is just a style. Hell, worse is being able to wear a tuxedo as your armor cosmetic. THAT would be closer to polluting than some bikini armour. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other female players don't. And you can't say they won't because you aren't the other female players. Hmm pollute isn't quite the right word yes. I was honestly saying it to tease George. I meant more so that, ashes has clearly started their over all intention for how they want cosmetics to feel relative to this topicl, bikini armor would go against that. Im generally fine with most things that break the asthetic intended if you are willing to pay for them to limit the effect on the populations over all asthetic. As I have said multiple times in this thread I don't mind said armor. I play other games that have that asthetic and enjoy myself in those spaces. I have made no claims on the opinions of others. And since it is a side bar I put this at the bottom, but in what way are tuxedos and bikini armor not equal in terms of 'not achieving ashes announced asthetic' The only unfitting cosmetics are tuxedos etc, that you can see far too much in FF14 and BDO. Bikini is probably a mild drop. It still looks high fantasy and still fits aesthetics. It's only really bad if it's the only female armour available, but Interpid clearly knows this sort of thing should be cosmetic only and THAT is the right direction. Tho, like I said before, gladiator armour can stay as it often is seen in games etc 😆
Cadror wrote: » Excluding the photo (only example i was able to get) i added on page 2, are all the color images in this thread from AoC's own art page?
JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » 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. We can agree to disagree. If female players choose to go for bikini armour, let them. Locking this sort of cosmetics is stupid regardless of how ppl might look at it. And considering female players do like dressing in such a way, pay walling it is pointless. Just don't make it the actual gear appearance... unless some sort of gladiator armour, since I would assume it would look like gladiator armour. Pollute doesn't really fit that definition. You say that as if it's a bad thing. A bad thing are furries. Bikini armour is just a style. Hell, worse is being able to wear a tuxedo as your armor cosmetic. THAT would be closer to polluting than some bikini armour. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other female players don't. And you can't say they won't because you aren't the other female players. Hmm pollute isn't quite the right word yes. I was honestly saying it to tease George. I meant more so that, ashes has clearly started their over all intention for how they want cosmetics to feel relative to this topicl, bikini armor would go against that. Im generally fine with most things that break the asthetic intended if you are willing to pay for them to limit the effect on the populations over all asthetic. As I have said multiple times in this thread I don't mind said armor. I play other games that have that asthetic and enjoy myself in those spaces. I have made no claims on the opinions of others. And since it is a side bar I put this at the bottom, but in what way are tuxedos and bikini armor not equal in terms of 'not achieving ashes announced asthetic' The only unfitting cosmetics are tuxedos etc, that you can see far too much in FF14 and BDO. Bikini is probably a mild drop. It still looks high fantasy and still fits aesthetics. It's only really bad if it's the only female armour available, but Interpid clearly knows this sort of thing should be cosmetic only and THAT is the right direction. Tho, like I said before, gladiator armour can stay as it often is seen in games etc 😆 What are your opinions of the second pic in the gladiator set above btw?
