The Rise of Social Justice Warrior developer.

Skimpy outfits tends to get more of the diverse payer base and add to the fantasy aspect to mmorpgs. Final Fantasy XIV is partly successful because they have skimpy outfits contributing to women playing the game. Women like to look sexy and cute so making a sexy clothing will sell the game. I just hope Ashes does not go the censorship social justice warrior route like other Western Developers.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dizz1

In short players want devs can provide as much variety of character creation and clothing style as possible.

Like some people like to be strong like orc or dwarf, some like to be a pretty elf or sexy human oneechan or cute ****, some like me like to be a Tulnar maybe a mind flayer or werewolf, and some like to cosplay to the character outside of the game in the game like cosplaying a superhero or even a vtuber.

I looking forward ashes of creation can have a massive choice to play around to create and dress own character.

Vhaeyne

Nerror wrote: »

Notice the different poses? Classic power pose of Conan that is believable at least, vs. super fucking weird "spreading my legs" squat-pose by the woman signalling something different, and that no one sane would do IRL. That is a classic example of what I was talking about earlier.

People do unusual poses all the time when they are group posing. Conan's pose is weird too. No one just holds their sword up like that unless they are posing on purpose. If the roles were reversed and Conan was doing the girl's pose, and he was doing her pose, it would not look any different to me. I would just think that issue focuses more on the girl than Conan.

Nerror wrote: »

Which racial lore would they fit though? Humans as depicted I suppose. Tulnar too perhaps?

None. It's not a racial lore, it's a regional lore. Think about it that way. These are hardened warriors of a wasteland that is hot and there is limited material for armor. You could put any race in that region in that armor, and it would make sense.

I live in the southern United States. Where I live, it makes sense to wear shorts and flip-flops every day. Even on Christmas. Literally the only time I wear a jacket is like the 1-2 random days when it's needed or if I am going to a movie or hospital because those places are freezing to me.

CROW3

Again, I think Frazetta’s Conan art unapologetically defined Conan, not the entire fantasy genre. There are other pieces of Frazetta’s art that were more muted, even sentimental. There are plenty of examples where fantasy art depicted both sexes equally strong or adventurous: Horne, Elmore, Easley, Nielsen, Parkinson, etc.

@Atama - man, what a great story. I would have totally geeked out as well, so thanks for representing. 😉

Nerror

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Notice the different poses? Classic power pose of Conan that is believable at least, vs. super fucking weird "spreading my legs" squat-pose by the woman signalling something different, and that no one sane would do IRL. That is a classic example of what I was talking about earlier.

People do unusual poses all the time when they are group posing. Conan's pose is weird too. No one just holds their sword up like that unless they are posing on purpose. If the roles were reversed and Conan was doing the girl's pose, and he was doing her pose, it would not look any different to me. I would just think that issue focuses more on the girl than Conan.

Nerror wrote: »

Which racial lore would they fit though? Humans as depicted I suppose. Tulnar too perhaps?

None. It's not a racial lore, it's a regional lore. Think about it that way. These are hardened warriors of a wasteland that is hot and there is limited material for armor. You could put any race in that region in that armor, and it would make sense.

I live in the southern United States. Where I live, it makes sense to wear shorts and flip-flops every day. Even on Christmas. Literally the only time I wear a jacket is like the 1-2 random days when it's needed or if I am going to a movie or hospital because those places are freezing to me.

Conan's pose is like a victory pose. Holding a trophy. Or perhaps like holding the olympic torch. It's similar to poses we've seen many times before in sports related situations. Her pose is super awkward to be in and not one we see normally in any situation. Try it yourself. And it's deliberately sending a completely different message. Yeah, reverse the genders of the two and it's the same of course. We just never see men doing that outside of the hawkeye initiative really, and that is also part of the point.

As for the racial vs regional thing I agree to an extent. It's definitely a weather thing too. But I don't really see either of the elves, the vek, or either of the dwarves with that style of armor even in hot climates. The Niküa outfits can be skimpy too, but in that Polynesian islander way. I can see the Ren'kai digging the style perhaps.

And as I am sure you know, for very sunny places, unless you have dark skin (and even with that), you definitely want to cover your body as much as possible to avoid direct sunlight. The Kaelar can probably handle it well, and I included the Tulnar partly because they don't have to worry about being sunburnt down there, and for all we know the Underrealm could be quite warm from geothermal energy. And it fits with a more bestial theme.

Dolyem

@Nerror This time you may be overthinking it a bit. The pose sets a focus on the main character. And the character is a very primal warrior. Even the woman is primal in her nature. Sure you can argue that you personally dislike what you believe it represents in the real world, but in that world it is appropriate. And the placement tells you which character is the focus.

Vhaeyne

@Nerror

Yeah, I looked at the Hawkeye initiative stuff and I come to the conclusion that these people are looking for outrage and only seeing what they want.

We have centuries of paintings and statues where male and female poses and postures are sometimes different. Not because there has been some grand agenda that has persisted across generations and cultures, but because that is how people of different genders often express themselves.

I don't think there is anything malicious about this. Sometimes female artists focus on putting their women in "attractive" poses. Sailor Moon is a perfect example of this. There are countless other examples of female artists who enjoy expressing gender in the way the Hawkeye Initiative finds negative.

Why are we pointing fingers at people for expressing what they like about the human figure? The Hawkeye Initiative seems to say: "Shame on you for liking this part of human experience.". Which is something I don't like and don't agree with. It comes off as a high and mighty excuse to censor other people's works or put down the people that like those works. I am not a fan of that behavior.

Okeydoke

I don't think Nerror is calling for censorship. Not my impression at least. Neither one of you are wrong. There is no right or wrong necessarily, just subjectively what you see in the picture and what you take away from it.

I see a lot of what Nerror sees. I could be completely wrong, not a big Conan fan. But my assumption is that Conan was created by a male, for males primarily as it's target audience. And if that's true, the picture makes sense. Male in a power pose, beautiful woman in a clearly awkward position that highlights but doesn't reveal her private parts. The position also highlights her athleticism to even be able to be in it.

Conan is a badass and hangs with badass, beautiful women too. Typical male fantasy.

As far as what this all has to do with Ashes is how much Ashes should sexualize it's art. And that's entirely subjective. I don't think there should be crotch shots of males or females like what's in the Conan picture, or it should at least be very limited. It's just my opinion, I'm not judging anyone. I actually like the picture, and the woman is attractive in as much as a drawing can be attractive to me.

More important than anything, the art has to fit, it has to make sense for the race, time period, climate, culture. Overly sexualized art that doesn't even try to fit sticks out like a sore thumb and is tacky...boring and cheap frankly. Make it all fit and be appropriate and the only people that will end up upset are hardcore prudes and sex art fetishists.

Dolyem

Okeydoke wrote: »

I don't think Nerror is calling for censorship. Not my impression at least. Neither one of you are wrong. There is no right or wrong necessarily, just subjectively what you see in the picture and what you take away from it.

I see a lot of what Nerror sees. I could be completely wrong, not a big Conan fan. But my assumption is that Conan was created by a male, for males primarily as it's target audience. And if that's true, the picture makes sense. Male in a power pose, beautiful woman in a clearly awkward position that highlights but doesn't reveal her private parts. The position also highlights her athleticism to even be able to be in it.

Conan is a badass and hangs with badass, beautiful women too. Typical male fantasy.

As far as what this all has to do with Ashes is how much Ashes should sexualize it's art. And that's entirely subjective. I don't think there should be crotch shots of males or females like what's in the Conan picture, or it should at least be very limited. It's just my opinion, I'm not judging anyone. I actually like the picture, and the woman is attractive in as much as a drawing can be attractive to me.

More important than anything, the art has to fit, it has to make sense for the race, time period, climate, culture. Overly sexualized art that doesn't even try to fit sticks out like a sore thumb and is tacky...boring and cheap frankly. Make it all fit and be appropriate and the only people that will end up upset are hardcore prudes and sex art fetishists.

agreed

Songcaller

The Conan pose reminds me of He-Man.

Zarrath

I only mind it in the context that it’s there just for the sake of it. Female barbarians and various other classes like rangers and assassins in a lot of over the top fantasy dress skimpy, look at female characters in Warhammer Fantasy, for example.

My problem will come in the form of immersion breaking allowances. Personally if it were me calling shots for the game I would make it so skins for armors could only apply to that type - so if you wanted to skin/transmog your armor to appear skimpy, you have to be wearing light armor. Having a tank wearing heavy armor but skinned like they are barely dressed makes zero sense and absolutely breaks immersion when you are watching them absorb massive amounts of damage. Conversely, having a light-medium armored ranger or assassin type using skins that are skimpy is okay.

Now on a personal note, I could do without it entirely. It looks ridiculous, and unless your race in game dresses like that culturally, it just makes your character look like a complete fool.

Zarrath

Let me also point out that this game is made by fantasy genre enthusiasts. He plays D&D, MTG, a slew of classic mmorpgs, he cares about lore and story, and another key thing, he is not owned by a corporation that only cares how wide an audience they cater to.

He has already stated many times “This game will not be for everyone.”

Ashes will attract a wide audience on the merit of the content it provides and the absolutely massive scope of the game itself, coupled with the passion of a development team that cares deeply about their vision.

The day the game ends up in a state where they feel that they need to cater to an audience of people who want boob and butt sliders on character creation menus and have to sell outfits on the cash shop that show maximum skin for no reason is the day I will know that their vision has died.

There is a big difference between a player who plays a character with a ridiculous name that dresses outlandish and a serious player who just has a specific archetype they enjoy.

Atama

Barrakus wrote: »

My problem will come in the form of immersion breaking allowances. Personally if it were me calling shots for the game I would make it so skins for armors could only apply to that type - so if you wanted to skin/transmog your armor to appear skimpy, you have to be wearing light armor. Having a tank wearing heavy armor but skinned like they are barely dressed makes zero sense and absolutely breaks immersion when you are watching them absorb massive amounts of damage. Conversely, having a light-medium armored ranger or assassin type using skins that are skimpy is okay.

I think that is the case for cosmetic items. If you have a leather corset appearance, it will only apply to leather torso armor, for example. But that only works for piecemeal cosmetic items, and you can wear a full body costume regardless of your actual equipment. So, you can wear robes and look like this:

You can wear full plate armor and look like this:

But when you do that, it's a full costume. You can't swap out any appearance parts. I expect that costumes will be used primarily for events, or as jokes, but people who care about their character's style for roleplay purposes or just to "look cool" will probably try to mix items for a unique and personalized appearance. So the "plate mail bathrobe" might be the exception more than the rule.

But who knows, I'm just speculating here based on my own perspective, and experience with previous MMORPGs offering cosmetic options.

JustVine

HeetCrusher

I was told a couple simple rules a long time ago that settles this forever and has served me very well and that is don't talk politics or religion at work and don't date at work. Cause if you do it will always come back and bite you at some point. We all are different and in many ways and we should respect that and each other for it.

daveywavey

Nerror wrote: »

Try a little thought experiment. If big, muscly and powerful action heroes and super heroes are that oversexualized, why aren't more women into watching them?

I had to pick up my wife's jaw from the floor when she saw Thor take out his 48-pack abs. And clean up all the drool. I don't let her watch it any more...

:'(

Noaani

HeetCrusher wrote: »

I was told a couple simple rules a long time ago that settles this forever and has served me very well and that is don't talk politics or religion at work and don't date at work. Cause if you do it will always come back and bite you at some point. We all are different and in many ways and we should respect that and each other for it.

That is a set of very stupid rules.

Talk politics at work, just be sure everyone involved understands and accepts that people will hold different views from their own, and that is fine. Trying to turn someone to your point of view (political or religious) is a stupid thing to do, but that doesn't prevent being able to discuss it.

Blanket rules like this of not talking about politics is how some countries (not pointing any fingers) end up with a hundred million politically stunted voters.

Atama

HeetCrusher wrote: »

I was told a couple simple rules a long time ago that settles this forever and has served me very well and that is don't talk politics or religion at work and don't date at work. Cause if you do it will always come back and bite you at some point. We all are different and in many ways and we should respect that and each other for it.

Many successful relationships have come about from people who met as coworkers, but I agree that having a date at work is awkward and not enjoyable for anyone. I don't recommend it.

daveywavey

Atama wrote: »

HeetCrusher wrote: »

I was told a couple simple rules a long time ago that settles this forever and has served me very well and that is don't talk politics or religion at work and don't date at work. Cause if you do it will always come back and bite you at some point. We all are different and in many ways and we should respect that and each other for it.

Many successful relationships have come about from people who met as coworkers, but I agree that having a date at work is awkward and not enjoyable for anyone. I don't recommend it.

Well, now we need all the gory details!

Atama

daveywavey wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

HeetCrusher wrote: »

I was told a couple simple rules a long time ago that settles this forever and has served me very well and that is don't talk politics or religion at work and don't date at work. Cause if you do it will always come back and bite you at some point. We all are different and in many ways and we should respect that and each other for it.

Many successful relationships have come about from people who met as coworkers, but I agree that having a date at work is awkward and not enjoyable for anyone. I don't recommend it.

Well, now we need all the gory details!

Not as weird as you'd think. I dated a coworker briefly, we both worked at the same movie theater and went to a movie together there. The vibe was odd.

I'm sure it would have been worse to date at work if we both worked at a landfill, or at a laboratory testing fatal diseases on animals.

Nerror

daveywavey wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Try a little thought experiment. If big, muscly and powerful action heroes and super heroes are that oversexualized, why aren't more women into watching them?

I had to pick up my wife's jaw from the floor when she saw Thor take out his 48-pack abs. And clean up all the drool. I don't let her watch it any more... :'(

Yeah Chris Hemsworth is another one of those "very sexy people" to a lot of people

Doesn't really matter what they do. I have it the same way with Katheryn Winnick. She could be murdering puppies on the big screen and I would still think she looks sexy AF doing it.

Child Item