Caeryl wrote: » Here's the gist summed up in one easy image for you
Hailee wrote: » jeez this is becoming less about the actual reason behind wanting the game changed and more a discussion on how the human body is marketed towards people and demographics in real life. YES, DOCTORED IMAGES OF THE FEMALE FORM SUCKS. same for men. and you see them plastered all over Instagram and your Facebook feed showing off an unrealistic image. it's a video game. these are PIXELS, its not a real person doctored to make them some goddess figure. it is a parody of the actual form of a woman. And yet you're harping on about how showing a female image is cringe and somehow depraved god forbid it has too many of those little pixels. people just want to look how they want. that's why people are yelling NO HORNS! in the py'rai thread and ADD THIS HAIR! in the haircut thread. If you don't want to see the female form depicted with exposed pixels (holy shit, I laughed so hard even having to type this sentence.) then don't play teen rated games and stick to general audience kid stuff please. so others do not have to bubblewrap your eyeballs. or wrap your own character in a nun outfit. I for one choose to embrace the female bodily autonomy and social independence that was won in the latter half of the 20th century and collectively tell everyone advocating for absolutely stupid things like no showing off legs!, no cleavage! on other peoples pixelated characters in a fantasy videogame to f*ck off.
Hailee wrote: » That's why people are yelling NO HORNS! in the py'rai thread.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Please, feel more than welcome to explain how it would be a false equivalence if you're willing, last time i saw someone in this forum trying to disregard this part "that assumes that the absolute majority of gamers are sexist men because the majority of games catters to them as they are sizewise the main target audience of those type of games" and this "old adage" while screaming "Female Objetification" they went with the pathetic relativization of "Male objetification" being a mere "male power fantasy" which not only is also subjective but also is a complete joke of a relativization to be honest. I would also like to assure i'm always more than willing to change my mind through good arguments. ^^
Nerror wrote: » Rhel wrote: » Nerror wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I would argue it's not that there are fewer women playing games but that there are more male developers than female developers, and a whole lot of those developers were raised on the comic book style of drawing their characters. I saw an article or video a long time ago about it. It was a book that almost everyone who learned to do art in those circles had learned from at some point. I think it might have been this one: https://ratcreature.livejournal.com/175099.html Or one similar at least. I agree with the last part though I just don't think hypersexualization fits the theme of the game at all. As far as the comic book thing goes, I can't ever follow along with the "Oversexualized/unachievable" argument to design of characters in comics. Theyre meant to be unachievable and as a result desirable. The idea of the "realistic/everyday average looing" heroes is just narcissist's self inserting themselves as their own characters usually. Super is Super... not a typical or even optimal human being. I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, and if so sorry. But super isn't just super in comic books. The male superheroes are not drawn in a sexual way. They are generally not sexy at all to women reading the comics. They are drawn to show big muscles and powerful poses.They don't have the full lips and eyes or facial expressions that the women are drawn with. The women are mostly drawn in sexualized poses with one purpose in mind: To show as much tits and ass as possible, to titillate all the teenage boys they believe will read the comics. Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic now Male superheroes are ridiculous oversexualized when compared to female superheroes. Female comic book superheroes have obtainable bodies. A guy is not going to obtain anywhere the amount of muscle that a male comic book character has. Most of the time the male super heroes are drawn with muscles where there should not be muscle. No, that's not sexualization, that is about power. It is ridiculous yes, but sexy it's not, because it's not designed to be. Again, it's about a power fantasy. It is a pretty crucial difference actually. A power fantasy in this context is designed to make guys think, “ooh, I want to be like that!” Well, or at least closer to that than they are now. I also agree it's often so over the top that it's stupid. One aspect of a male power fantasy is to make men believe that women find that sexy, so they'll have sex with the man. A lot of action movies and other media is trying hard to make you believe that, so I completely understand the misconception and confusion about this that a lot of guys have. I had it too when I was young. And sure there are exceptions of course, but they are just that... exceptions. Sexualized women in comic books or video games are male sex fantasies. They are designed to make guys think, “ooh, I want to bang that!” as opposed to “ooh, I want to be like that!”. Generally speaking the women aren't drawn to show power and big muscles. 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? Women like sex, so if "sex sells", why do they prefer movies without those male power fantasies?
Rhel wrote: » Nerror wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I would argue it's not that there are fewer women playing games but that there are more male developers than female developers, and a whole lot of those developers were raised on the comic book style of drawing their characters. I saw an article or video a long time ago about it. It was a book that almost everyone who learned to do art in those circles had learned from at some point. I think it might have been this one: https://ratcreature.livejournal.com/175099.html Or one similar at least. I agree with the last part though I just don't think hypersexualization fits the theme of the game at all. As far as the comic book thing goes, I can't ever follow along with the "Oversexualized/unachievable" argument to design of characters in comics. Theyre meant to be unachievable and as a result desirable. The idea of the "realistic/everyday average looing" heroes is just narcissist's self inserting themselves as their own characters usually. Super is Super... not a typical or even optimal human being. I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, and if so sorry. But super isn't just super in comic books. The male superheroes are not drawn in a sexual way. They are generally not sexy at all to women reading the comics. They are drawn to show big muscles and powerful poses.They don't have the full lips and eyes or facial expressions that the women are drawn with. The women are mostly drawn in sexualized poses with one purpose in mind: To show as much tits and ass as possible, to titillate all the teenage boys they believe will read the comics. Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic now Male superheroes are ridiculous oversexualized when compared to female superheroes. Female comic book superheroes have obtainable bodies. A guy is not going to obtain anywhere the amount of muscle that a male comic book character has. Most of the time the male super heroes are drawn with muscles where there should not be muscle.
Nerror wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I would argue it's not that there are fewer women playing games but that there are more male developers than female developers, and a whole lot of those developers were raised on the comic book style of drawing their characters. I saw an article or video a long time ago about it. It was a book that almost everyone who learned to do art in those circles had learned from at some point. I think it might have been this one: https://ratcreature.livejournal.com/175099.html Or one similar at least. I agree with the last part though I just don't think hypersexualization fits the theme of the game at all. As far as the comic book thing goes, I can't ever follow along with the "Oversexualized/unachievable" argument to design of characters in comics. Theyre meant to be unachievable and as a result desirable. The idea of the "realistic/everyday average looing" heroes is just narcissist's self inserting themselves as their own characters usually. Super is Super... not a typical or even optimal human being. I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, and if so sorry. But super isn't just super in comic books. The male superheroes are not drawn in a sexual way. They are generally not sexy at all to women reading the comics. They are drawn to show big muscles and powerful poses.They don't have the full lips and eyes or facial expressions that the women are drawn with. The women are mostly drawn in sexualized poses with one purpose in mind: To show as much tits and ass as possible, to titillate all the teenage boys they believe will read the comics. Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic now
Dolyem wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I would argue it's not that there are fewer women playing games but that there are more male developers than female developers, and a whole lot of those developers were raised on the comic book style of drawing their characters. I saw an article or video a long time ago about it. It was a book that almost everyone who learned to do art in those circles had learned from at some point. I think it might have been this one: https://ratcreature.livejournal.com/175099.html Or one similar at least. I agree with the last part though I just don't think hypersexualization fits the theme of the game at all. As far as the comic book thing goes, I can't ever follow along with the "Oversexualized/unachievable" argument to design of characters in comics. Theyre meant to be unachievable and as a result desirable. The idea of the "realistic/everyday average looing" heroes is just narcissist's self inserting themselves as their own characters usually. Super is Super... not a typical or even optimal human being.
Nerror wrote: » I would argue it's not that there are fewer women playing games but that there are more male developers than female developers, and a whole lot of those developers were raised on the comic book style of drawing their characters. I saw an article or video a long time ago about it. It was a book that almost everyone who learned to do art in those circles had learned from at some point. I think it might have been this one: https://ratcreature.livejournal.com/175099.html Or one similar at least. I agree with the last part though I just don't think hypersexualization fits the theme of the game at all.
Nelirya wrote: » Reading some of the posts from other users in this thread almost makes me think there's something wrong with me for liking these particular styles of armour.
JustVine wrote: » Nelirya wrote: » Reading some of the posts from other users in this thread almost makes me think there's something wrong with me for liking these particular styles of armour. I tried to reign them in as best I could but people get stupidly tribal about it. I hope you were able to shake that feeling off sister. It's dumb internet kids with unnuanced takes and your perspective is clearly valid and nuanced..
JustVine wrote: » Oh? Please point to my comments I need to reign in.
DFirehawkC wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Oh? Please point to my comments I need to reign in. Heres direct quotes from your 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. ……. 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. We can both agree Terra cosmetics are 'a bit much' and I say that as someone who does like a lot of even BDO's 'thot' level stuff. Yeah I think the second one is by far my bias showing the strongest. Sorry if it sounded like I was nitpicking too hard I just have extremely specific opinions on a lot of aspects about cosmetics. I can get a little overfocused when giving my opinion. Other than the pirate one I generally agree with you irt them not being 'thot' level. We definitely have slightly different thresholds it sounds like, but not irreconcilable. …..
Many a good Korean mmo costume ruined by high heel only footwear.
Caeryl wrote: » Stop posting bimbo-fied “armors” with break-your-ankle heels and a boob window that shouts “aim here”. Good lord There are genuinely good design options and y’all could at least pretend not to be creeps
JustVine wrote: » Like I said in the post you responded to, it has, been explained before. In a thread you directly participated in no less. But since I could find it by just searching 'Nerror, Male' here you go.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Btw, sorry for going a bit off track out of the main point of the thread folks , i got a bit too interested in Caeryl's outrage towards DFirehawkC's female armors suggestions(which i liked the majority), sadly i find myself still unable to comprehend what exactly warranted such outrage other than Caeryl's personal distaste.
JamesSunderland wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Like I said in the post you responded to, it has, been explained before. In a thread you directly participated in no less. But since I could find it by just searching 'Nerror, Male' here you go. Oh, i see, it's funny that it's literally the comment i referred to that was trying to subjectly relativize "male objectification" with "male power fantasy" that neglects the question of why even if over exaggerated through the medium does it "make guys think, “ooh, I want to be like that!”.
DFirehawkC wrote: » If you need to go down to their level to make a point, there's no point in making it.
By doing so, you run the risk of offending others or others seeing your posts and misconstruing your words and thus missing the point you are trying to make. The way you use it in your posts implies that you agree with the term being used for the description of said armor piece. I can't really view what you say in your posts any other way. Not to mention, the word "thot" or "bimbo" are derogatory terms to begin with.
You don't have to mean it in a derogatory way for them to be offensive. There are many ways to bring out your point in a way thats understandable without having to use the same terms. With your intellect, I'm sure its easy.
As for the high heels, you are right....you can state your opinion just like anybody else. But as others have posted earlier, its more about having the choice. For those who want it, its there, for those who don't, there are other options.
