Are Female Armors Denigrating?

[ginnyfizz]

Some good points there. I NEVER go for top to toe plate armour for any character as that sort of stuff was merely for the tiltyard or mounted battle, and an unhorsed knight in full plate would be floundering like an upended turtle.

[CadenceOfHerLastBreath]

I find them annoying, personally. Not so much that my sense of sexual prudery objects to it, but that they're just so stupid and impractical. What function does g-string armor serve you anywhere but in a brothel? Nobody takes you seriously, your chances of rape go up 96%, you have nothing to keep you warm, and for all the battle protection you'd get you might as well paint woed on your naked body and run at the enemy. At least at that point you'd have the aid of a psychotic drug to help you kill them all with.

 

So yeah, for myself I don't care about seeing too much. It doesn't affect me. I just want things realistic and sexy armor isn't worth its weight to carry. I'd prefer a nightgown at that point.

[myrmaad]

My characters take baths, go swimming, sleep safely in their own beds and during all these they can wear bikinis, negligees or nothing at all, completely appropriately.

 

 

Anyone who honestly believes that rape has anything whatsoever to do with what you are wearing is naive and frankly, I find such a pronouncement highly offensive. It's a sexist idea that has been thoroughly debunked.

[Aurielius]

My characters take baths, go swimming, sleep safely in their own beds and during all these they can wear bikinis, negligees or nothing at all, completely appropriately.

Just which days of the week are those? Just asking since my character might be roaming by the right pool at the right time... :whistling:

[Ihoe]

Just trying to enter the discussion as this might have been mentioned before... how is "Armor" supposed to protect if it actually doesn't protect the important areas???

Let's face it, how high are the chances of a female warrior being stabbed in the nipples, feet or genitalia? As these are the main areas stereotypical JRPG female armors protect. Mostly.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Ihoe

[dazzerfong]

Just trying to enter the discussion as this might have been mentioned before... how is "Armor" supposed to protect if it actually doesn't protect the important areas???

Let's face it, how high are the chances of a female warrior being stabbed in the nipples, feet or genitalia? As these are the main areas stereotypical JRPG female armors protect. Mostly.

 

Your claims are so filled with holes, I bet even a Swiss cheese has less:

 

1. 'Armor' is something that protects.

2. You'd be surprised how often people get stabbed between the thighs (men, mostly).

3. Women didn't usually fight back in the ages, so we couldn't really comment on it much.

4. When did art ever mix clearly with reality?

[Maharg67]

They can be so to some viewers, players.

 

In games, when modding is possible, such kinds of armour should be left to modding and not be part of a regular game. Or be a choice with some kind of internal character editing system etc.

 

Where characters can choose what to wear, then why not have a choice?

 

Having choice is important!

[Ihoe]

Just trying to enter the discussion as this might have been mentioned before... how is "Armor" supposed to protect if it actually doesn't protect the important areas???

Let's face it, how high are the chances of a female warrior being stabbed in the nipples, feet or genitalia? As these are the main areas stereotypical JRPG female armors protect. Mostly.

 

Your claims are so filled with holes, I bet even a Swiss cheese has less:

 

1. 'Armor' is something that protects.

2. You'd be surprised how often people get stabbed between the thighs (men, mostly).

3. Women didn't usually fight back in the ages, so we couldn't really comment on it much.

4. When did art ever mix clearly with reality?

I bet good sir, that you've slept in a pile of salt last night. Those were questions (obviously) not claims (literally).

1. How did you come up with that genius? Except if you mean it's artificially supposed to protect. That's even worse, we're arguing about portrayals, not in-game statistics. And in portre, those armors don't protect anything.

2. I'm referring to women, in RPGs. Shalia style armor that only covers the genitalia, nipples and feet.sheesh...

3. Joan of Arc, lady Fu Hao, queen Gwendolen, shammuramat of Assyria, queen Cordelia. I think a few of those can give someone like you an idea what they're supposed to look like. As the articles about them mostly cite that their battle gear consisted of pieces that were NOT different from their male counterparts.

4. When did games become art? Even if they were art, that's your perception. Yours only. Not mine, when did personal tastes become the anti-thesis of arguments against personal taste? You might want to cover up this "Hole", some people dumber than yourself might Try to ridicule you for it.( by all means I'm not referring to you as dumb.)

 

Also, without the whole point of topic being art, what the hell was your Point with (i think) such a vague and Dim reply?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Ihoe

[myrmaad]

The topic is pretty numpty if you ask me anyway.

 

It's all personal taste.

 

I missed those historical photographs of Joan of Arc.

 

Most women who fought in historical times passed themselves off as men as much as possible.

 

We're trying not to do that in our games, speaking for the majority. Yes I'm taking liberty to speak for the majority because the download counts for feminine skimpy armors make me feel pretty darn confidant about that, at the very least.

[DeadSpace]

Just trying to enter the discussion as this might have been mentioned before... how is "Armor" supposed to protect if it actually doesn't protect the important areas???

Let's face it, how high are the chances of a female warrior being stabbed in the nipples, feet or genitalia? As these are the main areas stereotypical JRPG female armors protect. Mostly.

 

point, thread title says it all, there are no versions of any armors that this topic refers to in RL, they would be useless vs modern weaponry ergo, topic refers to game/fantasy armors since ancient/historic armor as has (mostly) been established would have been fitted for the human form and not gender specific.

 

point 2: Feet were protected, being stabbed less of a concern then being stomped. you crush an opponents foot you've hampered their mobility and ability to effectively defend themselves. If you were attempting to interject reality into this, light armor would be more practical than the full head to toe of any other kind. Skyrim for example, anything but the fur/hide would exhaust you in RL in short order trying to haul that around, move up to the heavy full coverage and you'd last maybe 3 hours before exhaustion, muscle fatigue and dehydration set in. not counting trying to fight in it.

 

even in reality, lighter armors only covering vital areas are more practical for running around in 24/7 than full coverage or heavier armors. don't believe? strap on some plate mail and then go hiking...see how long you last. heavy armor is just that...heavy, also hot, and impedes mobility. while jrpg armors are designed more for appeal than protection...they're more practical/realistic than traipsing across tamriel in full plate. hike, climb or jump up the sides of mountains in full heavy armor? lol you wouldn't even make it up the steps to the greybeards.

 

RL mobility/agility by itself is a form of protection. vs a heavily armored opponent...you'll win.

game reality, all the things that make heavy armor a liability are ignored so vs light, heavy wins.

your premise that jrpg armor is impractical didn't apply to RL, it only applied to game logic. since it's a game...anythings viable.