Although it would take more resources, I'd like to see some of the higher end armors have some degree of customizability. So if there are cloth and/or leather parts to the armor (a tabard, for example), the player has several different choices to how that part of the armor looks. So color, patterns, whether the 'accessories' even show up at all, etc. By extension, there could also be an option to make the armor more masculine or feminine. Breastplates could have a pectoral option, a breast option, or that wedge shape of jouster's armor. Greaves could have a codpiece, skirt, sash, armored plate that hangs in the front, and so on.
Bottom line, give the more important armors several variations and let the player decide which version they like best.
So, just do a YT search for boob armor from people that have a good sense of what this really means.
Jill Bearup
Shadiversity
Scholagladiatoria
et al.
As for ascetics based on race more so than gender, the orcs in WoW look far better than a gnome in plate. Just sayin'.
I want Pantheon to be down-to-earth and gritty. 'High Fantasy' does not mean sexualised or even gender-emphasising. Armour should just fit whatever model it is going onto whether they are male, female, neither or both. Larger races might have more bindings between plates. Small races might have more overlapping. But, on the whole, gender should be unimportant.
Given technical limitations and bang-for-buck development, I would expect stuff to mostly just re-scale and re-map to fit whatever it is on, though.
Personally I find the whole 'sex sells' thing is pretty childish (ironically) and while it might sell a few more copies to teenaged boys to have 'genderised' costumes, it will put off a lot of more mature folks like me and bring a trivialised/frivolous feel to the whole game which I would greatly prefer to steer away from.
Again, personally, even though I'm a hairy old male IRL, I like to play female characters, because in RPGs I don't play 'myself'. I have always felt more like I am guiding a character from a book or film, not inhabiting an avatar that presents fantasy 'me'. I find heroines more interesting to play and to look at (third person for hundreds of hours hehe) but, while I like them to look 'good', I like them to also look tough and 'realistic'. I distinctly remember being very happy to get a metal breastplate in Everquest for the first time on my female paladin thinking she will finally start to look like the lady-knight I imagine her to be and being comically disappointed that something that looked like a rugged defensive outfit on a male suddenly became a sparkly, pointy-boobed neglegee on a female. Ridiculous. I mean, yeah, it looked 'hot' but, sheesh, even so, no thanks.
Of course, this also touches on 'the gender issue' and, whilst I hesitate to bring it up, because it can cause arguments and is almost a 'political' issue to some, it is of course related. We're in a forum, so let's discuss, maybe? That's what they are for after all? I wonder if we can without problems... Skip this section if you might be triggered! ;)
I honestly have no gender agenda, but I think, these days, especially in a fantasy world, there is no reason gender/sex should be so emphasised and polarised. Personally, I would be quite happy if gender wasn't even an option and character creation allowed you to pick whatever body shape or facial features you want from a selection including ones that look masculine, feminine, neither and/or both.
To be clear, I don't expect everything in game to be 'neutered' or whatever. I would fully expect races (player and non-player) to display 'norms' just like they do in the real world with which we are familiar. I would also expect races to be more 'interesting' too, in a fantasy world and to display more interesting ranges.
I always found it interesting/good that dwarves in LOTRO, for example, were all 'male'. This caused a bit of an outcry I think at the time, until folks realised what was actually being represented is that dwarf males and females are, in all ways relevant to the game at least, the same, not that dwarf females were locked in their homes having babies and doing chores. When you chose a dwarf, you couldn't choose a gender because it was unimportant and the pronouns in use are he/his because, according to dwarven lore, they only use one pronoun and 'male' felt a more appropriate translation to RL given, you know, the beards.
Now it might be argued that Tolkien had underlying gender bias in 'translating' dwarven into 'all male', but would all female have been better or just different? Should they have been somehow 'neutral'? Why?
Consider the elves. Though they are described using he *and* she, they are also described as having male and female warriors and all having 'musical' voices. Sounds to me like it's a society tending toward the 'female' when translated into real-world human? No? *shrug* I don't know.
Anyway, I have kinda digressed, but in order to make a point, which is: There is no reason a fantasy world should follow RL 'earth' norms, in fact quite the opposite should perhaps be a tendancy. Something as fundamental as gender politics is probably something that should be avoided in a 'game' - we tend to come to games for 'escapism', yes? - but does 'avoiding' that issue mean we reproduce RL 'norms' or does it mean we present something even more diverse than RL has, but present it as 'normal' so it isn't an issue at all?
I tend toward the latter, which is why I suggest, way back up there before this TLDR stuff, that armour should 'just fit' whatever it is on. Then, whatever it is on, isn't an issue (or is as much an issue as we like, but the issue isn't forced).
Armor doesn't need to be hyper-realistic (although I generally like the more realistic/grungy looking armor). In a world where women normally engage in combat, I figure there would be plenty of female centric styles to choose from. This doesn't mean mixing bowl bikinis, though, but rather differences in aesthetic and design that may be more suitable to the preferences of women. I don't think they should be 'locked in' to this aesthetic though if they don't want it that way, and vice versa.
I know that the general consensus is that the visual integrity of armor sets is important, and I agree. Although I very much like the idea of some, small, visual customization options to be available through various methods (such as application of crafting components, mods, etc). Things like adding the condition appearance (rusty, mouldy, polished, bloody, worn, etc), etchings, runes, fetishes, etc. Things that won't change the overall visual identity of the item or make it unrecognizable, but rather things that would realistically differ between individuals who owned a particular identical set of armor with what sort of things they might do to it that suited their cultural/personal identity. For example, an Ogre Warrior may treat "Breastplate of Dopeness" differently than a Human Paladin - and it would be awesome if those differences could be shown. The Ogre's may be dinged up, tarnished, with a couple bone fetishes hanging off it - while the Paladin's is polished to a shine with some gold filigree dedicated to his god. The same sort of thing could be used for gender aesthetics.
Realistically looking at how they are woking and the streams. Every armor is going to appear the exact same on every race/class/gender to save time. They already had to scrap the original skar design to make them fit the generic armor mesh, instead of making the armor stlye different to fit them. Don't expect to be any visual differences at all besides the material it's made from, and wether it's cloth, robes, leather, heavy leather, chain, heavy chain, plate, heavy plate.
SilkyWhip said:Realistically looking at how they are woking and the streams. Every armor is going to appear the exact same on every race/class/gender to save time. They already had to scrap the original skar design to make them fit the generic armor mesh, instead of making the armor stlye different to fit them. Don't expect to be any visual differences at all besides the material it's made from, and wether it's cloth, robes, leather, heavy leather, chain, heavy chain, plate, heavy plate.
They did actually mention at some stage, post Skar having their legs put on forwards again, that races will wear armour differently, but sure, it probably won't be fundamentally or radically different.
Turnip said:[...]
Also I wouldn't expect a female monk to run around topless like some of the male monk armor revealed so far. It simply wouldn't make sense to have your jiggly bits flopping aorund in combat.
[...]
It's a role playing game. Let people have roles that they can play.
I think it would be cool if Monks get a belt, color coded to their level of expertise and patterned to their level of specialty that all can see. They have their athletic shorts and tank tops. Belts casually hanging accross their toned abs. Monks? monks don't get armor. They get tattoo's.
I think that would be awesome and unique for the class. Designs change as they level up or something to do with glyphs. (glow with glyphs on?)
disposalist said:I want Pantheon to be down-to-earth and gritty. 'High Fantasy' does not mean sexualised or even gender-emphasising. Armour should just fit whatever model it is going onto whether they are male, female, neither or both. Larger races might have more bindings between plates. Small races might have more overlapping. But, on the whole, gender should be unimportant.
Given technical limitations and bang-for-buck development, I would expect stuff to mostly just re-scale and re-map to fit whatever it is on, though.
Personally I find the whole 'sex sells' thing is pretty childish (ironically) and while it might sell a few more copies to teenaged boys to have 'genderised' costumes, it will put off a lot of more mature folks like me and bring a trivialised/frivolous feel to the whole game which I would greatly prefer to steer away from.
I think most people agree that we shouldn't sell Pantheon with sex. However, while all fashion may be possible to tie to sexuality if you dig deep enough, I think there is a difference between honest fashion and blatant sexuality.
An example might be a suit you wear to work. Usually suits make a man's shoulders look broader, because that just looks good to us, fashionably speaking. There is nothing particularly blatant about it.
I would argue that armor for men should usually emphasize broader shoulders. Not big gigantic shoulderpads, just emphasize shoulders as much as a good suit would. There's nothing there that makes the armor worse somehow.
I think it is also a good idea to look at what a woman might wear to work. What non-sexual things does that emphasize? Does it leave room to show off necklaces? Does it make the waste thinner? Does it make the shoulders broader? Is it shiny? Are there layers?
These things are important for making all types of armor look good on all genders. It is important to note that different things may look good on different genders. It is also important to note that Earth's history is full of patriarchy and we really don't know what natural fashions might have evolved around female armor.
Naturally, we can still ask the question of whether a particular fashion would make the armor less effective! However it should definitely be case by case, based on things like armor type, racial aesthetics, or what specifically the armor is supposed to accomplish in what environments.
I feel pretty strongly about all these things at once...
KCRiley said:...I really think concern about "sexualization" tends to be pretty hysterical and misplaced. I mean, I don't like the bizarre cosmetics in Korean games that don't seem to belong, like all the literal bathing suits and mascot costumes, but desirability is part of the female power fantasy, and way too often lately in western fantasy, it's being smudged away for the sensibilities of no-one-can-quite-say-who.
"Hysterical". An interesting choice of word given its etymological roots. Let's just say I disagree that people are being uncontrollably irrational and emotional, because of their organs or otherwise.
"Desirability" is not part of *everyone's* power fantasy at all, and when it is, I'm sure people's ideas of 'desirability' are way more diverse than is expressed by traditional fantasy tropes and cliches or even RL norms, really.
I don't believe it is being "smudged away" for anyone's sensibilities. Censorship has become less and less over the years, thankfully.
If anything, the tendency for fantasy to be male-oriented and sexualised has undergone a natural calming effect (as have many aspects of society) due to women being more involved and represented as workers and consumers in the related industries. Simple as that, I think.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a large enough range of options that players can make their characters look 'good', but I am saying that the concept of 'good looking' should involve a wide gamut of possibilities and "pornstar" shouldn't be the default starting point, either, hehe!
Women are often funneled into quite a narrow definition of 'attractive' in RL and for women in fantasy this appears to apply to an even greater degree, whereas surely it should work the other way? "Fantasy" should be *more* varied, not less, no? And not just based on the "fantasy" of teenaged boys ;^)
TLDR:
I am sure VR are not suffering from misplaced hysteria and are taking a sensible approach. I remember Brad saying something like "I want people to not be embarrassed playing the game with their daughters" and it basically comes down to that. There are lots of aspects of Pantheon that show VR are taking a more mature, serious, thoughtful approach to MMORPGs. This is one of them, thankfully.
KCRiley said:desirability is part of the female power fantasy, and way too often lately in western fantasy, it's being smudged away for the sensibilities of no-one-can-quite-say-who.
Desirability is part of the male power fantasy, it's a part of all power fantasies. Everyone wants to be desired. Ignoring that assertion though, because that's a whole other can of worms... what hits the mark for desirability, in this instance? Who is defining it and how are they doing so?
disposalist said:"Hysterical". An interesting choice of word given its etymological roots.
Don't make me turn the hose on.
disposalist said:I'm not saying there shouldn't be a large enough range of options that players can make their characters look 'good', but I am saying that the concept of 'good looking' should involve a wide gamut of possibilities and "pornstar" shouldn't be the default starting point, either, hehe!
I'd rather not see a "pornstar" look at all to be honest. Bit horrific. Maybe for the skar?
But seriously speaking, yeah of course. A wide gamut to whatever extent it suits the art direction and zots.
TheWingless said:Desirability is part of the male power fantasy, it's a part of all power fantasies. Everyone wants to be desired.
Right, I use "power fantasy" very intentionally because these threads are always eventually claiming that male characters are designed to satisfy "the male power fantasy" rather than to be appealing to women. Each sex's "power fantasy" generally is what appeals to the other, as they seek in each other the security of combined strengths...
TheWingless said:Ignoring that assertion though, because that's a whole other can of worms... what hits the mark for desirability, in this instance? Who is defining it and how are they doing so?
As far as the ways in which women like women depicted, if that's really the concern, I've always thought that art and fiction produced and consumed primarily by women would be a fair guide.
The devs around here probably get tired of EverQuest talk, but pre-Luclin EQ with Rosie's art direction seemed to hit the overlap between fantasy novels (male market) and romance novels (female market) in a way that should've been standard-setting. Likewise Vanguard and Pantheon to their extents. Whereas something like Elder Scrolls Online comes across as afraid of sex to the same extent Blade & Soul is obsessed.
Feastycentral said:Seeing that the visual representation of your characters is a topic people in this community have strong opinions about, what are your thoughts on gender differences?
Feastycentral said:I believe I saw someone post that the devs have mentioned keeping the same look for a piece of gear between races (I could be wrong here). Will that also be the case between genders?
Feastycentral said:What are your preferences? I, for one, would like to see a game that finally doesn't have metal bras as the female equivalent of a full breastplate on males. If the male version is a berserker-esque partial armor then that would be a fine female alternative though.
Feastycentral said:Would you prefer to see gender-locked armaments?
One possible way to add racial / gender distinctiveness is to have base armor that comes with specific overlaid race / gender flair. This would allow for a much less labor-intensive way to creating armor that still appears distinct. The only real issue would be making sure each character had at least 15 pieces of flair.
I'll give my two cents here. I used to LARP and do re-enactment/renfaire costuming, et cetera.
Personally, I think the armor designs shouldn't vary too deeply between the genders/body types. If the gear looks one way on, say, a male halfling, it should look similar on a female Ogre, though obviously adjusted for body proportions. There could be, for instance, sexy armor in the game, you could say. But it should look the same on male characters. If there's a boob window, the men should get it, too. It should be specific pieces, too, not just the 'default' look for plate on women. The trick here is having layers, too - jerkins, surcoats, et cetera. They all provide visual interest.
As for realism - whenever I wear a leather tunic, or chainmail, or something that conforms to my body, you can see the general shape of my body, including breasts, because chainmail doesn't completely push those down. But if I put a breastplate, or a cuirbouillis on top of that, it's pretty difficult to distinguish my body shape from a lithe male. That's just how that sort of thing works. This is a fantasy game, in general, so some fantastic armor designs make sense to have alongside more realistic stuff - but at least make it make sense. If there's, for instance, a robe that looks like a cute off the shoulder robe, it should look the same way on male and female characters, too. This gives players more freedom and more diverse options for their appearances - if you gender a particular piece of armor, you're essentially locking out (I want to say half here, but I don't know the gender split of characters in particular) half of characters from a particular armor appearance. Final Fantasy XIV actually started doing this, where they might have a heavily gendered item in appearance, but male and female characters can both wear it.
Overall, I prefer interesting, layered armor designs that are both realistic and cute, too. Maybe give us options to wear trophies on our belt similar to Warhammer Online for more customization, like guild belt favors, spellbooks, et cetera. And, of course, for the light leather and cloth armor types, have those have both more androgynous/masculine styles and more feminine styles. It's nice to see women in heavy armor and guys with their tits and collarbones out, too. Just saying.
As an aside with 'gendered armor preferences', 'hide helm' is a hugely used option, which makes me sad. Because artists work hard on those assets, designing helmets, hoods, and hats. But why do people hide their helmets so often? Is it because they just want to see their face and hair? Sure. But I think a lot of games go the route of having a hat or helmet entirely hide your hair. FFXIV again doesn't do this with everything (don't get me started on Viera hats). You can wear a helmet, but your bangs would show out the front, the same thing with hoods. By dividing the front of the hair with the back, you can cull parts of the hairstyle when a helmet is worn, so players can still see their pretty hair when their hood is up. Or, for instance, having a long pair of braids that come out of the back of the helmet.
Either way, player freedom is most important at the end of the day, and people shouldn't be locked out of certain appearance options because of their character's gender. Let class do that instead, lol.