928 réponses à ce sujet

[KBomb]

Even medieval plate did not restrict movements that much (albeit it is far more noisy than in fiction), and Mass Effect armor is made of advanced composite materials which are, I assume, lighter than steel and far more flexible. Nowhere in the series does it suggest that armor restricts movement in a meaningful way, unless I missed that bit.

Armor isn't supposed to turn you into a walking tank unless you're playing Fallout or Warhammer 40K. You're supposed to fight in it, which means you need flexibility and range of movement. Plus, the weight is distributed across the entire body, so you don't feel it that much. It's really not true that armor slows you down a lot compared to being naked.

All that being said, I approve of the armors shown in the trailer screenshots above. From the snippets, they look both fairly functional and appealing (dat @$$).

Not sure if this is for me, but I agree with your points. I am not saying that bulky armor would be restrictive, especially in the ME universe. I was just stating the benefits of the new armors being worked on and the reasons they gave, one of which was freedom of movement. I will search later and find the article I read that talks about it.

There really isn't a reason why light armors that are tight fitting can't be an option. No reason at all, considering the first Mass Effect had them and they worked just fine and were thin. It already has a place in the scope of the universe. We have seen it and seen it work. We saw it with the light armors and we saw it with Asari Commandos, which were as tight as Miranda's armor.

[maia0407]

 

It's not willful ignorance, I'm saying there's no inherent difference. Sexualization and empowerment are not conflicting concepts. A major part of the feminist movement in the 1960's and 70's was utilizing sexuality and sexualization AS a form of empowerment.

 

 

At this point, your ignorance of the differences between these concepts is looking really willful. Simply put, since you obviously aren't going to self-educate, sexual empowerment is the active ownership and control of your own sexuality; sexualization is passive by nature and relinquishes control of your sexuality to the viewer or consumer. Sexualization reduces a person's sexuality to something to be enjoyed by someone else. In other words, it makes the person being sexualized a passive object. Women owning their 'sexuality as a form of empowerment', as you put it, is not sexualization by definition as the women are in control of their sexuality. 

 

A conversation could be had about how our culture values sexualized images and how that influences the way women choose to present themselves sexually. Is there a problem if women feel pressured by our culture to present themselves in a way that objectifies themselves? That would be an example of the harm caused by sexualization; but, I don't really feel that we can have that nuanced conversation as we haven't cleared the basic hurdle of 101 levels of definitions. 

 

If there isn't any obvious evidence to support that something is a problem, then why would I think it to be a problem? LAWL @ trying to compare me to a creationist. Good one. Pokemon Go hasn't been working for me, so I needed something to brighten my mood, thanks for the laugh.

 

When your first response is "hurr Google it", then your point isn't worth making. If you're trying to convince someone of a point, then you should explain it to them. If you had even the slightest idea what you're talking about and aren't just regurgitating talking points, then it shouldn't be too hard.

 

"Google it" is a valid response to someone that jumps into the middle of a conversation between other people and makes the claim that there is no evidence for the harms of sexualization. You seem to have the expectation that someone else is responsible for educating you. That expectation relies on the goodwill of the person you are addressing; immediately jumping in with a sneering attitude doesn't predispose me to engage in the long drawn out process of educating you. Furthermore, there is a serious problem when people expect the marginalized group to shoulder the burden of educating them about these issues. When I told you I was tired that night and still took the time to search out and offer a few links, I did so despite being exhausted from arguing with people just like you all day and other stuff going on that isn't relevant here. You took that action on my part, taking the time to provide links, and provided further sneering commentary for actually offering you links. 

 

Additionally, your approach was exactly like a creationist jumping into a conversation about evolution and declaring 'no evidence'. Before you made that post, I'd expect that you'd do a cursory search to see what kind of evidence is out there instead of burdening somebody else with your education. At the very least, you wouldn't be engaging in an argument from incredulity which is easily debunked with a quick search.  I'm not in the tedious business of 'convincing' you, personally. If you really had any interest in the conversation, you wouldn't have made that ludicrous statement about 'no evidence' from the beginning. That doesn't even address the issue of your attempts to 'debunk' the links I did provide but we'll get into that in a minute. 

 

Me saying that the research is bad is not "science denial". Try being less intellectually dishonest. I went out of my way to explain why the science was bad, and your only response is "lolol denial, DENIAL!" Feminists and Communications professors are hardly scientists, and it shows in the poor quality of the science they're trying to conduct.

 

Feminists and communication professors are experts in their respective fields. They are exactly the people that should be doing the research on how sexualization in media affects women just as a biologist should research biology issues, an anthropologist should research anthropology issues and so on. Declaring them 'not scientists' doesn't win any arguments. So what if o Ventus doesn't think they are scientists? That's denial. You've just attempted to overthrow entire fields of study with your declaration. I guess everyone involved in the fields o Ventus declares not credible should just pack it in. All scientists are inherently biased when researching their chosen field. That's why we use the scientific method and peer review to attempt to weed out bias. 

 

Now, to finally get to your critique of the Scientific American article, here's the section of the article that you were responding to:

 

"To explore the effects of watching sexualized female victims and heroines, Pennell and Behm-Morawitz asked female college students to watch a 13-minute video montage of scenes that either featured female victims from the Spider-man series or female heroines from the X-Men series.  After watching one of these video montages, participants completed a survey that assessed gender role beliefs, body image, and self-objectification.  A number of other measures (e.g., movie-going habits, enjoyment of different film genres) were included to camouflage the purpose of the study, and in a control condition, participants simply completed the survey but did not watch either film montage. Gender role beliefs were assessed via the Attitudes toward Women Scale, which evaluated participants' views about men's and women's responsibilities at home and in the workplace, appropriate attire and appearance in public, rationality and problem solving skills, and physical strength.  Body image was measured using the Body Esteem Scale, which requires individuals to rate personal satisfaction with general appearance and specific body parts (e.g., face, chest, thighs).  Finally, the Self-Objectification Questionnaire required participants to indicate the importance of their body image and body competence to their personal identity. "

 

And here is your analysis:

 

Right off the bat I notice errors in their method. The control group is not partaking in the same activities as either of the variable groups, so any baseline that the control would have given simply doesn't apply. Then they deliberately sabotage their survey results by introducing questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the experiment. I could forgive the control not setting a good baseline if the article at least mentions the comparison of the data sets between the control and the variables, but it doesn't, so at best I'm skeptical.

 

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the control group in that study. The point of the control group is to establish a baseline with a group that hasn't been exposed to the variable being tested. The variable being tested was the reaction to watching videos with sexualized images. The only way to provide a control group for this study is to not expose the control group to the videos as that is the variable being tested. Think of it like a placebo being given to a control group in medical trials.

 

As to the issue of asking questions unrelated to the experiment, that's not sabotage; the purpose was explained in the article. The experimenters were camouflaging the purpose of the study so as not to influence responses. This is common practice. Here's a link for further discussing concealing the intent of experiments:

 

http://www.psycholog...fic-method.html

 

So far, your issues with the experiment don't invalidate the experiment.

 

Here's the other part of your critique:

 

And then there's lines like this: "Because these sexualized superheroines have unattainable body dimensions and engage in unrealistic physical feats (e.g., saving the world in spiked heels), it’s not surprising that female viewers are left feeling dissatisfied with their own physical appearance and prowess." Unrealistic physical feats it says. Considering the study is about superheroes, one can also argue that flying and being able to shatter boulders with one's bare fists are also unrealistic physical feats. The article, and I'm guessing the study too considering who is conducting it, automatically insinuate that any feelings of inadequacy in regards top SUPERHEROES are due to sexualization and objectification, and not the amazing powers that the heroes have at their disposal, effectively making them into demigods. The study, from what little the article actually cites, has an aura of confirmation bias.

 

There's a difference between superpowers and sexualization that you ignore. Comic book superpowers don't exist in the real world, therefore, it's a bit silly to think that a person would feel bad about not having them. Sexualization and unrealistic body images are a real world problem. 

 

You seem to think you've destroyed the credibility of this study and can sit back, self-satisfied in your conclusion that the study is 'cartoonish'. You now don't have to consider it evidence. Hooray for anti-fems! Another battle won, right? Except, what you've shown is a lack of understanding of basic methodology, an assertion that women would be more concerned with comic book superpowers rather than real world issues and severe biased disdain for scholars that you consider unworthy. 

 

And finally, you're comparing the sexualization of girls, I.E. real children, to that of fictional (presumably adult) women. And off the rails we go...

 

I'm guessing you are referring to the American Psychological Associaton's report on the effects of sexualization. This report discusses the harm of sexualization, which you questioned, and doesn't limit itself to girls. It also discusses the harm to women. Here's a quote from the article that you dismissed without looking at:

 

These consequences include harm to the sexualized individuals themselves, to their interpersonal relationships, and to society. For example,there is evidence that sexualization contributes to impaired cognitive performance in college-aged women,and related research suggests that viewing material that is sexually objectifying can contribute to body dissatisfaction,eating disorders, low self-esteem, depressive affect, and even physical health problems in high-school-aged girls and in young women.

 

But, hey, studies don't exist in your world right? 

[Pasquale1234]

Looks like you're the one shutting off at the crucial bit; there will always be advancement, the point is that technology exists now and has been in the works for quite a bit. Advancement always happens, or else everybody today would be wearing Kevlar and fighting with swords. Kevlar used to be the standard, until bullets were made to penetrate it, so they made new armor that should be out within a decade that actually stops bullets by using liquid to disperse it. That's what liquid armor does. So, yeah, I don't imagine they'd be using kevlar or even our latest technology. They would have advanced with their armor in the future to compensate their for the advanced weaponry. I am not saying that they did, just that it is in the realm of possibility and the argument that "no one would wear that into battle because of bullets" doesn't always apply. Are you going to tell me with that kind of technology coupled with Kinect shields and biotic barriers wouldn't be enough protection? If you can't look inside the realm of possibilities to say, "there may be room in this to have these armors as an option, then there is nothing more to really say to you in this discussion because you've already closed your mind to it and refuse to acknowledge anything other than your own . opinion and that makes me wonder if realism is really the bane for you when it comes to tighter fitting armor.

Here's the thing: bullets aren't the only thing people need to be protected from in a hostile environment. The lore says that shields are designed to stop projectiles moving at a super-fast velocity while ignoring slower-moving objects. That's why people are able to, for example, sit down in a chair with their shields up.

But our explorers also need to be protected from other hazards - like falling debris, shrapnel, extreme weather conditions, animal bites, melee attacks - and that usually involves some additional blow-absorptive padding. They need enough room in their suits to accommodate their health monitors, oxygen supplies, pressure stabilizers, medigel dispensers, battery packs, and maybe even to carry some additional survival gear.
 

Oh, please don't mistake me. I'm fine with exposed flesh on the ship. Whether it be someone like Jack or someone like Samara, the designers should do whatever they see fit. Jack's tattoos and scars say a ton about her. Her straps across her chest shows her level of not giving a crap about what anyone thinks. She's a true punk, and there isn't anything sexual about her general look imho. Again, whatever suits the character.

I agree about Jack, but find it odd that a warrior monk would wear something with a neckline that plunges to her navel. People don't usually dress like that for any reason having to do with comfort or utility, but for sex appeal - and Samara wasn't interested in sex - so I think her outfit conflicted with her character.

Miranda was a special case. On the one hand, she seemed to be rebelling against her father's plans to make her the perfect daughter; on the other she was determined to put her special "perfection" on full display. Rather than enhancing her characterization, I found it fairly confusing, though I admit I never did get to know the character very well. I just find it really squicky to use clothing for toilet paper, and never got past that distaste for her outfit.
 

My main thing is the cold vacuum of space and hostile uncharted planets. I think there are a few ways that they could make the armor suit the companion, without resorting to breathing masks and exposed flesh out in the elements. That's all, and I think the design team could do something with that.

Agreed. I'll go on record by expressing my general dislike of comic book aesthetics, deep wedgies, and camel-toe, and hope to never see them in ME again. If an outfit looks really uncomfortable or I can't figure out how the character puts it on, I'm probably not gonna like it.

I feel like the devs have mentioned an armor system where you'd start out with a basic bodysuit, and then add pieces to create a complete armor. It sounds like it could be similar to what we had in ME1 - those armors had basic bodysuits with reinforcement panels added - and I liked them overall. The breast area on those ME1 armors looked like soft, flexible material where the characters were using good, supportive sports bras to manage the girls. They looked both comfortable and practical.

I will also say that part of the reason I liked the system was because I was allowed to manage what my followers wore into combat. I had issues with, for example, Garrus in his standard blue turian armor on a field of turian Blue Sun mercs, because I found it difficult to pick out Garrus on the battlefield. Between the camera distance, varying terrains, and unique iconic armors in DAI, I'm having a lot of trouble keeping track of my followers - and I'm hoping MEA will give me something to make that easier.

[maia0407]

 Agreed. I'll go on record by expressing my general dislike of comic book aesthetics, deep wedgies, and camel-toe, and hope to never see them in ME again. If an outfit looks really uncomfortable or I can't figure out how the character puts it on, I'm probably not gonna like it.

 

Oh, god, yes this. The history of how women are depicted in classic science fiction and comic books is not something that should be replicated in modern day video games that are attempting to embrace communities other than straight men. 

[KBomb]

Here's the thing: bullets aren't the only thing people need to be protected from in a hostile environment. The lore says that shields are designed to stop projectiles moving at a super-fast velocity while ignoring slower-moving objects. That's why people are able to, for example, sit down in a chair with their shields up.

But our explorers also need to be protected from other hazards - like falling debris, shrapnel, extreme weather conditions, animal bites, melee attacks - and that usually involves some additional blow-absorptive padding. They need enough room in their suits to accommodate their health monitors, oxygen supplies, pressure stabilizers, medigel dispensers, battery packs, and maybe even to carry some additional survival gear.

We did just fine with all of that in ME1 and light, tight fitting armor protected very well, especially with the enhancements you could add to it. I see no reason that it should just be swept out and only bulky armor remain.

[Gannayev of Dreams]

I'd rather my companions, male or female, be as safe and comfortable while in the field and being shot at as possible. The better their chance of survival the more often we can spend our downtime aesthetically pleasing each other.

 

Casual clothes have way more potential for that anyway.

[Pasquale1234]

Oh, god, yes this. The history of how women are depicted in classic science fiction and comic books is not something that should be replicated in modern day video games that are attempting to embrace communities other than straight men.

Historically, that's true. More recently, I think we're seeing more sexualization of men - which is not an improvement, imho.
 

We did just fine with all of that in ME1 and light, tight fitting armor protected very well, especially with the enhancements you could add to it. I see no reason that it should just be swept out and only bulky armor remain.

Sure, but the basic bodysuits were not painted on like Miranda's, and the additional padding would ostensibly have some room to accommodate some of those systems. The ME1 armors were about as minimalistic as what would work for me aesthetically.

I don't believe I suggested they should be "swept out and only bulky armor remain." In fact, I said that they look comfortable and practical. Well, except for the wedgies. They really need to go.

[KBomb]

There is nothing wrong, impractical or overtly sexual with this armor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Pasquale1234

 

The last remark about it being swept away wasn't directed at you, but in general. I should have been more specific, sorry.

 

And they kind of are as tight as Miranda's, they just have more bits on them, which I said I wasn't against. I would welcome tight fitting armor with options to add things onto it. That would make me pretty happy.

[Iakus]

 

And they kind of are as tight as Miranda's, they just have more bits on them, which I said I wasn't against. I would welcome tight fitting armor with options to add things onto it. That would make me pretty happy.

WIth Miranda's black "loyal" uniform, you could actually see her navel through the outfit.

[KBomb]

WIth Miranda's black "loyal" uniform, you could actually see her navel through the outfit.

Yeah, I didn't like that one. I didn't use it either and I didn't care if someone else did--as it was an option. I just kept her in the old one, until the dlc one was released with her new armor.

[Gwydden]

Oh, god, yes this. The history of how women are depicted in classic science fiction and comic books is not something that should be replicated in modern day video games that are attempting to embrace communities other than straight men. 

Who said anything about women?

[Pasquale1234]

The last remark about it being swept away wasn't directed at you, but in general. I should have been more specific, sorry.

Cool. We're good.
 

And they kind of are as tight as Miranda's, they just have more bits on them, which I said I wasn't against. I would welcome tight fitting armor with options to add things onto it. That would make me pretty happy.

The fabric looks a lot thicker, and you can even see seams in the sleeves. Miranda's looks literally painted on. My biggest objection to Miranda's outfit was the way it was all tucked up where toilet paper is supposed to go. That really grosses me out.

[maia0407]

Who said anything about women?

As this thread is about women's armor choices, that's what I'm discussing. Do you have examples of males in Mass Effect in mind that you think mimics the aesthetics in the pics you posted? Not being a smart arse, genuinely asking. 

 

Regarding the pics that you posted, I'd say those pictures don't have as much to do with sexulization of men as the purpose is to promote a power fantasy for men. I don't think anyone is actually going to argue that historical science fiction and comic books were written with a female audience in mind. However, that doesn't negate the fact that these power fantasies can and do have harmful effects on men.

 

ETA: A good example of men being objectified like usually happens to women would be romance novel covers. But, again, Mass Effect isn't going for that aesthetic. 

[KBomb]

Cool. We're good.


The fabric looks a lot thicker, and you can even see seams in the sleeves. Miranda's looks literally painted on. My biggest objection to Miranda's outfit was the way it was all tucked up where toilet paper is supposed to go. That really grosses me out.

That did look uncomfortable, but probably wouldn't have been so noticeable if the camera would have stayed off her rump and didn't zoom in at every opportunity. Anyway, yeah--I would just love the light armor from the first to show up again. I am doubtful it will, but one can always hope.

[Gwydden]

As this thread is about women's armor choices, that's what I'm discussing. Do you have examples of males inMass Effect in mind that you think mimics the aesthetics in the pics you posted? Not being a smart arse, genuinely asking. 

Well, I don't think there's anything implicit in the idea of "sexy armor" that makes the topic exclusive to women. You asked for examples, though, so I'd like to point out Jacob's outfit is at best slightly less exposing than Miranda's, and that Thane's got just as much cleavage as Samara. Nothing as drastic as the pics I posted, no, but the same is true of the women in ME. Even Jack doesn't quite get there, and her semi-nakedness doesn't read as sexual to me anyway.

 

Regarding the pics that you posted, I'd say those pictures don't have as much to do with sexulization of men as the purpose is to promote a power fantasy for men.

I've heard that several times, but I think there are some problems with that argument, chief among which is the primary reason why men might want to look like that. Hint: it's not to smash the skulls of their enemies or open beer bottles with their bare hands, but to get laid. So in fact, those characters and the clothes they are wearing are made to appeal to women. Whether they are successful or not is a different discussion entirely.

 

I don't think anyone is actually going to argue that historical science fiction and comic books were written with a female audience in mind.

No, not anymore than the overwhelming majority of erotica and romance novels are written with a male audience in mind, as you yourself pointed out.

 

However, that doesn't negate the fact that these power fantasies can and do have harmful effects on men.

The effect of any piece of entertainment is unpredictable and ultimately the responsibility of the affected party. Someone who has developed a healthy appreciation of their own body is not going to be affected by idealized individuals in fiction. Those who are affected is because they were already insecure to begin with. Trying to blame Miranda or Thane and other similar characters for people's lack of self-esteem is like trying to blame roleplaying games for D&D inspired murders.

 

Ergo, creators should just do what they please. As I said, I don't care if Bioware goes comic book style or semi-realistic as long as they stick with one approach. I don't want to see Captain America and the dude from The Martian in the same universe.

 

Finally, I would like to thank you for your willingness to engage in polite discussion. It's always a teachable experience.

 

That did look uncomfortable, but probably wouldn't have been so noticeable if the camera would have stayed off her rump and didn't zoom in at every opportunity.

Definitely. Whatever the outfits are, random ass shots are in bad taste and clash with the narrative.

[Killroy]

Looks like you're the one shutting off at the crucial bit;

You clearly lack self-awareness.
 

there will always be advancement, the point is that technology exists now and has been in the works for quite a bit. Advancement always happens, or else everybody today would be wearing Kevlar and fighting with swords. Kevlar used to be the standard, until bullets were made to penetrate it, so they made new armor that should be out within a decade that actually stops bullets by using liquid to disperse it. That's what liquid armor does. So, yeah, I don't imagine they'd be using kevlar or even our latest technology. They would have advanced with their armor in the future to compensate their for the advanced weaponry. I am not saying that they did, just that it is in the realm of possibility and the argument that "no one would wear that into battle because of bullets" doesn't always apply. Are you going to tell me with that kind of technology coupled with Kinect shields and biotic barriers wouldn't be enough protection? If you can't look inside the realm of possibilities to say, "there may be room in this to have these armors as an option, then there is nothing more to really say to you in this discussion because you've already closed your mind to it and refuse to acknowledge anything other than your own . opinion and that makes me wonder if realism is really the bane for you when it comes to tighter fitting armor.

Hammerstorm: The reason they are developing this armor now is for the freedom of movement without the bulk and offer more protection from projectiles. All I am saying is that it is possible to expect that between alien tech and human tech, it could be enough reason to justify tighter fitting armor--notice I didn't say revealing, but tighter fitting. I don't think Miranda's armor is revealing, just tight and I don't see anyone asking for Jack's armor.

As for asking why anyone would still chooe the bulkier armor, well reading this thread will tell you that there are plenty who like the aesthetic of it and would still choose it. That is what options are for. Same as weapons in games. Sometimes I avoid the most powerful weapon for a lesser one, if the weapon is too big and bulky.

This is all pure nonsense. You're still ignoring weapons advancements. And why would any soldier choose bulkier armor when a catsuit or leather straps would do the job just as well? Who would volunteer to have their movement impaired in combat for no good reason?
Stop trying to justify your illogical desires by pretending to be logical. Just say "I want the silly things because I like the way they look." Pretending they're not silly just makes you look foolish.

[Marble]

I personally think that they should allow the more revealing armors, but at a cost of less practicality, hence a harder gameplay run. If you want to be stylish, go ahead, but if you are taking your focus away from survivability and putting it into fashion, be prepared to demonstrate how confident you are battling in your choice of apparel. I think that way it is fair, and rather balanced in the light of people who do and don't want it. So long as a game doesn't force you to go skimpier and skimpier for better armor rating, I really don't see an issue with it.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Between the two options? Revealing please.

 

I'd rather go to the battlefield wearing this (in case, I´m a man, but just to give the idea)

 

 

instead of this ENCUMBRANCE here

 

 

 

At least the first picture I can run, roll, and get up if I fall. Hell, I can even bring a extra gun/ammo, because I'm not wearing armor that weighs 150 kilos.

 

My preferred option is something like this

 

 

with a open helmet. And googles.

 

I like how you guessed the exact weight of a video game armor just by briefly looking at it. 

 

Even medieval full steel plate mail only weighed around 35kg / 77lbs tops and knights could run, fence, roll and make back flips in it. With todays composites and light ballistic fabrics armor weighs far less so I find it endlessly amusing you assuming the armor in a video game taking place far in the future weighs 150 kilograms and encumbers the wearer. Armor in the 14th century didn't encumber the wearer much, I guess 800 years later armor has become even better. 

 

But if you want to find excuses to run around on the battlefield -where the air is filled with razor sharp shrapnel and bullets traveling several times the speed of sound- in ''revealing armor'' or even as you mentioned, with a naked upper body, be my guest.   You might be a little bit quicker but can you outrun and dodge shrapnel and bullets? 

[KBomb]

You clearly lack self-awareness.


This is all pure nonsense. You're still ignoring weapons advancements. And why would any soldier choose bulkier armor when a catsuit or leather straps would do the job just as well? Who would volunteer to have their movement impaired in combat for no good reason?
Stop trying to justify your illogical desires by pretending to be logical. Just say "I want the silly things because I like the way they look." Pretending they're not silly just makes you look foolish.

Such a nasty person. Who hurt you? Who did this to you?

What's more, I have explained the weapons advancement. No one else seemed to have trouble understanding it, but you. It is explained right in the quote you posted, as was the answer to why someone would choose it. You seem to have trouble comprehending what is right in your face. Maybe it's your dispostion that blocks any civil discourse. Or maybe you don't want to comprehend it, because if you did, you'd have to admit that, "You don't want them because you just don't like the way the silly things look"

Now, for your last caustic sentence: Show me one post here that says I want this armor for any other reason than "because I like the way it looks". I was merely trying to show how it could be within the realm of possibility. In fact, I have stated many times that I like the way it looks. That I want this armor because I like the way it looks lol. So, way to figure that one out, Scooby Doo.

[In Exile]

Oh, god, yes this. The history of how women are depicted in classic science fiction and comic books is not something that should be replicated in modern day video games that are attempting to embrace communities other than straight men.

I'm not particularly convinced video games were particularly good at even embracing this one community - it's not that long ago when video games were not an especially tolerated hobby (in the cultural mainstream). And the games that did receive critical acclaim were not necessarily the ones that struggled with gender or sexuality issues.

I actually think the recent debacle with the Hugo awards presents a good comparison - it's more than a cultural subgroup is trying to assert itself over a field that passively catered to them more by accident of history than any other reason and is now simply moving away from that as the audience and content creators become more diverse.

[SNascimento]

I'd say the weight of the armor shouldn't matter, as all armors should be powered. That's one thing I dislike about Mass Effect armors. Although many of them have great design, not being powered armors make them... less. It's the future after all. Actually, the enhanced strength doesn't even need come from the armor itself, it could be some underlayer of some kind.

[maia0407]

Well, I don't think there's anything implicit in the idea of "sexy armor" that makes the topic exclusive to women. You asked for examples, though, so I'd like to point out Jacob's outfit is at best slightly less exposing than Miranda's, and that Thane's got just as much cleavage as Samara. Nothing as drastic as the pics I posted, no, but the same is true of the women in ME. Even Jack doesn't quite get there, and her semi-nakedness doesn't read as sexual to me anyway.

 

Yeah, Thane and Jacob could be read as being put in sexualized outfits especially Thane as the devs admitted to designing him to appeal to women. I can't speak for all women, obviously, but Thane's cleavage window read as a misguided idea of something women would want to see as that's what men like to see in women's designs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

My issue isn't so much with sexy as I've repeatedly tried to explain. I'm concerned with sexualization and want the developers to put some thought into how they depict women. In ME2, 3 out of 5 women were put in very revealing outfits. I'd like to see a bit more balance. When the majority of the women are written with 'reasons' to show wedgies, camel-toe and boob windows the devs need to stop and ask why they are writing the majority of women this way. 

 

In contrast, 2 out of 7 male characters in ME2 had sexy outfits. Again, I think Thane and Jacob's outfits were role reversal sexualization and I, for one, am not interested in seeing men getting the same stupid treatment as women to balance things out. Sexualizing both genders doesn't make sexualization okay.

 

I've heard that several times, but I think there are some problems with that argument, chief among which is the primary reason why men might want to look like that. Hint: it's not to smash the skulls of their enemies or open beer bottles with their bare hands, but to get laid. So in fact, those characters and the clothes they are wearing are made to appeal to women. Whether they are successful or not is a different discussion entirely.

 

But, isn't appealing to women still a male power fantasy? That media was written to appeal to men and their desires. The male characters were there to fulfill a desire of how men want to see themselves. The women in that same literature aren't designed for women to emulate so much as for men to look at. At any, rate, I'm not really that concerned with the difference as, IMO, the potential harm is still the same regardless of the motivation of the design. 

 

The effect of any piece of entertainment is unpredictable and ultimately the responsibility of the affected party. Someone who has developed a healthy appreciation of their own body is not going to be affected by idealized individuals in fiction. Those who are affected is because they were already insecure to begin with. Trying to blame Miranda or Thane and other similar characters for people's lack of self-esteem is like trying to blame roleplaying games for D&D inspired murders.

 

Blaming any one character for harmful depictions isn't the point. The overwhelming number of sexualized images in our culture, to which Bioware has contributed, is another story entirely. Studies are showing that being exposed to so much imagery is having an effect. I don't think we can really say that those affected were likely already insecure. It could be that the plethora of sexualized imagery caused the insecurity. Chicken and egg; ultimately I'm more concerned with harm reduction. I want to see healthy depictions of men and women and I'd like to see Bioware be a bit more socially responsible.

 

At any rate, yes, thanks for the civil conversation. I think we can agree that, in the end, we both want a good game. 

[KBomb]

I'd say the weight of the armor shouldn't matter, as all armors should be powered. That's one thing I dislike about Mass Effect armors. Although many of them have great design, not being powered armors make them... less. It's the future after all. Actually, the enhanced strength doesn't even need come from the armor itself, it could be some underlayer of some kind.

This is kind of how I feel. Which if I am not mistaken, in this thread or another one I was in, said a dev had said something about starting with a sort of body suit and adding things to it. I hope this is true, it intrigues me. That is kind of how the ME1 armors looked--well all of them did, but you can tell there is an underlayer of a body suit with reinforced pieces added, as well as the enhancements you could add, like the exoskeletons (via ME1). It worked fine in the first one, but now some people are all up in arms saying it's impossible. Makes me wonder if they began the series at ME2.

[Iakus]

I'd say the weight of the armor shouldn't matter, as all armors should be powered. That's one thing I dislike about Mass Effect armors. Although many of them have great design, not being powered armors make them... less. It's the future after all. Actually, the enhanced strength doesn't even need come from the armor itself, it could be some underlayer of some kind.

Are we sure the armor isn't at least somewhat powered?  I mean it already has an onboard computer, sensor suite, communication's package, kinetic barrier emitters, etc.  And now jump-jets.

 

It may not be an Iron Man suit, but it's gotta be close.

[PunchFaceReporter]

This is kind of how I feel. Which if I am not mistaken, in this thread or another one I was in, said a dev had said something about starting with a sort of body suit and adding things to it. I hope this is true, it intrigues me. That is kind of how the ME1 armors looked--well all of them did, but you can tell there is an underlayer of a body suit with reinforced pieces added, as well as the enhancements you could add, like the exoskeletons (via ME1). It worked fine in the first one, but now some people are all up in arms saying it's impossible. Makes me wonder if they began the series at ME2.

Yeah hopefully our armour will be as customisable as they said the Mako would be. I remember them saying something like your Mako could be tank like or agile.