The "Boob Armor" and the whole Issue of objectification

[Badmojo]

The comments from Sawyer are very encouraging about the approach PE will take to female characters, and how they are dressed.

 

The comments from many other forum members are not. The issue here is not one of realism, it's of equality. The objectification and marginalisation of women in pretty much ALL media is an ongoing issue. I think many people would be surprised at just how much portrayals of anything in movies, games, TV, etc, can affect how they are perceived and treated in the real world. This issue hasn't gone away, and still gets brought up, because it's still a very real issue that needs to be addressed.

 

Expanding further on this will probably be counter-productive. And also lengthy. A lot of stuff has been written about this. But an example I have seen used in this thread was something like, "if you go out on the street you can see women everywhere who have clearly dressed to accentuate their boobs". This isn't evidence that supports your pro-boob armour argument, rather, it weakens it. The whole of society currently screams at women, through computer games, TV, movies, music videos, everything, that their value as a human being is tied to how attractive they are. Any media at all that undercuts that stereotype is a good thing.

 

Obsidian should be lauded for approaching this issue the way that they are.

 

This is exactly what makes games unfun. Trying to please every person who finds something "offensive" and people who supposedly speaks for all members of a group. I like how you pretty much said women are brainwashed sheep who are being repressed by the man to be strait mens fantasy. I mean, it could not be that women can think for themselves and LIKE to be attractive and know perfectly well that they are sexulizing themselves because they want too. Nope, must be tv, video games, movies...etc. You say I did not prove what I said, even though I used a REAL WORLD sample location to make my point. Do not believe me? Go to any place in the US where a large number of people (men and women) that is not religion based and tell me what women wear. oh wait, I forgot, women are sheep who cannot think for themselves according to you. This is the worst type of feminest argument, women are either with you, or they are brainwashed slaves to the system which you must free wether they want it or not.

[Stun]

How is this such an important issue?

 

Was NWN2 bad with this? Was FO:NV? I can't think of one time where I went wow Obs, you really over sexualized there in those games.

Hell, for NWN2 we saw the exact opposite gripe. People were complaining that even if you removed a character's armor, they were still fully clothed

[Katrar]

And I'll just add, I hope that OE takes more character model/portrait inspiration from the likes of Frazetta (especially Frazetta), Vallejo, Royo, and Brom, than a bunch of forum culture warriors that want to turn this computer roleplaying game into a cultural battleground. Ugh.

[Stun]

And they will. The old "but that's not Culturally perfect!" argument has been spouted on gaming message boards, since, like...forever. I remember people complaining about Serevok's armor, in 1999, after playing BG1. But here we are today, several awesome games later, and Fantasy RPGs aren't any more "history-book realistic" than they were a decade ago. Thank God.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Stun

[slopesandsam]

The comments from Sawyer are very encouraging about the approach PE will take to female characters, and how they are dressed.

 

The comments from many other forum members are not. The issue here is not one of realism, it's of equality. The objectification and marginalisation of women in pretty much ALL media is an ongoing issue. I think many people would be surprised at just how much portrayals of anything in movies, games, TV, etc, can affect how they are perceived and treated in the real world. This issue hasn't gone away, and still gets brought up, because it's still a very real issue that needs to be addressed.

 

Expanding further on this will probably be counter-productive. And also lengthy. A lot of stuff has been written about this. But an example I have seen used in this thread was something like, "if you go out on the street you can see women everywhere who have clearly dressed to accentuate their boobs". This isn't evidence that supports your pro-boob armour argument, rather, it weakens it. The whole of society currently screams at women, through computer games, TV, movies, music videos, everything, that their value as a human being is tied to how attractive they are. Any media at all that undercuts that stereotype is a good thing.

 

Obsidian should be lauded for approaching this issue the way that they are.

 

This is exactly what makes games unfun. Trying to please every person who finds something "offensive" and people who supposedly speaks for all members of a group. I like how you pretty much said women are brainwashed sheep who are being repressed by the man to be strait mens fantasy. I mean, it could not be that women can think for themselves and LIKE to be attractive and know perfectly well that they are sexulizing themselves because they want too. Nope, must be tv, video games, movies...etc. You say I did not prove what I said, even though I used a REAL WORLD sample location to make my point. Do not believe me? Go to any place in the US where a large number of people (men and women) that is not religion based and tell me what women wear. oh wait, I forgot, women are sheep who cannot think for themselves according to you. This is the worst type of feminest argument, women are either with you, or they are brainwashed slaves to the system which you must free wether they want it or not.

 

You know what? You're right, my post did imply the woman-as-sheep assumption. That wasn't my intention. Getting into what my intention was is...dicey. I'm a heterosexual male, and so I don't want to speak for women. But put as simply as I can, society is overwhelmingly geared towards the objectification of women. Just how much so is something a lot of people (including women) don't even notice, because it's normal to them. So my point was less woman-as-sheep, and more everyone-as-sheep. I include myself in this group. I'm hardly super-enlightened. I've just had some things pointed out to me, quite recently, by people who are.

 

It also wasn't my intention to imply that the media is to blame for society's failings. What I meant was that the media is a very powerful tool, and can be highly influential. Any reduction in the objectification of women in any media is a good thing.

 

However, I am absolutely in favour of women (or anyone) being allowed to dress themselves however they like.

[Humodour]

By catering to the most base sexual whims of males, Obsidian loses more than half the population as potential customers straight away. Sure, many of those potential customers were lost anyway by the nature of this niche game. But any business which ignores potential customers is never going to grow and is probably destined to fail.

 

I am not supporting this game so that Obsidian can fall back to the crudity of games past (and I refer to the game industry in general here, not necessarily Obsid). I am supporting this game because I figured Obsidian is one of the few intellectual RPG developers left.

 

Intellectual RPG developers don't cater to immature sex-crazed males by plastering boobies everywhere and trying to show as much skin as possible. "But I like the eye candy" is not an excuse - it's just immature. Get a girlfriend (or **** buddy) if you like the eye candy, and then you can screw each other's brains out.

 

I am a heterosexual male, too, but I have a girlfriend (who is a gamer) and have rented with a bunch of women in the past. Every time I have played a computer game where women are objectified, and any of the girls have been watching me play, they often make some pretty scathing comments about the treatment of women in computer games. And I whole-heartedly agree with them.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Krezack

[dlux]

Is something like this also considered to be sexist boob armor?

 

I can understand if it is offending if a woman wears a chainmail-bikini in a game (doesn't even really make sense either), but something like in this pic is perfectly fine, or not?

Edited October 2, 2012 by dlux

[obyknven]

As a historian also, I can say probably not, first off women combatants wearing medieval armor (the one we are taking into account here) was rare to begin with. Even the Order of the Hatchet, an actual order of women knights, masqueraded as Men. The point of being, knights or warriors were to be like men, not women. Joan of Arc wore men clothes.

 

Going to Japan, there were women samurai or "Onna Bugeisha", if they were ever in battle, I'm pretty they were dressed to survive not to make attract male gaze.

 

I can't ever say for certainty that there was ever such armor for the woman body in history, but it if did exist, it was rare and probably unsuccessful.

 

 

No woman armor can be in Medieval world, because women non equal men in these societies (and women warriors must masqueraded as Men).

True women warrior cultures (Saka, Sarmats, Persian (before Islam), Pagan Slavic and many other Pagan Nations) died before they can develop plate armor. We actually don't know how their women plate armor must look.

 

[Wintersong]

When presenting females in combat, practicality over looks matter.

 

Marine Women in real life

Fictional "Future Marine"

First: in the unknown future, for all we know, the materials for their armors can be so good that they actually bother to make "boobplates" and still have them to be so efficient as "non-boobplates". At least as far as being shooted at (ranged combat) is concerned. I heard that Mass Effect 3 has some more focus on melee but I suppose that their melee weaponry doesn't care so much about the shape of the armor due to high natural penetration power. In any case, at least those armors in Mass Effect are not chainmail bikinis. If the materials are in fact so good, then it'd be viable to allow female soldiers to have more "precise" armors (and custom made for boob size?).

 

Second: the problem with the usual "boobplate" is that it doesn't really work. "But it's fantasy" or "It's a game". Yeah, sure. And why deny you the chance to jerk off, right? Or to look pretty when you should be worrying about being effective in combat. Armors that are supposed to be used in combat that really don't work are a kick into the immersion's nuts. And if you just do it to provoke erections (oh wait, should I say "eye candy"?) in some people... meh.

 

Don't get me wrong, a boobplate or even a chainmail bikini can be used in fantasy games but only if:

• For parades or similar.
  
• Worn by ignorants and/or cannon fodder.
  
• They are magically enhanced to the point of actually being useful (they posses arcane forcefields or similar that cover the whole user and protect her from the mundane limitations of the real armor).
  
• (this only for boobplates) They are made of a really hard material that... well, it doesn't really matter the shape because you are not piercing/slashing the surface anytime now.
  
• (this is only for chainmail bikinis) They are made of magnets of some kind that attract the blows, protecting the soft bits. Also made of material such of the previous point of this list.
  

At this point on human sillines, I'm glad when we just get melee (non-DPS) females totally covered in armor.

[HoonDing]

There's no point to women in realistic armour... they just keep losing their sword.

 

[Bos_hybrid]

I'm still waiting for someone to point to me a game in which Obs had an over sexualized character that didn't make sense in the context.

[Furiku]

By catering to the most base sexual whims of males, Obsidian loses more than half the population as potential customers straight away. Sure, many of those potential customers were lost anyway by the nature of this niche game. But any business which ignores potential customers is never going to grow and is probably destined to fail.

 

I am not supporting this game so that Obsidian can fall back to the crudity of games past (and I refer to the game industry in general here, not necessarily Obsid). I am supporting this game because I figured Obsidian is one of the few intellectual RPG developers left.

 

Intellectual RPG developers don't cater to immature sex-crazed males by plastering boobies everywhere and trying to show as much skin as possible. "But I like the eye candy" is not an excuse - it's just immature. Get a girlfriend (or **** buddy) if you like the eye candy, and then you can screw each other's brains out.

 

I am a heterosexual male, too, but I have a girlfriend (who is a gamer) and have rented with a bunch of women in the past. Every time I have played a computer game where women are objectified, and any of the girls have been watching me play, they often make some pretty scathing comments about the treatment of women in computer games. And I whole-heartedly agree with them.

 

Good for you, but there is nothing wrong with boobs and if you think there is and they have to be hidden away for the sake of "political correctness" and some fight for equality, you are nothing but a prude.

 

There are basically three stages from which nudity and sexual content can be approached:

1) Inane pandering by using it as sole marketing purpose and getting the "LOL boobs, LOL sex" audience, kinda like BioWare or a certain amount of other publishers seem to do it by putting nekkid ladies on the box art and making it the main selling point.

2) Ignoring it completely to appear "morally superior" or cop out of the entire issue, which I'm afraid Obsidian is likely about to do.

3) Embrace it as a part of any world and address it maturely, like Witcher 2 mostly did or in an artistic style like "The Void", this was a rather good article on that: http://www.rockpaper...the-naked-void/

 

Fargo also recently had a Blog Update, making me hope he'll go for numero 3: http://wasteland.inx...its-about-time/

It has been some time since I have posted a blog here and I apologize for the delay. I need to do a better job of communicating my thoughts and ideas as that is a part of the process I know people are interested in. I have been very focused on getting the first pass at all the writing complete by October. The thing that is most critical in creating a deep and re-playable experience is for us to have plenty of iteration time on the game. There is simply no substitute for allowing plenty of time for us to play the game over and over thus allowing us to hone in on the things that people are going try in the world. A wonderfully written script is not valuable if it is delivered too far into the development process. This game is going to be much deeper than most people realize and I will go out on a limb to say it is nearly impossible for two people to have the same experience playing through the game as there are so many nuanced decisions. The caliber of writing is very impressive and for those who wanted an M rated experience… you will be more than satisfied. We don’t pull any punches on the subject matters of a dark post apocalyptic world. My attitude is that if you going into a genre that has expectations then GO THERE.. all the way. It is for the same reasons I tend to love all the great shows and writing that I find on Showtime and HBO and find myself turned off by the material on network television. I don’t like to see pandering to a mass audience for my TV shows and I certainly won’t allow this game to soften up a rough world.

 

If you want TV show comparisons, imagine 1) "The Man Show", 2) Network TV (FOX, CBS, ABC), 3) Premium Cable (Game of Thrones, Dexter, Mad Men)

 

I will always prefer #3, and it's rather stupid to cop out because it's the "in" thing to do and fits well with the feminist agenda pushed on videogames in the last few months, making everyone go all defensive and acting like a prude and as if nudity is something inherently bad.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Furiku

[Jarmo]

ME1 costumes didn't bother me. Everybody wore armor that looked like something that might be usable.

ME2 bugged the hell out of me, in that these two outfits give equal protection:

... and I'm not even talking about Jack.

[Umberlin]

 

Fictional "Future Marine"

Was the boob armor necessary there? No, it really wasn't.

 

That sort of thing annoys me, and I don't really think it's ever necessary. It's just some people want to do it.

 

That said, you know . . . I don't mind skimpy or inappropriate armor and clothing if, and only if, conservative and sensible options, as well as middleground options, also exist in every possible tier. Because the only thing worse than there being skimpy or inappropriate armor in the game is if you are forced to use it for statistical reasons. As long as there are options that are conservative and middleground to counter balance the skimpy/inappropriate stuff I can deal. Sure I won't like the skimpy/inappropriate stuff but I understand I'm not the only one in the world, and my tastes aren't the only ones. I'm willing to let everyone have their own thing if the developers feel it's practical.

 

Still, if they can only do one of the three, my vote is always toward the most conservative and appropriate armor and clothing for the setting. And I don't mean boring when I say that, different levels of how stylized and ornate they are . . . that's fine, that's a typical separation in society where some people are more extravagant/rich and thus have more ornate clothing/armor is fine, but, again, that's as long as the other end of the spectrum exists as well to represent the middleclass or the common soldier or the poor or the homeless guy drinking himself into a stupor in the gutter. That's the only way the rich noble, extravagantly dressed, character really works, is if you have something to contrast them.

[Volourn]

"I am a heterosexual male, too, but I have a girlfriend (who is a gamer) and have rented with a bunch of women in the past. Every time I have played a computer game where women are objectified, and any of the girls have been watching me play, they often make some pretty scathing comments about the treatment of women in computer games. And I whole-heartedly agree with them"

 

And, I bet these same women have little or no issues with things like Harlequin romances, soap operas, male modelling, and other places where males are objectified. Double standards. L0L

 

 

"Sure, many of those potential customers were lost anyway by the nature of this niche game. But any business which ignores potential customers is never going to grow and is probably destined to fail."

 

This is just plain false. Plenty of industries rely on and are successful solely based on targeting a niche - often times just males or just females. barbie has been successful depsite largely being female targeted. GI Joe has been successful despite largely being male targeted.

 

So, my question is, why do you make stuff up?

[Giantevilhead]

The comments from Sawyer are very encouraging about the approach PE will take to female characters, and how they are dressed.

 

The comments from many other forum members are not. The issue here is not one of realism, it's of equality. The objectification and marginalisation of women in pretty much ALL media is an ongoing issue. I think many people would be surprised at just how much portrayals of anything in movies, games, TV, etc, can affect how they are perceived and treated in the real world. This issue hasn't gone away, and still gets brought up, because it's still a very real issue that needs to be addressed.

 

Expanding further on this will probably be counter-productive. And also lengthy. A lot of stuff has been written about this. But an example I have seen used in this thread was something like, "if you go out on the street you can see women everywhere who have clearly dressed to accentuate their boobs". This isn't evidence that supports your pro-boob armour argument, rather, it weakens it. The whole of society currently screams at women, through computer games, TV, movies, music videos, everything, that their value as a human being is tied to how attractive they are. Any media at all that undercuts that stereotype is a good thing.

 

Obsidian should be lauded for approaching this issue the way that they are.

 

This is exactly what makes games unfun. Trying to please every person who finds something "offensive" and people who supposedly speaks for all members of a group. I like how you pretty much said women are brainwashed sheep who are being repressed by the man to be strait mens fantasy. I mean, it could not be that women can think for themselves and LIKE to be attractive and know perfectly well that they are sexulizing themselves because they want too. Nope, must be tv, video games, movies...etc. You say I did not prove what I said, even though I used a REAL WORLD sample location to make my point. Do not believe me? Go to any place in the US where a large number of people (men and women) that is not religion based and tell me what women wear. oh wait, I forgot, women are sheep who cannot think for themselves according to you. This is the worst type of feminest argument, women are either with you, or they are brainwashed slaves to the system which you must free wether they want it or not.

 

You have to take into consideration who it is that actually defines concepts such as "normal" or "attractive."

 

For example, there are certain rules for how you dress and conduct yourself in a job interview but who came up with those rules? Who decided that you have to wear a tie and suit for job interviews in most western countries? The dominant culture and people in power set those rules and the people/cultures that are not in power have to conform to those rules. So in China, the dominant Han culture sets the rules and they are considered "normal" and "fair" for the majority of the population who are a part of that culture. However, it's not fair for people from cultures that do not have power like the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the Mongols, etc. Those people have to conform to codes of conduct imposed on them by the Han if they want to get jobs and become successful.

 

It's a similar situation with issues of "attractiveness" and "sexiness." It is certainly true that a lot of women do want to look "sexy" but who defines what "sexy" is? What are the social conventions that enforce compliance to that ideal? Who decided on the social penalties for people who don't try to look "sexy" and the social rewards for people who do?

 

"I am a heterosexual male, too, but I have a girlfriend (who is a gamer) and have rented with a bunch of women in the past. Every time I have played a computer game where women are objectified, and any of the girls have been watching me play, they often make some pretty scathing comments about the treatment of women in computer games. And I whole-heartedly agree with them"

 

And, I bet these same women have little or no issues with things like Harlequin romances, soap operas, male modelling, and other places where males are objectified. Double standards. L0L

 

You do understand that does nothing to support your point, right? Women being sexist towards men does not make it OK for men to be sexist towards women just like how Chinese people being racist towards Japanese people makes it OK for Japanese people to be racist towards Chinese people. A third grader can understand logic that simple.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[Furiku]

ME1 costumes didn't bother me. Everybody wore armor that looked like something that might be usable.

ME2 bugged the hell out of me, in that these two outfits give equal protection:

 

... and I'm not even talking about Jack.

I wouldn't even say the pandering is because of how the characters look, since that is much too superficial, and as demonstrated on Page 2 (or in certain games like Planescape) you can have complex characters no matter how they look, in the case of the example above it can even be explained by her being a Psy-user and blocking projectiles with her powers or similar. I don't even see the issue with the plasteel armor.

 

What bothers me with their games is the entirety of how they build them and the characterization around pandering and fanservice, it's like they go to the drawing boards for creating game characters and instead of trying to make them deep and unique and build them into the plot the best way possible they are trying to think of ways how they would fit around a set amount of "player romance" options or something and make them be ready to advance that "plot" whenever the player feels like it and is ready built around ego-stroking, and their execution of that is almost always entirely cringeworthy and doesn't work for ****. They also invented the term "player sexual" and are not only trying to pander to a certain audience, but as many as possible and are utterly destroying those characters in the process.

 

I'd rather there be no options for anything like that in the game, but nudity and sex thematized nevertheless.

 

 

You have to take into consideration who it is that actually defines concepts such as "normal" or "attractive."

Nature.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Furiku

[Luckmann]

"Issue of objectification".

Lost me there.

[Volourn]

"You do understand that does nothing to support your point, right? Women being sexist towards men does not make it OK for men to be sexist towards women just like how Chinese people being racist towards Japanese people makes it OK for Japanese people to be racist towards Chinese people. "

 

You do understand that you completely missed my point, right? The point is the double standard of its evil for men to publically admit they are attracted to sexy women but it's a-okay for women to publically admit they are attracted to sexy men.

 

On top of that, finding the female (or male) body sexy is not sexist in the sense that you are trying to make it be. I'm attracted to females and I'm not afraid to admit it. PCness can go to hell. Try to shame somebody else. Just like I find nothing wrong when a woman finds a man attractive. Good on 'em.

[obyknven]

I'm just going to leave this here

Brassier Armour

 

IINDO-PERSIAN, CHISELED, FEMALE WARRIOR / PRINCESS 'BREAST' ARMOUR with Attachment Buckles on each side - Measuring 5-1/4 inches in diameter x 5-1/4 inches long (including Spike-Tips), with 2-1/4 inches inside depth.

 

http://www.gnwtc.com/parmour4.htm

[AwesomeOcelot]

You have to take into consideration who it is that actually defines concepts such as "normal" or "attractive."

 

For example, there are certain rules for how you dress and conduct yourself in a job interview but who came up with those rules? Who decided that you have to wear a tie and suit for job interviews in most western countries? The dominant culture and people in power set those rules and the people/cultures that are not in power have to conform to those rules. So in China, the dominant Han culture sets the rules and they are considered "normal" and "fair" for the majority of the population who are a part of that culture. However, it's not fair for people from cultures that do not have power like the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the Mongols, etc. Those people have to conform to codes of conduct imposed on them by the Han if they want to get jobs and become successful.

 

It's a similar situation with issues of "attractiveness" and "sexiness." It is certainly true that a lot of women do want to look "sexy" but who defines what "sexy" is? What are the social conventions that enforce compliance to that ideal? Who decided on the social penalties for people who don't try to look "sexy" and the social rewards for people who do.

 

All culture is imposed on people by people with power. This in-group out-group thinking you're trying to impose on this discussion, on the people here, is wrong. Han Chinese didn't choose this, they had as much control as a Tibetan. A homosexual didn't choose to be born in Iran, but neither did a religious idiot. Your questions are simplistic at best, and nonsensical at worst. You should reassess your outlook and meditate on cultural evolution and the roles people play, this isn't some grand conspiracy. The truth is the answer to your questions are everyone, and no one, depending on how you define your terms.

[KhaineGB]

I've pretty much read all of this, and I have to say that if people are bothered by "Boob Armour", then I r disappoint.

 

The armour pictured in the OP (FemShep) seems at least slightly reasonable to me. Maybe tucking under the boobs and shaping could be a little unecessary, but I really don't see it as something to get up in arms over.

 

The female warrior wearing damn near nothing??? That annoys me. Not because it's overly sexualised or the like, but because it's completely impractical. Let me give you one such example.

 

 

That is an NPC from the Shackled City adventure (D&D 3rd edition/3.5). The armour pictured is SUPPOSED to be +1 spiked full plate...

 

...HOW is that supposed to be full plate??? She's damn near naked!

 

That's the kind of armour I have problems seeing in RPG's. If your female character is a warrior, they should be dressed appropriately. A little emphasis around the clevage I can tolerate, just don't show it off. You're asking for someone to shoot you in the chest!

[NOK222]

I'm just going to leave this here

Brassier Armour

 

IINDO-PERSIAN, CHISELED, FEMALE WARRIOR / PRINCESS 'BREAST' ARMOUR with Attachment Buckles on each side - Measuring 5-1/4 inches in diameter x 5-1/4 inches long (including Spike-Tips), with 2-1/4 inches inside depth.

 

http://www.gnwtc.com/parmour4.htm

 

Armor makers in the past could be silly too.

 

There's no point to women in realistic armour... they just keep losing their sword.

 

 

I like this pic, she needs to get her sword though

[Longknife]

There's no point to women in realistic armour... they just keep losing their sword.

 

 

 

Not to promote a negative stereotype of women being stupid or something, but...

 

I love how her face is so derp, her sword is missing and the horse looks like "OH GOD PLEASE GET THIS IDIOT OFF ME."

That statue's hysterical, gender be damned.

[Amentep]

There's no point to women in realistic armour... they just keep losing their sword.

 

 

 

Not to promote a negative stereotype of women being stupid or something, but...

 

I love how her face is so derp, her sword is missing and the horse looks like "OH GOD PLEASE GET THIS IDIOT OFF ME."

That statue's hysterical, gender be damned.

 

This is, I believe, the Joan of Arc Statue in Washington DC. The sword has been replaced now, as I understand it. Her expression is probably done this way to indicate that she was on a divine mission (thus looking heavenward heading to battle). That said, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that while Joan had a sword with her, she usually actually carried the standard into battle...