So why do video game women wear very little armor?

[Gold Vanguard]

Is this a law in video games? You have men wearing huge amounts of armor and etc while the female wears something like a chain mail bikini.

[secondworld]

"Is this a law in video games?"

This is a law of all media.

[Leif]

Is this a law in video games? You have men wearing huge amounts of armor and etc while the female wears something like a chain mail bikini.

It's a shallow technique to attract heterosexual male gamers. =/

[Esau of Isaac]

Is this a law in video games? You have men wearing huge amounts of armor and etc while the female wears something like a chain mail bikini.

There are several games where the men where little to no armor at all. But in any event the reason chainmail bikinis exist is obvious: To evoke the erotic qualities women possess. And, given that many games today --especially more violent games with combat-centric gameplay-- are geared towards a predominantly male demographic, it goes without saying that the developer will tailor the visuals to be pleasing to them.

Personally I'm for more blatant sexualization in videogames, but everyone else seems deadset against it. Stabbing people a billion times and having geysers of blood shoot out of defeated opponents is the next big thing, but showing people as more sexual beings is objectification and disgusting. I hate other people why cant they be more like me

[Agro]

DEY ALL STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMEN WHO DON'T NEED NO ARMOUR

[Shuuda]

Armour is for wussies anyway. A real warrior just needs something to tie his bits down and he's good to go. Women don't need that, but they can use the string as a bra.

[Toogee]

"Is this a law in video games?"

This is a law of all media.

Indeed. Sex sells.

[BrightBow]

Indeed. Sex sells.

But not what little they can provide.

Porn for every possibly taste can be found easily available on the Internet while video games will be kicked up to the dreaded AO rating if they show as much as a woman's nipple. So they can't really compete with that.

The only explanation for their persistent use of these tropes is simply a lack of respect towards their male customers.

Edited March 22, 2013 by BrightBow

[Nanami Touko]

Personally I'm for more blatant sexualization in videogames, but everyone else seems deadset against it. Stabbing people a billion times and having geysers of blood shoot out of defeated opponents is the next big thing, but showing people as more sexual beings is objectification and disgusting. I hate other people why cant they be more like me

hey as long as it's both genders, sign me up ~'3'~

[Esau of Isaac]

But not what little they can provide.

Porn for every possibly taste can be found easily available on the Internet while video games will be kicked up to the dreaded AO rating if they show as much as a woman's nipple. So they can't really compete with that.

No. There are several games (such as the Witcher and its sequel, for example) which retain M ratings yet show nudity. Porn games can't make it in retail, but that doesn't mean that sexualization of characters isn't being used to pander to a specific demographic.

The only explanation for their persistent use of these tropes is simply a lack of respect towards their male customers.

Well I respect their lack of respect D:?

[Rehab]

I've never seen any data on how media with larger armor coverage disparities between gender have actually performed better financially versus media with smaller or nonexistent ones, which I think would be interesting to see. Though I'm guessing the sheer relative volume of the former works out there might make it less of a fair fight, if taken in aggregate.

The coverage disparity itself is particularly weird to me when the work actually has examples of more fully protected women in armor, but there are still some examples in it of other women in armor with less coverage than their male counterparts get. I particularly remember how, though I liked both of these games a lot overall, Dragon Age: Origins went back and forth on this in some instances, and Rainie kind of stuck out like a sore toe among Stocke's squad in Radiant Historia.

I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure it's a rule that the less someone is covered up, the more sex-positive their portrayal is, but then I'm a fuddy-duddy who prefers context for me fanservice attractive getups, arrr

unless it's a male character getting the sexualized treatment then I'll jump at the sight of it and go WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP because I'm probably watching/playing fanservice for the ladies to whom it pertains, fanservice for the gays (lo), or something made by either a lady to whom it pertains or a gay dude basically for the sole purpose of being fan-service (smut)

I am a hypocrite if you can't already tell

e:

But not what little they can provide.

Porn for every possibly taste can be found easily available on the Internet while video games will be kicked up to the dreaded AO rating if they show as much as a woman's nipple. So they can't really compete with that.

The only explanation for their persistent use of these tropes is simply a lack of respect towards their male customers.

Not that I disagree that it's a bit insulting to assume the more skin something shows, the quicker ALL male consumers will leap to spend money on it, but I think it should be noted it's not particularly respectful towards female customers, either :p

Edited March 23, 2013 by Rehab

[sunshineYON]

Maybe I've played too much FE but female characters generally have more skill and speed and male characters tend to have more strength and defense. Minimal armor takes advantage of their lithe advantage and do not bog them down with heavy plates that would otherwise put a toll on their relatively weaker frames. Though having more speed and skill because of no armor and males having more defense and strength because of armor is kind of circular, but you get the idea.

A more realistic spin on the answer to your question, or an attempt of it.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Cucco Jump

[BrightBow]

Not that I disagree that it's a bit insulting to assume the more skin something shows, the quicker ALL male consumers will leap to spend money on it, but I think it should be noted it's not particularly respectful towards female customers, either :p

The reason I didn't write it that way is because I am not sure that publishers even acknowledge that they exist. Because I wanted to point out what their choice of designs says about their view on the people that they are deliberately targeting.

Edited March 23, 2013 by BrightBow

[Rehab]

Yeah, I just mean to say that's basically the same thing as disrespect for females customers, just in a much harsher form. They obviously wouldn't do it if they didn't think they could get away with it, by ignoring the existence and concerns of female customers, they're disrespecting them as people in favor of the straight dude's money. But we're basically saying the same thing so I shouldn't harp on your choice of words this much, sorry.

Maybe I've played too much FE but female characters generally have more skill and speed and male characters tend to have more strength and defense. Minimal armor takes advantage of their lithe advantage and do not bog them down with heavy plates that would otherwise put a toll on their relatively weaker frames. Though having more speed and skill because of no armor and males having more defense and strength because of armor is kind of circular, but you get the idea.

A more realistic spin on the answer to your question, or an attempt of it.

Even if the female characters do play to those differentiated roles and attributes, and they're trying to differentiate it visually, this is too often expressed by something like lower-cut breastplates, or the armor stopping at the level of a short skirt, and overall leaving things exposed. Light, loose covering isn't necessarily going to make someone less maneuverable, but even that gets shunned a lot for "strategic exposure."

Like, Jill, Astrid, Marcia, Titania, Tanith, Sigrun and Lucia at least have designs that cover them well enough while allowing them to believably fulfill roles with varying levels of speediness, and I don't remember ever stopping ingame and going "what is this dude wearing this ain't no sense" or anything.

Like there are loose fits and wearing less for less encumbrance, sure, but then there are boob windows and thigh highs.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Rehab

[Disinnocence]

Now, I find it hilarious that when a game(or whatever else)comes out with SOMETHING with some form of nudity, everyone gets their panties in a knot about it; BUT, we can have stuff with ripping people's heads off, and no one cares.

It's funny what society gets angry about.

Society's a funny thing.

Now, as for the matter at hand, as some people have already pointed out, games are(mostly)directed towards dudes, dudes like women, so, they put in chain mail bikinis.

I don't mind.

[Thor Odinson]

Personally I'm for more blatant sexualization in videogames, but everyone else seems deadset against it. Stabbing people a billion times and having geysers of blood shoot out of defeated opponents is the next big thing, but showing people as more sexual beings is objectification and disgusting. I hate other people why cant they be more like me

But see, if we want to portray women as sexual beings, the'd be written as such in their characters and they would be more initiative of sexual relationships. The sexualisation of their clothing doesn't match with their characters for the most part, so it feels more like objectification because they look sexy but they aren't written to have that sexual autonomy. I'm personally fine with sexy if it fits the character in question, or if it's equal opportunity fanservice, but more often than not dudes get things that make sense and women get chainmail bikini disregarding their character type.

Boob window annoys me the most on armour 'cus you might as well don't wear armour and go full myrmidon or zerker or something. It serves no purpose as armour since it leaves a vital point wide open and you might as well take off that piece of metal that's likely weighing you down if you really want cleavage.

I like things that actually make sense.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Thor Odinson

[Rehab]

Different people get up in arms about nudity for different reasons. There are legit moral guardian types out there honestly trying to establish no-fun zones, but other people are just upset when it's not a respectful display of nudity, as in one that is clearly meant for the enjoyment of one group at the expense of another, and/or one that serves a purpose without leaning too heavily towards being exploitative. (unless it's smut and it ain't really care.) (some weirdos like me don't even like their smut too exploitative, at least without being equal-opportunity and sex-positive ro ro fayt the puwer, but anyway.)

Put it this way: How many times is it the male character in something being the one who wears less than the female, particularly in places and situations where we'd expect most people to prefer to wear more?

On the other hand, we kind of never know what people will latch onto/identify with and not feel threatened by, so somebody can easily end up enjoying something that wasn't aiming for their demographic's enjoyment or even respect at all, but the issue still boils down to just what it is we expect to see in media, and what we expect it to mean.

A lack of respect for (human) life is also a thing, yes, but it's mostly another can of worms to get into. I also think it's easier to recognize when violence is being exaggerated to cartoonish proportions and adjust accordingly for a lot of us than is sex, but anyway

Edited March 23, 2013 by Rehab

[Thor Odinson]

Rehab can I hire you to talk for me from now on

I agree with a lot of your posts except you're like

10 times better at words than I am

[Rehab]

Sure, I charge one compliment by the hour

(You're a pretty good speaker/writer yourself I thunk though!)

[Esau of Isaac]

But see, if we want to portray women as sexual beings, the'd be written as such in their characters and they would be more initiative of sexual relationships. The sexualisation of their clothing doesn't match with their characters for the most part, so it feels more like objectification because they look sexy but they aren't written to have that sexual autonomy. I'm personally fine with sexy if it fits the character in question, or if it's equal opportunity fanservice, but more often than not dudes get things that make sense and women get chainmail bikini disregarding their character type.

I can actually find the dichotomy arousing, so I'll have to disagree, though I can agree with the premise of what you're saying.

Aesthetically I think most games are going to try to look for a sexy image anyways because it's just what looks better. We have armor we see in games that are not at all representative of the genuine article, even in games and entertainment that were made to model such worlds. In the same sense that the majority of male leads are courageous, well-built handsome men I similarly think it's pretty normal for women to be dressed in a sexy manner.

Put it this way: How many times is it the male character in something being the one who wears less than the female, particularly in places and situations where we'd expect most people to prefer to wear more?

Typically male sexual characteristics don't involve lots of skin showing. If we're talking about objectification of males it happens all the time, even sexually, just not in the same way. There are different standards for different sexes, of course.

Edit: All this said, I will admit it leans more towards the male spectrum, again in my opinion because of the target audience.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[IGdood]

Breasts.

Curves.

Oh and...uh...breasts.

[Knife]

What kind of stupid question is this? Of course it is.

Boobs for president 2016. Approval ratings are guaranteed to be 50% (or whatever proportion of the population is straight male + lesbian).

[Momo]

The problem is that women aren't allowed to wear anything but these godawful looking "armors". Sexualizing both men and women wouldn't solve the problem, because women still have no place to not be put in this situation.

[Sasori]

They are in that armour because people want them in that armour I guess. I myself prefer the more graceful and mature females like Titania and Cecilia. They aren't so in your face with their looks while still being appealing.

Still i'm not against ladies dressed in skimpy outfist as long as not every female wears them and if they don't take it too far like Etna from disgaea and Nowi for example.

[Knight]

I remember I was playing Oblivion a while ago, as a female mage character. I fought a bandit with a normal looking iron plate, killed him, put it on my female character, and it became a metal bikini.

I've always found this kind of thing stupid, I don't mind a little sexualization, but with armour it makes absolutely no sense. I could imagine the meeting in which a whole bunch of commanders were thinking what to dress their female soldiers in. "Hmm, do we want to this to repel impact, or should we show cleavage?" I bet their names were Sain, Luke, Gatrie, Levin, Saul, Virion and Inigo.