Feedback talk:User/Sunsmoon/Fully Clothed Ladies

Christ, Not this again. This is a FANTASY GAME.

"We make armor that looks protective and functional, but we also make armor that looks sexy and shows a generous level of strategically placed skin. We recognize the “fantasy” aspect of our game; if you are able to rain down balls of fire from the sky, your should not be a factor when it comes to body temperature, whether you are wearing your underwear or a fur coat." http://www.arena.net/blog/designing-humans#more-4188 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.243.152 (talk).

I think this is an amazing suggestion and should be implemented as soon as possible. I know if I was going to fight monsters (especially fireball raining ones) I would want as much protective as possible. I would wear bullet/arrow/dog proof armor that would deflect as much as possible and reduce damage taken. If armor quality and covering capacity were directly proportional to armor rating (as it would be in real life/an immersive FANTASY GAME), how many people would get minimum armor rating? And for the anonymous user above (Phlemhacker? Though it should be spelled "phlegm"), I would recommend you don't offend people with religious comments that aren't politically correct, or "vain". As Guild Wars 3 Perhaps pointed out, we can't give the scholars the soldier's armor, because that would be unbalanced. So the scholars could just wear like some sort of robe (or whatever the armor set is) that is comfortable enough for them to allow proper spellcasting/studying, and it could just be made of fibers that will deflect attacks, and possibly inscribed with runes that enhance it's protective qualities. This would provide sensible protection, can still be attractive, and satisfy everyone (except maybe the perverts, who would rather be in vegas than playing GW2, haha). Kormon Balser 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thin clothing can easily provide moderate protection, as any competent scientist can tell you. Kormon Balser 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think characters should be given more pratical armor options but I must admite forcing more form covering armor is way to far. It might break immersion but a big part of MMOs is customizing your character the way you want it to be. People should have more form covering options but I don't think that sort of armor/outfits should be forced on people whenever they step out of town. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:209.116.90.194 (talk).

Please remember to sign your comments.

As far as my reasoning, Arenanet has made it very clear that they want there to be a sense of immersion. I find it very difficult to believe that, when slaughtering undead, I'm moderatly comfortable wearing thigh high fishnet, a tube top, and full-length gloves (as shown in Arenanets own blog post). I can accept this, to a degree, since it's scholar armor, but the heavy armor shown before is much harder for me to understand. Take out the thigh-highs and turn the top into one like the far left male top, and it'd make much more sense, and still show a fair amount of skin, pleasing (to a degree) both parties. ♥ suns (talk & cont) 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

AGREE, AGREE, AGREE! REASONABLE ARMOR FOR FEMALE CHARACTERS!! Weindrasi 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi

While there are not as many as women, the men have their share of impractical and unbelievable outfits, so why is nobody complaining about that? -Cheesethief

Cheesethief you whine about the men and their impractical outfits in just about every post regarding female armor. Did you have an abusive mother badmouth you for being male and tell you that women were superior to you? Or are you just trolling? Yeah, we KNOW there are impractical outfits for men too. And I'm sure everyone here would agree that those are just as rediculous as the slut female armors. But you said it yourself: there are MORE impractical women's outfits. Undoubtedly, there should be a few slutty options because that appeals to a certain group of customers. However, the options for slutty women's outfits should be more equal in number to the slutty men's outfits, as a minor option that no one is forced to take. No one is complaining about the men because with them, no player is FORCED to dress that way, as the majority of outfits aren't slutty. Weindrasi 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi

Maybe Anet could take those few slutty armor designs and make alternate versions of them that are modest. We could have an options setting for those few outfits, and you could choose which of two versions you want to be displayed, the slutty one, or the modest one. That way, every one can choose to see what they want. Kormon Balser 02:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Arenanet has said they're making both kinds of armor, so you are certainly welcome which kind you like. So, unless it actually bothers you that other players are wearing these skin showing armors, I don't think you need to worry. And to be frank, at this point in development, its too late to really change it. Unless you're suggesting that Anet delete all the work they've done on armors and set them back an extra two years or so....--Will Greyhawk 19:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does bother me. And why would they have to delete everything and take two years to make a few minor adjustments on just a few sets of armor? If that's all they can accomplish in two years, maybe we oughta rethink GW2. No, if they were able to redesign the Sylvari this late in, then a few minor armor adjustments would be no problem. Kormon Balser 13:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have such a problem with it you can go play something else. "We" need to rethink Guild Wars 2? No, there is no "we", this is their game and they have no obligation whatsoever to bend to your will because you have an issue with with some extra skin showing. -Cheesethief

Haha, since it is hard to pick up on sarcasm in text I will expound for you. Will Greyhawk seems to think that it would take GW2 2 years to do some minor touch-ups on a few sets of armor. If that is all that Anet could accomplish in 2 years, then they will have not made a good game (which they obviously have, and can do much, much more in that time). I think we have all seen that Anet is capable of design changes this late in developement. The rest of your last comment I will only address with a simple "Tu Quoque." Anet knows that the standards of the game need to conform to the standards of the players to be able to sell it. We recognize that many of the male adolescent players want to see skimpy armor. There are also many people that don't want to see any skimpy armor. These drastically different viewpoints call for a simple compromise. I would like to know how possible it would be to program in an options setting that would allow people to view whichever set of armor they desire at the time. The options could simply be designated as "cold weather" and "warm weather" options, with this being the difference between them. Simply lengthening a few pieces of armor on a few sets, would be all that is required for the other viewing option. Please comment, and suggest helpful criticism, or how this could be improved upon. Thank you.  :) Kormon Balser 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My "2 years" was arbitrary, I'll admit, but not off the mark. After all, it took about a year to finish re-designing the Sylvari. Cheesethief is correct. Anet shouldn't bow to your will. On this issue there are generally three groups of people: guys that get off on the "skimpy armor", people that are ambivalent, and you. Anet can't make everyone happy, they've acknowledged this, and are moving forward. As such there isn't enough reason or support for Arenanet to take time that could go elsewhere to redesign the armors (which isn't as easy as you think) or to put in what I guess would be some kinda filter on the client side?...into the game. Which also wouldn't be as easy as you seem to think.--Will Greyhawk 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bow to my will?" Seriously? Once again, "Tu Quoque" Kormon Balser 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Anet has no choice but to bow to our will. If they do not bow to our will, no one will buy the game. WE are their customers. There is a large demographic of buyers who want the skimpy armor, however there is also a very large demographic of buyers who does not. In fact, as I've read various blogs and opinions over the past few months, it would appear that the majority of the gamer base would prefer the ultra-sexualization of players to be TONED DOWN. I hold to my former statement: skimpy armor should be available and easily-attainable for those who desire it, however it should still be a MINORITY. We should not be seeing the majority of female (or male) characters running around in thongs, because in most cases where that is seen, that actually isn't voluntary on the part of the players. It's forced, out of having few to no alternatives. Think female elementalist and female mesmer Weindrasi 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi

I will simply point to the fact that this will be a massively popular game to point out that you are incorrect. It is by far not the majority of people wanting it toned down. People are not going to post blogs about their ambivalence toward the subject, and if they are for skimpy armor why would they post anything about it if it is already implemented? The only people posting about it are people that have a problem with it. Out of 5 million some odd players you've probably come across what? 50 blogs? Total majority. -Cheesethief

It could be worse. They could be wearing this in combat. Previously Unsigned 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Immodesty is immoral, unchaste, obscene, lascivious, and, as in the case of GW2, impractical. I will not stand for it. Kormon Balser 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No. No it is not. Shooting someone is immoral. Wearing skimpy clothing is not. Sticking your penis in everything is unchaste. Wearing revealing clothing is not. Winking while licking a lollipop like a porn star is lascivious. Wearing revealing clothing, doesn't have to be. It's even practical. It's cool when it is hot out and allows better freedom of movement. Derp, not everyone is a mormon. -Cheesethief

guildwars 2 is an mmo, your wants are not the only consideration. As evidenced by this thread, many people prefer revealing armour. No-one is forcing your character to wear it, there are a range of styles available for your character to wear, wear the ones you want but don't try to prevent others doing the same. Ealias 15:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Don't you think its sounds too....well.. too much? Fully clothed is not a problem, sexy clothes also not a problem as long it doesn't looks like a fanatic fashion or sl*t which shows some sensitive part on woman or even almost naked... Fashion art is unlimited and i believe for a professional game like this, you will not found the fashion that looks like a hentai game fashion which exaggerate some part... beside, i dont like the way you say it. if you don't like it, you can change the looks in game anyway.. we can't express all human character with fully clothed fashion... lets leave the art work to them..

Yeah, I don't see a problem with the armor in GW2. There are plenty of armor sets that cover the body rather well. In fact, I've not run into a single armor set that I have a real problem with yet, including the few I've seen that are rather "showy". The fact that we have good-looking armor that isn't revealing in the least makes me completely cool with the few sets that are a bit risque--and I do mean a bit, all things considered. I mean, it's not like we're forced to wear armor designed like the stuff in Tera Online. And thank heavens for that. THEN I'd be complaining. Seriously, if you think GW2 is bad, look at Tera. I played the trial, I know. Most of the Tera armor is skanky. And GW2? GW2 does not have a big problem in the "too 'sexy'" armor department.

Besides that, it is a fantasy game. If scholars are wearing robes in the first place, it doesn't matter how much or how little cloth he or she is wearing: a woman running around in a bikini/undies (which they don't, unless you're naked) is just as susceptible to getting impaled as another woman wearing a robe that covers her body from head to toe. Even if she was wearing TWO robes, she'd still get impaled very easily. It's cloth. Cloth doesn't really protect you from anything except maybe a sunburn, so who cares that much about how much or little it is? Heavy armor is a different story, but even then, maybe I really want to be Xena the Warrior Princess. Obviously she didn't mind fighting without a full suit of hard-to-move-in and sweaty-as-butts armor!

No, really, I just don't see any reason for complaining about GW2 armor. We have plenty of armor sets that DO cover the "scandalous" areas completely, and if you do map completions/story quests, you get more transmutation stones or whatever than you could even hope for. So find armor you like, just play the game, transmute if you get armor you don't like, and walla. Problem solved. If other people choose to run around with their cleavage showing, that's their choice, and it shouldn't offend you because that's just silly. If they don't want their cleavage showing blatantly, they have ways of getting around that. I'm pretty sure the beginner armor for elementalists isn't all that risque, so if you don't like the top for the first clothes you craft as a tailor, just do your story quests/map completions until you get a transmutation stone and use the appearance of the starter armor until you get something else. Or even armor from your personal story quest. I know for a fact there are plenty of cloth armor tops that cover the chest completely, and several are from the personal story quests.

Yes please! I would like more tastefully sexy, but fully clothed options. The exotic armor I finally managed to craft for my Ele just made me want to gag. All those stupid ruffles, really? It may be a fantasy game but would you really be caught dead fighting in that? =( I'm a girl, I like my girls to look cute or sexy, or whatever, but not ridiculous. A little more fashion sense and practicality would go a long way. Tigrejita 18:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)