Why do people get so outraged over bikini armor and boobplate?

>>53898306
(you)

File: 1495617570146.jpg (70KB, 751x1063px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 751x1063px

>>53898306
Post bikini armor!

File: 4fe9c1340f7e29f0efb6667230aa4646.jpg (232KB, 1163x1864px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1163x1864px

>>53898437

File: 1493421897910.jpg (446KB, 608x846px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 608x846px

>>53898456

File: 1431481692228.jpg (133KB, 593x647px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 593x647px

>>53898306
>if you can tolerate the presence of absolutely nonsensical magic
I can't

>>53898306
because women can not accept that they are the vast minority in video games, and any marketer worth half his sense is going to try to appeal to the largest target audiance which is, guess what, men. Meaning they are gonna make the women sexy and look sexy because no one wants to see a fat flabby character running around, and people would much rather have eye candy then reality.

File: 1483940112124.png (1010KB, 788x876px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 788x876px

>>53898484

Because it is retarded. Why wear a metal bikini that chafes horribly and becomes sweaty when you can just... wear a bikini?

>it is another fucking mongoloid reddit numale American-with-zero-understanding-of-medieval-martial-arts thread

Fucking off yourself already degenerate.

File: 187802ea4c98d4986a92714017c25bcc.jpg (200KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x900px

>>53898306

Because consistency is important in a story.

Of course bikini armor looks ridiculous - it's really just a thinly-disguised excuse to have half-naked women running around for the sexy factor. That's fine for cheesecake.

But when you get into a longer, more involved story with something approaching internal logic, where everything fits together and has a reason for existing, the boobplate stands out as a cheap attention-getter.

I enjoy both boobplate and realistic armor...when they fit the situation.

Why they gotta be metal tho

Like if we're going to say these women are magically protected that's fine but why aren't they just wearing normal skimpy clothing

>>53898306
I personally don't give a fuck as long as it's consistent.
If the women are in fetish armor and the men are in fetish armor, all's right with the world.
But when the women are in fetish armor and the men are in (approximately) functional armor, it highlights the nonsense.

Probably because it has no defensive purpose and would be extremely uncomfortable and difficult to take care of.
If you're going to wear nothing, then wear nothing in a comfortable manner. Wear a cloth bikini if you really want a bikini.

>>53898573

Women make up slightly more than 50% of gaming sales, tho. They aren't marketed to by the big studios yet, but that's the economic truth.

It's the same in RPGs where women are also the majority but largely play online in MUDs and MUSHes; it generally freaks nerds out when they learn that dungeon-crawling RPGs are just a fraction of roleplaying as a whole.

File: 20170428_023908_thumb.jpg (31KB, 554x311px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 554x311px

>>53898836
>Women make up slightly more than 50% of gaming sales, tho.
They really don't. Sorry, but playing Farmville and Candy Crush don't count, just like playing Monopoly or Catan at a yearly family get-together doesn't make them gamers either. You should try not reading shitty clickbait sometime and look at the actual sales numbers, because the vast majority of buyers and players ARE still male, whether it's in video games or tabletop gaming.

File: 1445795207316.gif (2MB, 196x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 196x300px

>>53898836
>the 50% lie
You can do better than that.

>>53898901
I would smack the shit out of my kid they did that shit to me

>>53898306
>I mean, if you can tolerate the presence of absolutely nonsensical magic

Just because you add a fantastical element doesn't mean you should have to assume that no rules no longer apply.
The world still follows real world rules unless we're specifically told it doesn't.
There's still gravity, people still need to eat to survive.

Just like when you are watching a horror movie where there are zombies, or vampires, people can rightfully complain that the movie breaks your immersion when the 14 year old who's being chased by zombies suddenly has the strength to throw a car at the zombies chasing her.
Saying
>but if you can accept zombies, why can't you accept that 16 year old human girls have superhuman strength
Is a retarded fucking argument.

Every girl I know that plays WoW has 0 problems with bikini plate.

I like women more in proper gear.

They feel more like people than objects you should fap to.

>>53898891

Why don't they count?

File: 146153095614653368.jpg (33KB, 400x800px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x800px

>>53898306

While some of it is the western sexual taboo, there are legitimate cases to be angry about it. It's all about what's appropriate to the setting and whether it's applied consistently.

Boobplate being forced into a realistic setting is annoying and immersion breaking. Boobplate always being paired with more realistic and sensible armour for men is inconsistent and annoying.

>>53898306
I am pissed people keep going "sex sells" and then making scantily clad big breasted ladies.

I want goddamn shark teeth and moderate breasts, you shits. And LATEX, not BIKINIS. I can't stress this enough.

>>53898973
Not that guy, but that would be because those aren't what we're talking about when we're talking about video games; this is more or less just a cheap rhetorical trick.

>>53898985

Great pic, thanks.

File: 14941145756650.jpg (41KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 512x384px

>>53898891
Here's a graph that's a bit less skewed

>>53898937

That's because youre a shitty parent with no sense of humor. That shit is hilarious.

>>53898891

Women buy shitty mobile games because the stuff made is all marketed to dudes. Eventually someone is going to figure out how to sell AAA titles to women on PC and consoles by not focusing on cliche nerdbro bullshit and they're going to rake in money.

Magic the Gathering? 38% of the player base is women. World of Warcraft? 33% women. PC gaming as a whole? 54, according to Nielsen. There's a huge market there that the industry isn't great at supplying.

Our hobby is filled with women. They just don't go anywhere near nerdbros, resulting in nerdbros thinking they don't exist. lol just lol

>>53899013
Users != sales
Come back with a graph that shows how much each of those users spends.

>>53898306
Bikini armor is fucking retarded and Joan of Arc is history's greatest waifu.

>>53898973
Farmville and Candycrush are not real games, simple. They are shit tier time sinks for normies. When someone says they play video games, you assume they mean some console, handheld, or pc; not some phone app.

>>53899015
Nah, on its own it is fucking flaccid.
You have to work it into a greater narrative involving an enormous asshole first.

>>53898995

It may not be what we mean but why shouldn't companies be aware of this fact and take it into account when determining marketing? If women like mobile games, casual games, roleplaying games.... at what point is it ok for us to stop pretending something "doesn't count" ? Because it sounds like if we're just finding the biggest audience and throwing everything at them, shouldn't major video game companies all start making cute cat games for iphone?

Why wouldn't board game companies want to appeal to women, if women really do play a lot of (non-euro) board games? If a woman is into monopoly, risk, and catan what's to stop her from seeing Ladies and Gentleman and grabbing it? Why is it that despite plenty of women owning a 3ds and liking games like nintendogs and pokemon, we still wind up with weird tits characters in fire emblem (a game about tactical combat and making character get married so they can have babies)? Why isn't it relevant that mobile game players are women when we *do* have triple A companies making mobile games which might draw these women in?

Anyway my point is, it's fine to say "x% of this-type-of-game is women" but saying "YA BUT.. BUt.. GAMES ONLY COUNT IF I LIKE THEM!" is dumb. Does the witcher 3 count? Cities:skylines? Bejeweled? Neko Atsume? Fire Emblem: Heroes? And if women prefer stories and playing make-believe or whatever why wouldn't it make sense for a major game company to release some female-friendly rpgs, or at least ones that aren't offputting?

(I know you're not the guy as you said, I'm not mad at you just annoyed in general at the type of people who immediately discount literal statistics because 'well that game..isnt..um..')

>>53898676
>But when the women are in fetish armor and the men are in (approximately) functional armor, it highlights the nonsense.

usually when that happens though the men are burly STR warriors who take hits head on and the women are lithe rogues or maybe casters who aren't getting hit much at all

>>53899047

Dude you're fucking insane, I bet if he had that you'd say "Yea but they're probably children! Children aren't people!"

>>53899049

Why? Why doesn't it count if they're spending money on it? To a games company, I mean. Who the fuck cares? And wouldn't games companies be smart to try to get those candycrushers into their games by making them appealing to that huge demographic? The argument seems to be that women just aren't interested in games, which is clearly not the case. It seems like, overwhelmingly, they do play games. Just not the same games you do.

>>53899049

Meanwhile Konami shutters their AAA division to make mobile games. There's a ton of money in there because it isn't focused solely on selling to nerds.

We're going to lose AAA budgets to fucking Farmville because people won't give up their fucking bikini armors and waifus being in everything.

>>53898949
So you can swallow "the physical and metaphysical principles of this world allow fire breathing dragons to survive" but not "the physical and metaphysical principles of this world make it so skilled people in skimpy clothing have a surprisingly high survivability?"

>>53898306

cute

>>53899124

Exactly this. D&D has fairly tasteful art for the most part and has since 3.0. A few exceptions in both genders (Hennet. hnngg..) but overall pretty tasteful and appropriate for normies, all ages, both genders, etc. And D&D is obviously doing pretty damn well.

>>53899132

Not him, but I think the point is that one doesn't always follow on from another.

A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones, for example, is a setting where firebreathing dragons are perfectly appropriate, but scantily clad women- At least, those who are meant to be taken seriously as warriors- are not.

Although it's a slightly different matter if he's trying to say the latter never makes sense, which is ludicrous. Fantasy settings can define how things work however they like, and as long as a setting is clear and consistent in choosing aesthetic over authenticity, I'm cool with it.

>>53899124
>We're going to lose AAA budgets to fucking Farmville because people won't give up their fucking bikini armors and waifus being in everything.

It's not geeks that have the say in this. They buy games that appeal to them, not make them.

But that said, I can totally live with AAA gaming dying. Classics like Doom were made on what would now be considered a shoe-string budget.

>>53899179
I didn't say it always follows, but it's basically a willful choice to not suspend disbelief for something like that in universes where forces like fate control reality.

Hell, maybe wearing a battle bikini improves their wyrd and makes them unlikely to die horribly.

>>53899174
>>53899124

But some women like bikini armour. It's not just a male thing.

Not all of them, and not in all contexts, but I honestly think it's more about how it's used and executed than the content itself.

The statistics from hero based games like League of Legends tell an interesting story- The attractive female heroes are almost always extremely popular among female players. But because the game is designed around playing that character, they're all given a sense of agency and personal strength- They're hot, but they're also awesome.

Contrast that to a lot of games where the sexy ladies are window dressing or rewards, you can see why that's a lot less appealing to female players.

We don't need less hot women, we need more hot women with character and agency, as well as some hot dudes for the women interested in the fantasy of rescuing a handsome prince.

>>53899174

and I should point out, plenty of games with skimpy stupid outfits on every girl do great too. MTG for example. But not with normies. Video games you have the same dumb outfits.. games like fire emblem(fates and heroes, specifically) and league of legends have a bunch of awful female characters. I played league for a bit and was always really put off by their stupid art for the women. Just pinup garbage really, while being so reluctant to objectify the men. It's a stupid double standard and that's the real problem to me.

>>53899182

I would be totally fine with an end to this 60$ game bullshit.

Honestly I don't see any guy making a big deal out of bikini armor. We're mostly desensitized to that nowdays so seeing a girl in bikini armor is about as normal as seeing her in full armor, it doesn't really as long as she's conveyed to be attractive. And that can be done easily while wearing full armor or leather.
The only issue is people coming in and complaining about the right to have bikini armor. If the designer believes bikini armor fits best then he should perfectly be allowed to do whatever he wants. And if people like the design they'll support it, otherwise they'll go to the designs in full armor.
Business isn't stupid, they do what works, and if bikini armor sells they'll continue doing it. If full plate armor sells they'll swap to that.

File: 5704c534e1952.jpg (927KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1920x1080px

>>53899227

>reluctant to objectify the men

>>53898306
On the subject of bikini armor... if you want to look sexy and not cover yourself in real physical armor, why not just wear a (optionally, enchanted) cloth bikini? That seems like it would be equally sexy and more comfortable.

>>53899118
Are video slot machines video games? Because people spend shit tons of money on those and have far more in common with mobile "games" than they do with traditional video games.

>>53899253

Because if cloth can be enchanted to be protective, why couldn't metal be enchanted to be comfortable?

>>53899226
>We don't need less hot women, we need more hot women with character and agency, as well as some hot dudes for the women interested in the fantasy of rescuing a handsome prince.


I agree with this. I'm totally fine with some sexy ladies, and in fact if their outfits are cool I'll be totally into it. Not sexually or whatever, but I like cool character designs. But I also like them to have personalities! And some equally sexy dudes to make things fair.

A good example is the game Smite. A ton of the dudes are shirtless. Not necessarily hot or w.e, but it sort of takes the cringe out of some of the mostly-naked ladies. Also, they're goddesses which sort of makes it ok too. Aphrodite should be naked, that's just her MO. Though I think putting fishnets on Nemesis is fucking stupid and skanky.

>>53899132
Because if you were serious about the latter then they'd be wearing comfortable clothing instead of a metal bra on bare skin. Six-limbed dragons also destroy my immersion because their wings are more often than not either barely attached to their bodies or competing with their arms for structural support.

>>53899253

desu I find women most fappable when they're dressed in fur loincloths like they live out in the jungle or something

>>53899273

We've been sexualizing gods since the dawn of time. Why stop now?

>>53899283
Oh, so you're a complete sperg. Well, you do you.

>>53899253
Maybe fate favours the appearance.

File: nep localization.jpg (26KB, 245x337px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 245x337px

>>53899028
Every person I know offline that plays Neptunia is a girl

>>53899303
If you wanna justify it with "lol it's magic" then I'm gonna ride you on it until you admit "no actually it's just personal appeal". It's fine if you like that kind of stuff but don't pretend you have any place to be smug about it.

>>53899047

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/device-ownership-2015-about-this-report/

page 13 of Pew's survey on electronic device ownership. 40% of American adults own a game console, gender split is 37% men, 42% women, (speculation, of course, but of the 21% that didn't offer their gender do you really think we'll see more men than women?)

>>53899342

Being fair, that was probably skewed by the absolutely insane popularity of the Wii.

>>53899335
You've already accepted flying, firebreathing lizards and wizards faggot. You're already in the "lol it's magic" camp. Not being able to suspend your disbelief for a six limbed dragon is pretty fucking spergy.

>>53899124
Because obviously it's Western grognards moaning about covered midriffs and not the cancerous Japanese attitude which feeds into itself by being the only market Japanese companies care about.

>>53898306
I don't mind it, I just think it's perhaps overly abundant yet most much of it is uninspired. I don't need armor that's historical or realistic, but I do enjoy armor that's stylistic and not obviously fetishistic (subtly fetishistic is fun though).

File: Batrape.jpg (36KB, 262x489px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 262x489px

>>53898306
>When the woman so big and stronk her body is stronger than any metal, and her "bikini armor" is just sparkly lingerie.

>>53898306
boobplate just makes neckbeards look even more like pathetic perverts. which is why i hate It. Being gay looking at female fantasy armor just makes it look absolutely retarded since i'm not thinking with my dick.

>>53899365
I'll be happy to sperg about oversized flying animals, firebreathing, and wizards too, because I put enough thought into my more realistic settings that I leave them out if I can't justify them, and I freely admit that it's personal appeal in less realistic settings. Just admit that you prioritize your dick over narrative integrity and I'll happily add my tentpole to the campground.

>>53898306
I'm not a fan of bikini armor but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it as long as it fits the games tone. My main issue is when the men have proper armor while the women don't, its just visually jarring.

Bikini armor isn't bad because it's impractical/nonsensical. It's bad because well-written and realistic/interesting female characters likely wouldn't wear bikini armor. It's just a cheap gimmick to get sweaty nerds to buy into nerd shit and I fall for it literally every single time.

>>53899429
>It's bad because well-written and realistic/interesting female characters likely wouldn't wear bikini armor.

You don't have much contact with women if you think there aren't plenty of women that wouldn't wear skimpy clothing if they were walking gods.

>>53899429

You're confusing symptom and cause. That many badly written women wear bikini armour doesn't mean the only reason for wearing bikini armour is bad writing.

>>53899429

That's my take. I realized as a kid that Dead Or Alive was pandering shit trying to get me to waste quarters on bouncing boobs when I could be playing Virtua Fighter.

Good games don't need sex appeal to sell and I'm immediately suspicious when a company is trying it on me.

>>53898306
I like you, op. Not to mention absurdly sized weapons being swung around.(to the list of non sense things)

>>53899528

Dead or Alive is also pretty famous for its authentic depictions of martial arts and extremely high animation quality.

Immediate scepticism of anything involving fanservice is just as irrational as immediate support of it. It's all about how well it's done and how the media as a whole comes together.

>>53898306
>and shit like owl-bears
Fucking kill yourself.

Owlbears and Bullette are the BEST thing to come out of D&D

Die, OP, you must die.

>>53898937

Who do you think taught her to do that if not her parents?

>>53899451
It's not a willful choice to see that the creator of the setting plainly put zero thought into certain aspects. When you ask for suspension of disbelief it's because you want to want to be taken seriously. If you acknowledge that it's just personal preference then there's no need for suspension of disbelief; everything's out on the table and people can enjoy it as they like or check out without wasting their time.

>>53899468
I've had contact with many women who wore skimpy clothing, but I think most women who'd be warriors and adventurers probably wouldn't be thinking of wearing skimpy clothing.

>>53899501
I think it's an easy bandaid for poor writers to make characters interesting (by which I mean sexually attractive). I'm sure that a sexy bikini armor character could be well-written, the problem is that the writers who are immediately jumping to bikini armor probably aren't able to write one.

>>53899227

what are giant bulging muscle men, many of whom are not wearing shirts?

Face it men get objectified to, we just don't give a shit.

>>53899628

Eh, male objectification can be annoying when it happens, but as mentioned above it's a question of execution.

Male objectification often still involves giving them a sense of power, agency or character. You don't see many useless hunks in the same way you see useless or bland sexy women in games.

>>53899628
Big muscly burly men are power fantasies for dudes. Look at any women's romance novel and the guy on it is, while ripped, lean. He doesn't look like Superman.

It wouldn't make sense for these men to be sexually objectified when a majority of content creators are men.

>>53899614

>the problem is that the writers who are immediately jumping to bikini armor probably aren't able to write one.

But this is a baseless assertion entirely rooted in your personal dislike for the aesthetic.

>>53899342
Ownership of a game console doesn't mean jackshit about total expenditure.
A owns a PS4 and one game for it. That's somewhere around 300 USD.
B owns a PS4 and forty games for it. That's somewhere around 1800 USD.
One B is equal to six As.
Your data cannot distinguish A from B.

>>53899468
He said "well-written and realistic/interesting".

>>53899655
But I don't dislike the aesthetic. I even said in my first reply that I do enjoy it. Don't mistake me calling something bad for me disliking it.

File: hakodate_omiko_kill_la_kill.png (1MB, 1200x2100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x2100px

>>53898988
amen brother

>>53899693
Not that's a bit closer to correct!

>>53899687

Your prejudice regarding the aesthetic again. It isn't bad, it's just a style of doing things that some people may prefer or dislike and may be more or less appropriate in different contexts. Trying to apply any objective measure like 'bad' to it is meaningless.

>>53899342
>game console
There's your mistake.

XENOMORPHS ARE FOR SEXUAL

>>53899654

>Women like muscular men without shirts.
>A lot of these pictures are muscular men without shirts
>clearly objectification
>no man, its not objectification, after all the developers are dudes
>It doesn't make sense for it to be objectification
>Implying that men couldn't possibly figure out how to market to women or want to do it

Face it man that's a pretty shaky arguement. I agree that there is a clear case for the female champions being objectified, there are only a few that aren't pinups after all, but objectification happens to men as well. This isn't a purely one way street.

>>53899709
>art is entirely subjective

If you say so. So, do you want to watch a LifeTime movie or GoodFellas?

>>53899747

Depends on how I'm feeling at the time, the company I'm in and so on.

>>53899747
Neither.

>>53899654
>Look at any women's romance novel and the guy on it is, while ripped, lean. He doesn't look like Superman

oh man someone post that pic where they literally compare a Superman comic and a romance novel side by side and it's exact;y the same

>>53899737
but muscles are a power fantasy so its for men too!

i mean all bullshit aside, typically your characters are knights going to battle, they're adventurers running around the wilderness. Anyone wearing large amounts of armor is going to be having a very bad time.

File: mcmullet.jpg (36KB, 250x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 250x400px

>>53899654
but anon all my google results, including this, the first one, for most of the first and second page, are huge muscle mountains when I search for "women's romance novel".

File: stupids.png (55KB, 192x220px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 192x220px

>>53898306
>post is about boobplate.

>image is a Druid.

>>53899556

Hardly, skepticism isn't the opposite of support. If we're going to invoke rationality then skepticism should be the default position until sufficient evidence is obtained to make a conclusion!

>>53899844
Weren't all druids male in WC3?
That's a ranger.

>>53899673

you cited Nintendo Switch console ownership previously though, right? So the Switch counts when it's supply-constrained and only the male-dominated hardcore bother to get it, but when it's any other system suddenly hardware doesn't count?

This is a waste of time.

>>53899866
She's a druid. Its from the opening cinematic for the original WoW. She starts running through the forest and turns into a panther.

File: Night elf Druid (8_.jpg (192KB, 900x1179px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 900x1179px

>>53899866
In WC3 sure. But that image is from WoW. And WoW has female Druids.

>>53899877
>all anon are the same person

>>53898306
Because it looks dumb.

>>53899877
I personally haven't cited anything and have just been attacking what I feel are garbage sources for the topic of total expenditure.

File: where do you think we are.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>53899877
>This is a waste of time.

>>53899709

Art isn't entirely subjective. No one actually believes this other than people who once read about postmodernism on wikipedia or something.

>>53899853

But what you were proposing wasn't rational scepticism, waiting for things to be proven. You straight up said that any trace of fanservice instantly turned you against a product, and your example included dismissing what is actually a pretty well respected fighting game just because it happens to be marketed a lot on the boobs.

File: malepowerfantasy.png (712KB, 958x618px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 958x618px

>>53899793

>>53898574
Fucking terrible.

File: Fiona1.jpg (352KB, 1600x739px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1600x739px

Fiona the Volatile (Red Dragon Inn) is my favorite "chainmail bikini" girl...
Just the idea of chainmail bikini under armor seems to humorous to pass up.

>>53899913

But there is no objective measure of art that has any meaning, because the value of art is entirely context dependent. You can try to use artistic consensus, financial value or critical reviews, but any and all of them can and will be rendered false in terms of the 'value' of a piece of art if it's not in the right context. The greatest work can be valueless, and absolute trash can be a treasure, to the right person in the right place at the right time.

Talk of objectivity is meaningless, and subjectivity isn't a reason not to talk about art. But it's a reason to talk about in descriptive terms, to use language to convey opinion and preference and how it made you feel, to give people a good idea of whether they'll like it or not.

>>53899823

And women don't want to self insert into sexy characters? I mean I get the arguement that the muscle man is a power fantasy, but isn't a badass sexy chick who kicks ass a female power fantasy as well?

>>53898836
>MUDs and MUSHes

Do those even exist any more? They barely do

At least if you are going to lie make it relevant to the decade.

>>53900055
it was a joke because its a stupid thing that's often said as if it meant anything.

>>53898306
Probably for the same reason people get butthurt over whether or not a system of MAGIC that is supposed to exist in an entirely different world than outs doesn't agree with the laws of physics in reality.

Because people get upset about dumb shit.

>>53899227
>games with skimpy stupid outfits on every girl do great too
>MTG
Magic is the opposite of that. Women are more covered than men these days.

>>53899419
There's no such thing as more realistic, a setting is either realistic or it isn't; at the point where you've injected fantasy into a setting, you're basically just drawing lines in the sand of what you consider setting appropriate.

>Just admit that you prioritize your dick over narrative integrity and I'll happily add my tentpole to the campground.

How about you go pound sand?

>>53900055

Nobody knows what women want, especially women.

>>53899087

They are doing that, you fucktard. The casualization of video games has been going on since the 00s. If you compare Planescape Torment, Age of Empires I, Quake I to Dragon Age Origins, Age of Empires III, Halo 3; and then compare that to Dragon Age Inquisition, Dawn of War III, and the latest CoD? You should weep tears for what we lost due to corporate greed and appealing to the most common denominator.

>>53899913
Also, you know, many artists who have attempted to define art by pushing its boundaries.

When people say "big muscle mountains are a male power fantasy" they're trying to equate Superman with figures like Marcus Fenix or Space Marines, which isn't a fair equivalence. Some muscle mountains indeed are only appealing to men, but many others are not.

>>53900159

You're also cherrypicking like a motherfucker

>>53900164
Turns out, anything you do for art's sake is art I guess.

>>53899342

women are plebs who play console, men are PC master race

>>53898636
Mucho Related

https://youtu.be/JW4_mTr88kI

>>53900209
Seems to be. I personally contend it still needs technical skill behind it, as in it has to be crafted with artistry. But other than that, as long as you can defend you can defend your aesthetic principles, I'm pretty easy going on the subject.

>>53898973
The difference between app games and real games is that of checkers & Risk and Warhammer & DnD, they're functionally different markets.

>>53900131
>realism is binary; there are no degrees
Go jam broken glass in your piss hole.

File: fixed.png (180KB, 400x1079px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 400x1079px

>>53898985
>>53898996

Fixed

>>53898973
>>53900249

it's like comparing box office revenue with youtube views.

>>53900248
I think to be GOOD art it needs to have technical skill behind it, but even the most garbage of shitscribbles is art.

>>53900258
Nope. It's either realistic, or its fantasy. You can argue that something isn't appropriate for a particular setting, but you can't say fantasy setting A is more realistic than fantasy setting B because they both operate on principles completely detached from reality.

>>53900263

...That bottom one should be 'Yes', to be consistent. It might be less common, but a setting where women all wore sensible armour and men ran around nearly naked would also be sexist.

>>53900208

Okay, please, show me how games got less casual as time went on.

>>53899299

That's what I said. I just think fishnets are tacky.

>>53899132
I am calling a specific argument shit.
If you think the argument I attacked is reasonable, you should address the counter arguments I made in the post instead of asking a question which implies you did not read the post or did not understand it.

>>53900297

Or you could acknowledge the breadth of games has gotten wider over time and that both casual and hardcore demographics are being catered to, rather than indulging in bullshit false dichotomies.

>>53900326
I didn't read the post. What are you going to do about it?

>>53900287
thatsthejoke

Also feminists would argue the third one is also sexist because the buff male in a loin cloth is an 'empowered male archetype' and a 'male power fantasy' while the female is not, because reasons

>>53899924

Nope, that's not what I wrote at all? Suspicious isn't "turned against a product", it's a synonym for doubt and skepticism? You obviously knew that, since you framed skepticism versus support earlier but have now switched to "turned against" versus support.

DoA was a trash fighting game when it first came out and it used to get zero respect from anyone? I watched a bit of DoA5 and it's come a long way from its roots though I'll grant that. Team Ninja really wanted to build a real fighting game I seem to recall reading. Maybe you're a bit younger and don't know that era when DoA was a complete joke? Probably my fault for using an ancient example.

I might roll my eyes at Nier: Automata's main character, but it's two great flavors in Platinum and Taro so I'm going to get it eventually. Whatever strawman you're fighting against ain't me.

>>53900370
Retard

>>53900383
Bitch, I skimmed your post because the argument was predictable and trite. Also would you accept a setting about 14 year old girls throwing cars at zombies? What if the film was a superhero origin story?

So why couldn't you accept the principles of a setting that made it so bikini armor wearers had a high survivability?

File: isitsexistchart.png (186KB, 400x1079px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 400x1079px

>>53900376

>>53900376
Some feminists. Feminist is a diverse array of ideologies.

>>53899556
man it is super fucking correct to be skeptical of DoA
That shit was hot trash

>>53900410
>"What are you going to do about it?"
>one word insult
>"Bitch, I "
That was quick

>>53900286
"Realism" is not the same as being based on reality. Lack of realism is an invitation to plot holes and inconsistency.

>>53900448
you mean verisimilitude.

>>53900448
>>53900469

Internal consistency works better.

>>53900469
I probably do, thank you for the new word.

>>53900469

Noun
realism (countable and uncountable, plural realisms)
1. A concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary.

Noun
verisimilitude (countable and uncountable, plural verisimilitudes)
1. The property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism.

I mean realism.

>>53900510
Oh, then your statement makes no sense.
I had assumed you were using the wrong word, not that you were a madman.

>>53900510
If you're including dragons, even four limbed ones, you're not rejecting the impractical or visionary.

>>53900440
Yeah, you totally got me, fair play to you. Now address the point, because my original one was salient to your argument (hence why I only needed to skim it) and my second one is as well.

>>53900510

But a setting can make perfect sense without being realistic.

>>53900510

he means hyperreal

>>53900524
I'm not using the wrong word; they mean pretty much the exact damn thing and nitpicking over wording doesn't make you seem clever.

>>53900535
If the dragon is designed in a manner which befits its physical capabilities and ecological role then it is, in fact, a practical design borne of concern for fact and reality, even if it does not, strictly, resemble that which exists in the real world. I'm not using "realism" incorrectly; you're using "verisimilitude" incorrectly because it's a lesser-used synonym you dug up to nitpick with.

File: 1393330429380.jpg (185KB, 1000x799px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1000x799px

Skintight Space Suits > Bikini Armor

>>53900610
It seems like you don't have much concern for fact or reality.

Instead, it seems you value the property of seeming true, or resembling reality.

File: tumblr_o0xs6eb80W1utqwhyo1_1280.jpg (185KB, 1280x1726px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1280x1726px

The future is skintight spacesuits

>>53900610
If the dragon in any way violates our physical laws of reality, it's not realistic, end of story.

>>53900651
Actually, if the dragon is not a real animal, it's not realistic.
At least, according to the definition over here.
>>53900510

>>53900601
realistic
rJəˈlJstJk/
adjective
1.
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
"I thought we had a realistic chance of winning"
synonyms: practical, pragmatic, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth, sensible, commonsensical; More
2.
representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life.
"a realistic human drama"
synonyms: true to life, lifelike, true, truthful, faithful, real-life, close, naturalistic, authentic, genuine, representational, graphic, convincing;

Definition 2, yes. Definition 1 however, no. Perhaps the anon that suggested "internally consistent" had it best.

>>53900641
It seems like you don't have much concern for refuting the substance of my position.
Instead, it seems you value the particular synonym I chose to use, or nitpicking.

>>53900651
Hold the phones, this just in: all fiction is by definition unrealistic, because none of it ever actually happened and therefore they violate our physical laws of reality.

>>53900610

you're actually referencing the hyperreal, I'm not even joking now

Dragons are not real. But a dragon that seems real, and adheres so closely to the constraints of fact and reality that it convinces you it could exist, is hyperreal.

>>53900705
That is why I dropped into this conversation, to tell you that you were using the wrong word.
If you swap it out, your stance goes from "word salad" to "makes a lot of sense".

File: alicia can't believe you.png (485KB, 790x635px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 790x635px

Are you guys actually arguing semantics now

>>53900754
To be fair, the central contention of the thread was solved when it was found bikini armor people are retarded because we want shark teeth latex.

>>53900729
Is there a word that means that but takes into account the idea that the very reality of a fictional world may be different to ours? I.e. Wouldn't make sense here but makes perfect sense in the world in which it exists? Nearly every description so far has used our reaility as a reference point and is therefore flawed from the outset.

I feel like this is what people are reaching for. Or at least what I'm reaching for.

>>53898306
>>53898306

Realismfags. The lindybeige heads who after being indoctrinated on things like muh historical accuracy to the takeover of tabletop by certain audiences who demand realism. Then you have the disgust of the 13 year at heart roleplayer who gets outted as That Guy because he rped a female bikini warrior elf to the cringy TES bikini armor female only mods to go with their animated sex posers and sex system that can only come out a Fatal RP.

So yeah that is why theu have such an aversion to it. They demand a sense of conformity

Asians dont give a hoot, they care if it entertains.

>>53900800
verisimillitude.

>>53900729
You are grossly misusing the concept of hyperreality. It's not a state of "it's so well-written and thought-out that I have little trouble conceiving of such a world"; it's a state of "I literally (literally) can not tell whether this is real or not, start the truck Bob we're going dragon hunting".

>>53900736
My stance doesn't go from anywhere to anywhere, because words can have multiple meanings and it's not a very onerous expectation that the reader derive the correct one from context. Great, you pointed out that "verisimilitude" can also mean the same thing I conveyed with my use of "realism"; now fuck off.

>>53900819

But the definition posted above described it as 'resemblance to reality'

File: 6437687a435db775bcb72c564a6a0350.jpg (543KB, 800x1166px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 800x1166px

>>53898574
I believe that more fetish should be put in.

>>53900819
Yes I though that might be it but then an anon earlier defined it as "resembling reality". Perhaps that was just a flawed definition.

>>53900846
It also described it as "seeming true".

I can't tolerate magic. I either play in settings without it (Cyberpunk 2020) or play armies without it (Black Templars)

So boob plate goes away too.

>>53900837

But that's what this guy wants, right? It's why he keeps using the word realistic, as far as I can tell. A simulated dragon so good it makes you think dragons might exist?

I don't see any reason to insist on realistic over verismilitude otherwise.

>>53900800
There isn't one because at some point you have to acknowledge the thing nobody seems to want to admit, which is that, yes, you do need some level of resemblance to our world in some respect; it is a factor at the end of the day.

>>53900705
>Hold the phones, this just in: all fiction is by definition unrealistic, because none of it ever actually happened and therefore they violate our physical laws of reality.

Only if you assume that the universe is strictly deterministic, which modern science doesn't support.

>>53898306
We've being through this many, many times already.
Is she a Barbarian with natural armor or a mage with mage armor? Then sure.
Is she a Paladin? If the definition of the thing you're wearing is full plate armor is not going to looks like a bikini.
Also, you know, if the DM can get anal about the amounts of rations the party is carrying he's not going to excuse the fact that you're using an small piece of metal for covering in the middle of the mountain.

File: 1481160581143.jpg (83KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 540x540px

>>53898306
Boob armor is ok, but if it's not magical then it shouldn't actually protect you in any feasible way.

>>53899227
>I would be totally fine with an end to this 60$ game bullshit
Would you prefer to have games with a $120 price at release? Because after one adjusts for inflation, that's approximately how much Super Mario Bros. 3 cost. Killer Instinct Gold was even more expensive after said adjustment.

>>53900837
Our point is that your standards for fantasy are in no way more "realistic" than anyone else's, they're just your own preferences, and I suspect a product of you being a spergy pedant.

>>53898306
The nonsensical things in fantasy are put there for a reason. We're playing games with magic and owlbears, not games where all the peasants build their houses upside down. Magic makes more things possible or makes the world more myserious. Owlbears make the world more dangerous. You wouldn't put owlbears in a world of relaxed comfy adventure.

Bikini armor and boobplate make the world more titilating to straight men (and occasionally lesbians). That's great if you're making a porn game, but it's dumb if you're not.

>>53900972
Nonrealistic armor expands your aesthetic choices.

File: anal_sex.jpg (47KB, 696x464px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 696x464px

>>53900972
It doesn't need to be porn to benefit from being tittilating.

>>53900916
It doesn't matter if it might happen in the future, because it hasn't yet, and it definitely didn't happen in the past because we've already collapsed that wavefunction.

>>53900898
A dragon that makes you think "this could happen, given x (where x is a list of concessions one must make, less-encompassing lists leading to more-realistic dragons)" is different from a dragon that makes you think "holy shit I better invest in fireproofing and terminal air defence systems".

>>53900933
I haven't factored my preferences into the argument and don't claim them to be realistic. The standard by which I judge realism, however, is more rigorous and realistic than yours.

>>53900972

>Bikini armor and boobplate make the world more titilating to straight men (and occasionally lesbians). That's great if you're making a porn game, but it's dumb if you're not.

You have an extremely limited imagination

>>53901006
It doesn't seem that realistic, since it has dragons in it. Not even dinosaurs!

>>53899250
Sexualized male exception to rule.
Nonsexualized female exception to rule.

Doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to see these things my dude. You just don't want to--and to be honest, that's fine, but being loudly in denial only gives credence to the argument that this line of illogical un-reasoning comes from a place of uncritical advantage.

>>53901012
I don't insist on "realistic" while rejecting "verisimilitude"; both are valid. I reject the assertion that a substitution must be made for the sake of the arbitrarily limited definitions you choose to use, because you are not insisting on them in good faith.

>>53901041 for >>53901022

>>53901006
>It doesn't matter if it might happen in the future, because it hasn't yet, and it definitely didn't happen in the past because we've already collapsed that wavefunction.

But it could have, because the universe isn't guaranteed to form in the same way.

>The standard by which I judge realism, however, is more rigorous and realistic than yours.

That's completely baseless. My standard for realism is pretty strict: could it have been accordance with the physical laws of our reality?

My standards for fantasy just aren't anally pedantic; I prefer consistency to whether or not it fits my own fussy sensibilities of what's realistic.

You picky little bitch.

>>53900287
>...That bottom one should be 'Yes', to be consistent.

Nope
The point is that when one group is uniformly portrayed in a negative way (ie. overly sexualized) it's a bad thing. But when different members of the same group are portrayed differently, that makes the negatives more a personal choice for those individuals, and not a narrative on the group as a whole. This is good both for the group (shows diversity) and for the individuals (shows depth of character).

It's also the problem with tokenism. When you only have one person of a type or gender, you make it very hard to make the character well rounded. Because if the character has no negatives then they look like a mary-sue or a fetish. But any negatives look like a commentary on the group and a stereotype. You need multiple members of a group to play off each other, something that can't happen when you only have one token character.

>>53901041
You're the one that chose those definitions, anon. I'm just going by them.

>>53901041
If it couldn't be real, it's not realistic. This is a pretty standard definition.

As for the substance of your argument, what substance? It has none.

File: 1279791972805.jpg (116KB, 550x766px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 550x766px

>>53898306
>how this particular aesthetic is for virgins, but such derision could be used for any aspect of the pnp scene.

This isn't particularly true, and I think you only included this caveat because you can feel how close to the truth it is and don't want to pursue the thought further.

There's an extent to which everyone on both sides of this is playing dumb or misrepresenting their own views because the topic is sex and is therefore loaded. One side argues, as you do, that bikini armor is fine because it's a stylistic embellishment or it's not any more unrealistic than other things in the setting or it's just a fun part of gaming or whatever. Meanwhile critics are generally forced into pretending that armor of this sort is more unrealistic than it seems and therefore breaks immersion or it's sexist or whatever.

The thing, though, is that what you're saying here; that this derision could be used for any aspect of PnP; is fundamentally wrong despite seeming right. The sex objectification of female characters; whether you approve of that or not; does reveal more about how the sausage was made than any other unrealistic element you could add, because it's the aspect where there is the least delineation between the fantasy and the reality of the lust. When you see something like Vancian casting in a game, you understand that it's not realistic, but it's not realistic in a way that doesn't remind you at all of the reality you're sitting in. But because there is so much fantasizing about sex anyway, and it's such a domineering force in the minds of men, using some aspect of the fantasy to control sex ironically reminds us too much of the real lives we want to leave behind, with all the frustrations and desires. It's more likely than anything else, even power fantasy elements, to make the player think "oh, this was all just an excuse to get to this," which is the exact immersion-breaking experiences critics then rationalize by other means.

>>53901072

Being sexualized isn't implicitly negative though. It's all about context.

>>53901069
>the universe isn't guaranteed to form in the same way
Doesn't matter, because it did form in this way, and a deviation from it is, factually, a rejection of reality.

>>53901076
I showed you the definitions to demonstrate that they meant the same thing and then showed that the word I chose to use was just as valid as if not moreso than the one you chose to use.

>>53901090
>I'm going to ignore things you've already explained
Okay.

>>53901116
Those were bad definitions to choose if that is what you wanted to show, since it showed one was a word you used for things that were actually real, and another was a word you use for things that seem real.

>>53898988
Sounds like you want Cuddles. Three for three.

>>53901099
>Being sexualized isn't implicitly negative though. It's all about context.

Being sexualized isn't
being OVERLY sexualized is
that's the meaning of the word overly, it's implying that whatever amount of sexualization is happening, it's over the normal or acceptable amount.

>>53901129
The definition of one word literally included the other one as a synonym.

>>53901116
>Doesn't matter, because it did form in this way, and a deviation from it is, factually, a rejection of reality.

But none the less, it could have, and thus doesn't violate the laws of physical reality. You've lost this dialectic friend, give it up.

What things have you explained? You've harped on about how your standards are more "realistic" even though they're still fundamentally rooted in unreality, without even an ounce of self-awareness in the process.

>>53901147
they also included different wording in key places.

>>53898306
Any fictional universe has to follow its own rules, unless in a unique situation used to establish an plot point involving some incredible power/disaster etc.

Since most of them follow the common rule of "swords on bare skin hurt", bikini plate is very poor armor.

However, it looks better, so it's all about how seriously people want to take the setting.

>>53901116
>I showed you the definitions to demonstrate that they meant the same thing and then showed that the word I chose to use was just as valid as if not moreso than the one you chose to use.

But they don't mean the same thing. The definition of verisimilitude you chose stressed appearance, which is highly subjective, whereas the definition of realistic outright stressed fact and reality, which are not subjective.

>>53901135
Cuddles is great and has barely any porn at all.

>>53901154
>it didn't happen
>and thus doesn't violate the laws of physical reality
That's incorrect.
>I w-won so g-give up already p-please
No.
>even though they're still fundamentally rooted in unreality
You're continuing to abuse definitions instead of attacking the substance of the argument.

>>53901179
Which you interpreted one way and I interpreted in the opposite way for the sake of argument to demonstrate that there will always be some level of ambiguity present.

>>53901184
Untrue. See above.

>>53901096
I think that only indicates the unhealthy attitudes we have towards sex and fantasy. If the fantasy of sex appeal is jarring to them, why shouldn't the fantasy of power be jarring to them as well? They're both things that we naturally crave, and power likely tops sex as far as strength of impulse goes, but we've heaped an unreasonable stigma on sex, both too much of it and getting too little of it.

File: c309cbb5b342babc99c81249800cf89b.jpg (54KB, 498x877px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 498x877px

>>53898306
If it's internally consistent then w/e. Stuff like Warcraft armor never bothered me because all their shit is balls-to-the-wall style over substance up until Wrath of the Lich King, where they traded sillyness for HUEG PAULDRAONS (not that they weren't already massive).

It's just fucking annoying when the guys walk around in perfectly practical armor when the female armored soldiers barely have the presence of mind to wear a shirt and pants.

As long as they all wear similar levels of armor I don't give a shit.

>>53901200
It's not really ambiguous, the two definitions given are plainly different.
The synonym thing must have been with some other, unmentioned definition that you did not post out of bad faith.

>>53901200
>That's incorrect.

Demonstrate how. The laws of physical reality don't include "things had to go this way" because there are random quantum events. Science, from which these natural laws are determined, deals with hypotheticals all the time.

>You're continuing to abuse definitions instead of attacking the substance of the argument.

WHAT FUCKING SUBSTANCE?

>>53899828
As someone who actually has read those novel I can tell you this: the interior description of the gentleman that fancies the main lady is NEVER like the cover. The cover is almost always like a convention, but usually when described in the proper book the guy is nothing like it, COVERS LIE. The trend was started by male editors and with time it became convention (not even kidding).
In an unrelated tangent, usually if is a woman the one designing the main male love interest it will usually be either shiny bishounen type or elegant dark and handsome type.

>>53901253
>Noun
>verisimilitude (countable and uncountable, plural verisimilitudes)
>1. The property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism.
>realism.
>realism.
>realism.

>>53901254
>The laws of physical reality don't include "things had to go this way"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
>WHAT FUCKING SUBSTANCE?
So you choose to abuse definitions and then try to lay blame on me for losing sight of the argument? I don't think so.

>>53901004
Aesthetic choices are also made for a reason.

>>53901200
>Which you interpreted one way and I interpreted in the opposite way for the sake of argument to demonstrate that there will always be some level of ambiguity present.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here except in the strict philosophical sense that someone like Derrida would examine. Fact, reality, seeming, and resembling all have clear definitions that you're playing dumb about to defend your untenable position.

>>53901327
And yet, the two definitions you chose were plainly different.
The only way this could mesh is if you chose two non-matching definitions out of bad faith.

>>53901327
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Oh look, something completely irrelevant.

>So you choose to abuse definitions and then try to lay blame on me for losing sight of the argument? I don't think so.

By abuse you mean point out that the terminology you're using is intentionally loaded with an incorrectly applied term to make your preferences seem objective. You haven't posited any substance to your argument, it's as simple as CTRL-C and CTRL-V.

File: people_wanted_to_know_32_by_mr_culexus-darp03c.png (394KB, 800x978px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 800x978px

>>53901191
>>53901135
There really needs to be more cuddles.

>>53901272

That's genuinely interesting! I'd read some urban romance and fantasy-romance stuff by women authors but and noticed that the burly cowboy type never shows up, didn't suspect that the trend held to the more harlequin brand stuff too.

File: 1489938631325.png (520KB, 1046x1080px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1046x1080px

>>53898306
> bikini armor
IS A METAL BIKINI, BUT DON'T CALL IT AN ARMOR, BECAUSE IS NOT A FUCKING ARMOR.

>>53901338
You can choose to fixate on "fact", "reality", "seeming", and "resembling". I can qualify "fact" and "reality" with "concern for" and equivocate "seeming" and "resembling" with "literal belief as fact". If you're only here to argue that I used a word that flusters your butt then let's just drop this right here and pretend that I actually typed "internal and thematic consistency" whenever I used the word "realism".

>>53901372
Quantum uncertainty only applies to the present and future. Stories of fiction are by nature presented as histories of the past. And I haven't loaded anything with anything; see above if it tickles your butt so much.

>>53901351
I chose definitions where one literally (literally) included the other as a synonym. That's about as plain as I can manage.

>>53901460
Why did you not find matching definitions then?

>>53901388
If you want further details while muscles will be described it will usually be as " defined" never as big, the penis howsoever will be call by size and described in detail.
The thing that bother me the most about those covers is not when the guy is huge unlike the interior description but when not even the hair color matches! I have seen to many blondes in the covers just to discover brunettes in the interior description is almost laughable.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but that shit just bothers me.

>>53901438
That's actually a big improvement, because it puts you on equal footing, which is all I wanted you to admit. Red Sonja and Battle Chasers are both internally and thematically consistent, for instance.

>Quantum uncertainty only applies to the present and future. Stories of fiction are by nature presented as histories of the past. And I haven't loaded anything with anything; see above if it tickles your butt so much.

Again, due to quantum uncertainty, a hypothetical past that went differently does not violate the laws of reality because it indeed could have gone that way.

>And I haven't loaded anything with anything

Oh but you absolutely have. By claiming that your tastes are "realistic" you claim them to mirror reality, and thus be something other than just more fantasy.

Learn to love the smell of your own gas less.

>>53901505
When you start talking about probabilities that require up arrow notation to express, you don't have any ground to stand on.

>>53901487
I did find matching definitions, and presented them as matching. You or someone else argued that they didn't match, so I argued that the mismatch could also be construed the opposite way in order to show that no, they don't mismatch unless you're purposefully and wrongfully restricting the definitions.

>>53901505
>a hypothetical past that went differently does not violate the laws of reality because it indeed could have gone that way
"Could have" is not enough. It must actually have happened. You see? I am taking your definition ad absurdum, as you are mine.
>By claiming that your tastes are "realistic" you claim them to mirror reality
Stop abusing definitions.

>>53901563
As they are read, they mismatch anon.
That was a bad choice if that is what you were going for.

>>53901585
Explain for me how one definition including the other word in its own definition, unadulterated and unqualified, is a mismatch.

>>53898306

It doesn't make any logical sense, and that triggers my autism.

>>53901610
all the other words didn't match, and implied a much different word.

>>53901650
If you are at least 18 years of age, as you should be if you are posting on this imageboard, and still don't understand that words can have multiple meanings, that they can overlap with other words in some meanings but not others, and that when a person uses a word they very rarely intend to use all of its meanings, then it is beyond my power to help you.

File: 1496490872092.png (191KB, 379x323px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 379x323px

>>53898306
no idealogy involved, its just disliking it because its on a different level of stupid than owlbears. bikini armor is a joke, and for me its not very funny because its rarely treated like a joke and instead its creative atrophy incarnate. exceptions being dragon's crown because they pulled off good with the ridiculous setting.

>>53901680
Well, yeah. As has been established originally, you -are- a madman.

>>53901725
Puncture your taint with a rusty rake head.

File: 1495768165153.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>53901739
>>53901725
oh my god just fuck already

File: IMG_0874.jpg (50KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x640px

I have a very negative outlook toward sex.

I also hate fan service because it's a form of pandering and I hate pandering.

>>53898636
Sure make their tits huge whatever, but why are their heads so fucking small?

File: IMG_0908.jpg (33KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x360px

>>53901868
Because anime art style from Evangelion onwards is grotesque and only cretins can swallow it

>>53899124
>Thinking what Konami does is a guide for the industry
Konami is borderline incompetent and is total cancer. So is Bandi Namco.

File: wide_moe.png (240KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 550x309px

>>53901970
but the trend is BIG heads nowadays.

It's not about being realistic, it's about verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Bikini armor raises too many immediate, obvious questions. An owlbear can be readily accepted as a nasty animal that happens to look like a cross of owl and bear, and magic is such a huge fantasy staple it will reliably go past the radar, even more so if it is well-integrated to the tone and feel of the world. Bikini armor is always jarring unless you're already in a setting where bikini armor is just the tip of the ridiculous shit iceberg.

File: 87b7d41ee200bf058c48bb665d4f573f[1].jpg (31KB, 500x449px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x449px

>>53898891
>25-34 is the largest age category
I'm not alone

>>53898306
Because we live in an era when you're always a few keystrokes away from more pornography than any single human being could possibly watch in a lifetime.

Are you honestly telling me anyone opens up a D&D book or a video game and is like "ooooh boobs let's just take a second to stop and stare at them."

Even a not-oversexualized character from any semi-popular franchise will undoubtedly have literal mountains of porn drawn of them on short order, so it's not like it fills a specific niche of "sexy fantasy girls" either since that'd exist whether or not the official art for your Elf Druid has big jiggling titties.

Just treat women's armor and shit in fantasy stuff the same way you treat men's armor in the same work. It's not like the majority of people's enjoyment of the hobby will be impacted in any way, and I'll even go so far as to say that anyone who gets their jollies off by looking at PnP rulebooks is a scumfuck mouthbreather basement troglodyte who deserves to have their enjoyment ruined.

>>53901031
>Anything that disproves my argument is just an exception to the rule

>>53898306
no, it's with people wishing to get boners in more appropriate time, like, when alone or with gf, not surrounded by dudebros

>>53903552
>scumfuck mouthbreather basement troglodyte
That's a lot of templates. Did you get your GM to confirm them?

>>53903815
And eat +9 LA? No fucking way

>>53898306
Feminist.
It's the idea of specializing women warriors to the point of being useless in combat.

File: 411ecqQ0XyL._SY355_.jpg (11KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 355x355px

>>53903806
I've never had any problems with unwanted boners while I'm surrounded by dudebros.

I dislike double standards and bullshit.

It is OK to like it when people dress really sexy even if there isn't any reason other than because it is sexy.

Just do everyone a favor and make sure it goes both ways.

>>53899226
>We don't need less hot women, we need more hot women with character and agency, as well as some hot dudes for the women interested in the fantasy of rescuing a handsome prince.
This is especially funny to me, because people love to play mostly unarmoured topless guys. I remember that Exalted group quite fondly.

But I do think that's the thing. Most men just automatically assume women hate EVERYTHIG to do with naked skin, when that isnt the case. In the contrary.

Especially for their own characters, the vanity aspect quickly sets in. It is not about staring at a hot woman. It is about having this beautiful and hot self-insert, similar to the guy with a hulking topless barbarian, swinging around axe or sword that is as big as he is.

And while the guy enjoys the image of a bikini clad woman, the woman enjoys the image of a half naked, ripped man.

It is not as different as you think it is.

>>53904016
hairy bears with beer guts are just not that attractive to me sorry

>>53898306
It's because it's fanservice for the sake of fanservice, to appeal to people who are unable to control their dicks and will buy anything because BOOBIES.

>>53903850
You should take pictures to prove it.

I could not care less about peoples feelings in this regard. I like full-plate on women and bikinis on women, the same goes for men. If you want bikini armor, go for it.

>>53904058
>hairy bears with beer guts are just not that attractive to me sorry
But that isnt what you normally see.

Just like the average "bikini fighter" is a top model with muscles, the average male "topless fighter" is a ripped and hot man.

You dint actually see "bearguts" in your average game.

>>53898636
If you stuck this in Lord of the Rings, it'd be weird. For Warcraft? Sure, why not. It's got to mesh with the tone of the setting.

>>53900159
I bet this kid doesn't even play Wargame.

>>53904143
Speaking if which, and this isnprobanly just my taste in woman, but I adore the portrayal of the wood elves in the hobbit.

The thin clothing speaks a lot more to me than a bikini, and managed to somehow be more sexy and hot than a skimpy suit would.

Kinda the same reason Elf from Dragons Crown is a lot more appealing than the other women.

>>53899215

If there's a reason that women can wesr skimpy, non-covering armor, go nuts. But if it's a setting where humans/elves/otherwise mortals are just as squishy as humans are irl, it's absurd even if that setting has fantastic elements like dragons.

If there's no particular reason for the women to be wearing skimpy armor (or actively doesn't make sense, like women in cold climates or prudish religious settings), that's a pretty bad immersion breaker.

File: 1497718444078.jpg (90KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x800px

Americans keep appropriating European history and culture and make a mockery of it.

>>53898306

If the form doesn't matter because wizards, you are doing it out of exhibitionism, no practicality.

>>53898306
People can't just accept that if bikini armor exists in that setting then it's obviously effective and not ridiculous in that setting. It's the same argument with the prequels and the "spinning", we're watching basically superhuman characters wave around swords that weigh nothing. The same goes for any body's or comic. People just need to relax and stop comparing Real life to fiction. The setting sets the standard and if the standard is bikini armor then so be it.

>>53904641

But if bikini armour is just as good as normal armour, then you are doing it for exhibitionism. If exhibitionism is the norm, why don't peasants wear bikini when doing their work?

>>53904661
Because peasants can somehow afford said armor right and peasants train every day to kill monsters right?

>>53904736

Does nobility wear bikini all the time then?

File: -font-b-bikini-b-font-2016-women-plus-size-swimwear-push-up-font-b-bikini.jpg (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

Remember, fat is the ideal of pre-modern times.

File: Conan.jpg (34KB, 460x330px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x330px

>>53898306
I'm perfectly Ok with skimpy sluty armor as long as both genders are affected by this madness

>>53901970
Hey you fucking leave Lupin III out of this

>>53898306
The problem with bikini armour isn't that it exists, but that it's often thematically inappropriate and very obviously a conceit to the libido of the largely heterosexual male userbase.

Conversely, the origin of bikini armour lies in pulp art by the likes of Frazetta, which also gave rise to the stereotype of the musclebound, loinclothed barbarian, who in every case has just as much sex appeal as his female counterparts. Hence, no-one comes down on Frazetta and his ilk for being self-serving perverts. They were community-serving perverts.

There's also the intersection where bikini armour is actually meant to be armour, which is retarded. The best examples of the trope are always embellished garments, which might include metal for style, but don't have any obvious function as armour.

I have encountered no argument against boobplate, aside from the usual "muh realism" borefests. Anyone who argues against boobplate is likely a domineering extremist one way or the other, because something like that is usually considered an acceptable departure from reality in service of visual appeal. It's basically the same thing as giant pauldrons. Or 80's shoulderpads.

>>53904760
Before people knew it fucking killed you.

>>53898836
Sources, fa/tg/uy..

>>53904840

Before that happens, you die of starvation if skinny.

>>53899028
>PC gaming as a whole? 54, according to Nielsen. There's a huge market there that the industry isn't great at supplying.

Did you read this post before pressing the submit button? Because if 54% of PC gamers are women, the market is pretty great at supplying them. And I'm not even in the "women don't exist" camp, but this is just you bullshitting yourself. And ss far as I recall, that Nielsen research did include stuff like Farmville as "PC gaming".

>>53902979
It's unsurprising really, people in that age bracket were among the first to grow up with video games as a common household item. It's like watching TV, except you're at least somewhat using your brain.

>>53904760
not really, a couple of artists were chubby chasers and somehow that means an entire generation of people were into fat chicks

File: hamlet96b.jpg (22KB, 448x309px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 448x309px

>>53905034

These people were hired by nobility to paint fat chicks.You forget that the modern romantic concept of the lone artistic lone tortured genius who immortalises his own experience through poetry, prose, painting DID NOT exist or has ever existed, instead of, you know, just another skilled laborer working in a stigmatised field.

Really, look at Shakespeare job: playwright, not playwrite, playwright, like shipwright or carwright, he was a person who wrought plays, he was a craftsman. Why do you think there is no biography of the man? Because it didn't matter back then. He was a simple labourers. He was not important, his job was. He and his actors were rogues and whores as far as the nobility cared.

>waaah scantily clad women are objectifying
>but scantily clad men are a power fantasy
This line of reasoning is retarded.

>50% of gamers are women
Technically correct, however misleading. Women are the largest consumers of casual games.
>its because games are marketed to men
Just about every game coming out now has strong women as prominent characters. Even in games like Call of Duty and Titanfall.

>>53905273

Women characters is not what attracts women. Else, porn would be much more popular for women.

>>53904760
Not really. Notice how all the fat chicks in old paintings are representations of natural forces or concepts?

The actual women in the painting that represent actual people are just normal women.

>>53905339

Even the clothing is designed so that skinny girls look fater.

>>53905382
>Even the clothing is designed so that skinny girls look fater.
Literally what?

Have you ever even been in a museum with old art? Like the Tate or the Gemäldegalerie?

>>53905407

Puffy shoulders and arms.

>>53898836
>Women make up slightly more than 50% of gaming sales
Mobile games don't count.

>>53905452
>Puffy shoulders and arms.
Wait what?

That's just showing off how you can spend shitloads of money on expensive fabric.

Learn some fucking fashion history, retard.

This thread is retarded.

I like seeing boobies and I like my girls in revealing armor.

If women don't like it, they can fuck right the hell off. Is it sexist? I don't care. Its my life, and noone is going to make me feel bad about something I like, just because some people seem to feel like their opinion matters.

Also, I enjoy consistency, but I'm not a gigantic autist that can't hand wave suspension of disbelief because sexy armor.

I have GM'd many games (17 years in a row now), some games that lasted years and in each group I have had different women. None of them have ever commented negatively about my representation of chicks in armor because they all weren't apparently self loathing cunts. I have had comments about my choice of armors for my NPCs, and I have always given the player the total freedom of choice to select whatever representation they would like. I also didn't treat every female NPC or character the same; individuated them based on the situation and subject matter. (e.g not every chick was a bimbo or Mary Sue... they were characters.) If you frame your argument correctly, IRL girls will understand, and if they don't... fuck em. Don't want any cunts - women or men at my tables.

>>53898973
Because otherwise their GAMES ARE FOR MEN argument doesn't fly anymore.

>>53904016
Toned thiefs or the such tend to be more toward the attractive scale from what I've seen.

>>53905487
>i like seeing boobies

How exactly do you see roleplay titties?

>>53905273
>Just about every game coming out now has strong women as prominent characters.
more just that people finally realize guys like playing badass women who kick ass. its not like this was rare or anything, wonderwoman and laura were hugely popular long ago, now they realize they can get the male population as well as the feminist and "progressive" populations by marketing it as a strong woman who don't need no man.

>>53905546
Except men still buy more AAA titles.
Which Bioware seems to forget.

>>53905576
Yes, but it doesn't hurt sales if you appeal to an additional demographic while still appealing to your primary demographics.
Despite the vapid hate from 4chan, bioware is still putting out about the same quality they've always had with games. absolute shit

>>53905504

"A bead of sweat slides down her neck, dropping down and falling between her heaving breasts, with the wispy coils and vines that composes her natural bustier pressing them together allowing the bead of sweat to form a pool at the cleavage."

Just RP it. You would be surprised how many actual living a breathing women are into this kind of stuff, you know... when you leave your internet echo chamber and realize that the world is not actually a tumblr opinion.

>>53898306
The bait is strong in this one

>>53905602
I dunno man. I prefer to just reach out and touch some titties in the bedroom instead of sitting behind a computer describing touching some roleplay titties with some females (male).

>>53898891
>Sorry, but playing Farmville and Candy Crush don't count, just like playing Monopoly or Catan at a yearly family get-together doesn't make them gamers either.
Fuck, someone tie those goalposts down!

File: maxresdefault (29).jpg (57KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1280x720px

>>53898306

More importantly. Women should go with the legs and armpits unshaved.

>>53905576
You do realise that the only reason MEA bombed hard was because the main Bioware studio was
1) mad that EA gave Mass Effect to the tertiary Bioware studio
2) they wanted more help on developing their new IP so they started office warfare to skim resources of the tertiary studio

>>53898306
"most" people aren't outraged. Everyone knows it's a stupid gimmick, and most people like to laugh at it.

>>53905625

Oh... you are borning. I was asked a question, so I answered.

I have a 9/10 wife, a career, and a weekly game night. You have nothing you can hurt me with.

And neither have you invalidated any of my points.

>>53899271
It can, but the metal still needs enchanted to be actually protective too, because bikini plate doesn't have a solid enough structure to actually protect you even if you get hit on it.

Better to save enchantment space and just go cloth.

File: 1480480031676.jpg (90KB, 458x990px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 458x990px

because i'm fucking mad that someone thinks that just because i have a dick, i'll fall for every bit of tit and thigh and whatthefucknot they show, like i think with my crotch
i'm no basement dwelling smalldicked phimosis-suffering fag who can you pander to by selling OH MY GOD A FEMALE AND SHE SHOWS YOU BOOOODYYYYY SEXXX it fucking drives me up the wall, i legit am offended by every boobplate i stuble on and feel pity and contept for everyone who acts like "men liek booboos and asssses tasty it never hurt anyone why do you hate fun fagyut;)))"
lrn2 keep that dick in pants, wank yourself or whatever, but keep it out of my games you fucking hormone spilling 13yos
fuck im mad

>>53905708
>You have nothing you can hurt me with.
My dad works at Nintendo.

Your move, bitch.

>>53900625
>wasting resources on tailoring each suit to the owner's cup size.

>>53905778

That's cool. I'm happy for you. Don't see how... that is supposed to hurt me though.

Anyway. I'm off. Keep being cunts, you cunts.

>>53905741
I'm not sure if this is a copy pasta or just a drunk anon, but I do feel this way often.

I don't mind cheesecake art when it's what I'm looking for, but I do dislike it when I feel it's being pushed as a marketing tool for something that actually isn't about sex.

>>53904760
is her fat tucked into her panties? what a disgusting slob

File: 1497637196507.jpg (22KB, 510x497px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x497px

>>53905815

>>53898306
>if you can tolerate the presence of absolutely nonsensical magic
Wether I can tolerate magic or not depends entirely on the execution. I actually do not tolerate it in 99% of all fiction.

>shit like owl-bears
I don't tolerate shit like owl-bears.

File: 1495377340075.jpg (269KB, 403x600px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 403x600px

>>53898954
Because it doesn't really matter? As long as it fits the setting it's not a big deal. More of a joke than anything.

>>53905465
>y... you're not enjoying the games I like, so you aren't a REAL gamer!
You know it man. Like those FIFA faggots claiming they are playing a video game. Clearly doesn't count either.

>>53905487
>If women don't like it
I can tell you right away - the only people who "don't like it" are SJWs and whatever passes for "feminists" these days.

Your average girl won't care. In fact, they are more likely to want it as well. You like playing the 20 Strength Fighter? Try a 20 charisma sorcerer or Bard, in revealing outfits and charm they do not possess themselves.

Or muscle lady in a bikini armour. Same concept. You wont find a lot of girls who finds a full body armour appealing on their female player character.

>>53905502
And you have no idea how hot the idea of a topless, high dex Rogue is. Your idea can be that his Strength 10 makes him a bit average, but I can assure you that most woman will imagine him with a six pack at the very least.

Likely well tanned as well.

>>53898306
>one aspect of this setting is absurd, therefore anything goes!

>>53901031
The only one in denial is you. You're desperately looking to find victims you can champion to make yourself feel better. A critic should always start with self-examination, not with others.

>>53901031
>Sexualized male exception to rule.
What?

Okay this perplexed me. I know you are likely a guy, and likely straight (faggot memes aside), but you are actually blind.

Males are arguably MORE sexualized than woman in modern media. People have awareness of the "sexualized" woman, and are a lot more rlhesitant about using it.

Meanwhile, there are no contemplation about portraying ripped men with clothes that cover 15% of their body, and show off their arms, torso, legs...

You may not notice it, but trust me, we are a lot of people that do. And that is not exceptions. That image posted above is not unique. It isnt some 1 in a 1000 fanservice guy.

This kind of character is literally everywhere. But while you notice this like the naked chick from MGS, a lot of us notice something entirely different.

File: 1490864826846.jpg (38KB, 550x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 550x437px

>Another thread where autists argue while I save any interesting images on gallery mode.
>Literally nothing though.

I'm disappointed in you guys.

File: 1485035039740.jpg (36KB, 564x763px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 564x763px

>>53907745

File: tumblr_o10imufvck1sp2yu3o1_540.jpg (117KB, 491x810px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 491x810px

>>53907756