Backstory made to fit a sexualized design vs. a design made to fit a backstory requiring a character to wear minimal clothing.


Thank you, shattered-earth

It is crucial to understand that a character design has to be informative of who the character is. And that sexualized designs do not inform us of it, just break the immersion.

Quiet’s a mercenary with a fictional condition that requires her to uncover as much skin as possible? Fine, then either make her totally nude or give her minimal clothing that is actually comfortable for her job.

Princess Zelda is royalty and a magic user, so her armor has to be fancy rather than simplistic and practical as Link’s? Sure, then make it gown-like and ornamental, just don’t leave out random patches of skin where she can be conveniently stabbed.

Charlotte is a gold-digging seductress who pretends to be innocent and demure? Then maybe instead of a boob-flaunting bikini give her a child-like costume that matches that persona?



“I love Zelda’s design in Hyrule Warriors. Her dress doesn’t sexualize her, it looks exactly what a princess would wear to defend her kingdom.”

she’s wearing a SKIRT in combat. has BOOBPLATES which can kill her if struck there and also sexualizes her just not to the same extent of Shia.

also her thighs are exposed bc mm gotta show off her legs. It not practical.. it’s better than Shias but it’s still shittty

something a princess would actually wear to defend her kingdom? Actual armour.

[A propos that Princess Zelda Hyrule Warriors design…]
YUP, agreed. Definitely not gonna buy the “look at Zelda finally being properly heroic!” wishful thinking BS.

The fact that her outfit looks better than Shia/Cia’s is no indicator of overall goodness. It’s literally the easiest thing to come up with a design marginally more believable than that physics-defying, bingo-scoring atrocity.


edit: Fixed the link.