I don’t think that costume, that a female character deliberately wears into battle and dangerous situations, provides enough protection to qualify as armor…
You know who you are
– wincenworks
Bringing this back to remind anyone that outfit doesn’t have to be explicitly an armor or armor-like to qualify for this blog.
As long as a female character deliberately wears it for battle, it counts.
~Ozzie
I don’t think that costume, that a female character deliberately wears into battle and dangerous situations, provides enough protection to qualify as armor…
You know who you are
– wincenworks
Bringing this back to remind anyone that outfit doesn’t have to be explicitly an armor or armor-like to qualify for this blog.
As long as a female character deliberately wears it for battle, it counts.
~Ozzie
Gamers’ sociopathy by LucidARTDVC
Speaking of demands for “realism”…
As we said the last time when we featured another rhetoric bingo-worthy piece by LucidARTDVC, this artist isn’t joking or being ironic. He genuinely grasps at straws* to excuse his softcore porn bikini armor babe drawings. Instead of, you know, admitting to himself that fanservice is a thing.
So, as ladyofpayne brought our attention to the above, um, piece of art, let’s maybe address the fairly popular “argument” that we’re supposedly some anti-escapism killjoys who demand fantasy stories to be exclusively realistic (and let’s maybe not address how it apparently makes us sociopaths, cause that’s some new level of ad hominem peppered with ableism).
On to the subject, though:
First, it should really go without saying, but neither we nor sites/communities with similar goals actually expect all fiction to be exclusively realistic/naturalistic. You can’t even quote someone demanding such thing, cause no-one says that.
Second, it’s not the issue of “realism” in the first place, but of willing suspension of disbelief and consistency in worldbuilding. Bikini armors are too silly to play them straight; plain and simple. Using them without awareness of their absurdity will break the audience’s immersion in the story. Especially if they’re featured next to male-exclusive full armors. Presence of some fantasy elements
in the established world
is not yet a reason every random implausibility, like skimpy “armors”, is allowed.
Third, fiction is not made in a vacuum. Nothing in writing happens by accident. And so, the creators should consider the message the used tropes send, rather than justify their questionable choices retroactively. That’s also why authors should not excuse anything they do with “rule of cool”. Cause that’s just a refusal to think critically of one’s creation.
*I’m still impressed (in the worst way possible) by that conveniently ripped out-of-context Art of War quote, as if Sun Tzu would so totally approve of chainmail bikinis, cause… speed bonus?!
~Ozzie
Pretty much. In an era where companies are spending millions to generate the most realistic looking water effects – I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that we reconsider the way we design women’s armor.
– wincenworks
On some redesigned female armor I see plackart designed as V-shaped (for example gingerhaze’s purple-white-pink platemail, recently featured at BABD). It looks better aesthetically but on historical armor I saw plackart designed as upside-down V-shaped (for example look at wikipedia article about plackart). I wonder if straight V-shaped plackart which I see a lot in fictional armor has same functionality as a historical prototype.
Frankly, I have no idea about significance of V-shape in regards of realistic plate armor (all I learned about armor design was through running this blog). Seems like your question is more suited for an armorer, like Ryan ‘Jabberwock’ who wrote this article.
What’s significant in the post you’re referring to is this bit gingerhaze wrote (some parts bolded for emphasis):
Would this actually work in real life as real armor? Probably not? But I’m not sure that’s the most important thing to focus on, unless you’re making a gritty, realistic, historically-accurate work. For fantasy? COOLNESS is what counts. I’m all for seeing non-sexualized, diverse ladytypes with functional armor, as long as the coolness factor doesn’t get lost!
In fiction, believability based on realism is much more important than sticking to straight-up realism. As simonjadis says in a reply I reblogged some time ago:
A naturalistic story tells a story that is completely plausible in our world. No wizards, no dragons, no secret vampires, no alien invasions. Telling a realistic story is telling a story that is logical and consistent and makes sense (even if the setting is in a fictional world or in a reality very different from our own).
And that’s one of the basic things BABD aims for: promoting female warriors who dress in believable and protective manner, not necessarily realistic/naturalistic.
We criticize bikini armors, boobplates etc. not specifically because they’re historically inaccurate (which they are, but so are dragons and orcs). We criticize them because they’re inconsistent with how most fictional settings work.
This Throwback Thursday, a reminder that, contrary to popular opinion, BABD does NOT ask for “realism” in fantasy entertainment, but for consistency.
And, while we still claim there might be legit reasons to design ridiculous skimpy armors, we have yet to see a non-erotic, non-satire explanation that makes sense in the context of the story and doesn’t include double standard.
~Ozzie
On some redesigned female armor I see plackart designed as V-shaped (for example gingerhaze’s purple-white-pink platemail, recently featured at BABD). It looks better aesthetically but on historical armor I saw plackart designed as upside-down V-shaped (for example look at wikipedia article about plackart). I wonder if straight V-shaped plackart which I see a lot in fictional armor has same functionality as a historical prototype.
Frankly, I have no idea about significance of V-shape in regards of realistic plate armor (all I learned about armor design was through running this blog). Seems like your question is more suited for an armorer, like Ryan ‘Jabberwock’ who wrote this article.
What’s significant in the post you’re referring to is this bit gingerhaze wrote (some parts bolded for emphasis):
Would this actually work in real life as real armor? Probably not? But I’m not sure that’s the most important thing to focus on, unless you’re making a gritty, realistic, historically-accurate work. For fantasy? COOLNESS is what counts. I’m all for seeing non-sexualized, diverse ladytypes with functional armor, as long as the coolness factor doesn’t get lost!
In fiction, believability based on realism is much more important than sticking to straight-up realism. As simonjadis says in a reply I reblogged some time ago:
A naturalistic story tells a story that is completely plausible in our world. No wizards, no dragons, no secret vampires, no alien invasions. Telling a realistic story is telling a story that is logical and consistent and makes sense (even if the setting is in a fictional world or in a reality very different from our own).
And that’s one of the basic things BABD aims for: promoting female warriors who dress in believable and protective manner, not necessarily realistic/naturalistic.
We criticize bikini armors, boobplates etc. not specifically because they’re historically inaccurate (which they are, but so are dragons and orcs). We criticize them because they’re inconsistent with how most fictional settings work.
This Throwback Thursday, a reminder that, contrary to popular opinion, BABD does NOT ask for “realism” in fantasy entertainment, but for consistency.
And, while we still claim there might be legit reasons to design ridiculous skimpy armors, we have yet to see a non-erotic, non-satire explanation that makes sense in the context of the story and doesn’t include double standard.
~Ozzie
