Hi, I looked through the tags to see if there was anything about clothing but there wasn’t, so I hope this hasn’t been addressed before and that it’s fine to direct my question to this blog: I would like to know how realistic it is to fight in heels, stilettos and such? A lot of stories, movies, etc. have been doing it for ages, but imo it just doesn’t sound like a good idea. There seems to be a lot of challenge and danger to it

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

howtofightwrite:

High heels are like bikini battle armor. In the realm of fashion, they are helpful because of the way they draw the eye and shape the visual impression of the leg. High heels lengthen the leg, draw the eye up, and highlight the shape of the butt (and more). However, with long term use, they are very hard on the joints (ankles, knees, and hips) and can lead to long term damage.

I know there are people out there who will argue that catsuits, spandex, bikinis, and high heels are practical combat gear for women. Some of them are very well-meaning, some of them are women who buy into it. You’ve probably seen some of them on this site. They’re the ones who take the stock photographs of female martial artists doing (slightly awkward looking) high kicks in high heels as “YES GIRLY GIRLS CAN FIGHT TOO!”. Well, they certainly can but not in high heels. (I applaud the women who can do full extension sidekicks in high heels though! What flexibility! Much balance! Incredible skill! A woman who can do a high kick in high heels is a badass. It’s a testament to their mastery of their body though, not high heel combat viability.)

High heels tip the body forward, putting all the weight on the balls of the feet. If you’ve ever walked around in high heels, then you know finding your balance can be tricky (especially on slick surfaces) and running is mostly out. (You can, it’s just awkward.) The original design for high heels was 14th/15th riding boots when they were a men’s fashion choice. They were never designed for walking on land.

My personal problem with the emphasis on high heels and women’s fashion for female combat oriented characters is the emphasis on visual beauty over practicality and professionalism or any respect for the problems created by reality whatsoever

When it comes to clothing, how you dress your character does actually matter. If a creator or artist approaches their female character with the belief that women don’t fight anyway, so further sexualization of them through their clothing doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things then they are actively contributing to the dehumanization of that character and upholding that ideal that women fighting at all (much less on an even plane with men) is a fantasy. (The reality is women all over the world do fight, do take on dangerous jobs in various shapes, sizes, and personalities.)

Why? Because it prioritizes emphasis on their appearance to the outside observer over the concerns of the reality they are facing. Whoever put together their outfit was thinking primarily about how they’d be perceived not on practical choices of what they’d choose to wear for traipsing through a sewer. When I think about sewers, peep toe shoes, skinny jeans, and spaghetti straps don’t exactly come to mind first as preferred spelunking wear. Galoshes, raincoats, and pants that repel moisture, yeah. Clothes from the $5 bin I don’t mind throwing out after, sure. My Coach bag and (if I owned any) $400 Jimmy Choos? Hell, no.

A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.

Now, male artists do this for male characters too. The problem is, of course, that you can actually make a case for fighting in biker boots, a loose leather jacket, and jeans. That’s actually practical street combat wear. Leather jackets work as makeshift armor, they can absorb a fair amount of impact. Biker boots are thick, made of leather, protect the shins, and they’re designed to take impact. They armor the foot. Loose men’s jeans are practical, provide freedom of movement, and they’re durable against friction burns. They survive longer and they’re thicker than other kinds of pants. So, when Steven Stallone turns to the camera in a goofy 80s action movie and says “You don’t need to get fancy, lady.” He’s actually right. You don’t.

However, if you have Black Widow do the same in a catsuit, high heels, or even just skinny jeans, a tight fitting leather jacket, a very nice red satin shirt that exposes her breasts, and heavy makeup, it’s not exactly comparable in impact. (One of the nice things about The Winter Soldier was how practically they had her dressed when wearing civvies.) 1) Because she already is dressed fancy and 2) her clothing isn’t any more practical to the situation than the person she’s bitching out.

Plenty of Urban Fantasy protagonists, super heroines, and movie characters do this. I’m not picking on Black Widow, but she’s getting passed around a lot. Buffy did this all the time and it’s part of why I couldn’t take her seriously (especially in the early seasons). Going down into the sewers in a satin pink spaghetti strap, a mini skirt, and matching sandals. Why? Because she likes sacrificing $100 to $200 in clothing every day. Single parent home, pushing minimal income, constantly complaining about her allowance, while burning a metric shit ton on clothing every single week. How is she affording that? The answer is she’s not. The clothing just pops out of the snow, like daisies. The same can be said of the female protagonists on The Vampire Diaries.

On the other hand, I give Charmed a pass because they constantly acknowledge how hard demon fighting is on their clothing. They try to fix their clothes with magic, they have to come up with money to repair the manor, they have to buy new clothes, they think about trading in their old styles for more practical ones and decide against it. The daily rigor, the stress on their wallets, the general mundane realities of every day life are expressed in the choices and habits the characters make and maintain. If they have time before facing a given crisis, you’ll even see them go run to change. Their clothing isn’t practical, but the show at least acknowledges that and uses it to humanize their struggles with being women and demon hunting witches.

The big problem with style and fashion is they help contribute to the idea that women primarily exist in fiction (and in real life) to be looked at. They’re decorative first, even when they’re dangerous. If you remove that aspect, men and women will in fact complain.

Yes, both of them.

Women are presented with a cultural idealization of beauty day in and day out, the stereotypes we’re presented with become a part of what we expect to see and may even idealize in ourselves. Recognition of beauty, being admired, is presented as a goal all women (whether or not they can even achieve the standard)  should aspire to. Not appearing beautiful is presented as bad by media, unworthy, unable to be loved. Conform to be worthy. For many people, they want both. To fit the cultural ideal of female sexualization while simultaneously rejecting it. It’s wish fulfillment and there’s no shame in it, media has told you you’re entire life that this is what you should want to be.

It doesn’t exist, but you’ll see plenty of people try to make it so anyway like the girls I knew in gym who’d cake on makeup before going out to play basketball or run the mile.

Looks first.

To challenge the stereotypes, you have to recognize them and that may require changing how you see women in media. It’s insidious and, more importantly, not necessarily evil. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, to be beautiful, to be recognized. But how a character looks and what they wear should always, always come second to what they need to get their job done.

I try to beat this by thinking about the situation first, instead of character. I construct a character to deal with a situation. With this set up, practicality usually prevails.

I challenge you followers. When you think of a powerful woman, or a dangerous female, what do you think of first?

-Michi

Super comprehensive and informative (if lengthy) post regarding fighting in high heels. A MUST-READ FOR EVERYONE!

Let me just quote the most important paragraph of it (that relates to female hero costume design in general, not just the footwear):

“A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.”

Finally someone found perfect words for the point that is my answer to all of Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo. Thank you so much, howtofightwrite!

~Ozzie

What time is it? Time to remind everyone of all the arguments why FIGHTING in high heels is a terrible idea!

~Ozzie

pippitypopadoo:

Hi, I looked through the tags to see if there was anything about clothing but there wasn’t, so I hope this hasn’t been addressed before and that it’s fine to direct my question to this blog: I would like to know how realistic it is to fight in heels, stilettos and such? A lot of stories, movies, etc. have been doing it for ages, but imo it just doesn’t sound like a good idea. There seems to be a lot of challenge and danger to it

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

howtofightwrite:

High heels are like bikini battle armor. In the realm of fashion, they are helpful because of the way they draw the eye and shape the visual impression of the leg. High heels lengthen the leg, draw the eye up, and highlight the shape of the butt (and more). However, with long term use, they are very hard on the joints (ankles, knees, and hips) and can lead to long term damage.

I know there are people out there who will argue that catsuits, spandex, bikinis, and high heels are practical combat gear for women. Some of them are very well-meaning, some of them are women who buy into it. You’ve probably seen some of them on this site. They’re the ones who take the stock photographs of female martial artists doing (slightly awkward looking) high kicks in high heels as “YES GIRLY GIRLS CAN FIGHT TOO!”. Well, they certainly can but not in high heels. (I applaud the women who can do full extension sidekicks in high heels though! What flexibility! Much balance! Incredible skill! A woman who can do a high kick in high heels is a badass. It’s a testament to their mastery of their body though, not high heel combat viability.)

High heels tip the body forward, putting all the weight on the balls of the feet. If you’ve ever walked around in high heels, then you know finding your balance can be tricky (especially on slick surfaces) and running is mostly out. (You can, it’s just awkward.) The original design for high heels was 14th/15th riding boots when they were a men’s fashion choice. They were never designed for walking on land.

My personal problem with the emphasis on high heels and women’s fashion for female combat oriented characters is the emphasis on visual beauty over practicality and professionalism or any respect for the problems created by reality whatsoever

When it comes to clothing, how you dress your character does actually matter. If a creator or artist approaches their female character with the belief that women don’t fight anyway, so further sexualization of them through their clothing doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things then they are actively contributing to the dehumanization of that character and upholding that ideal that women fighting at all (much less on an even plane with men) is a fantasy. (The reality is women all over the world do fight, do take on dangerous jobs in various shapes, sizes, and personalities.)

Why? Because it prioritizes emphasis on their appearance to the outside observer over the concerns of the reality they are facing. Whoever put together their outfit was thinking primarily about how they’d be perceived not on practical choices of what they’d choose to wear for traipsing through a sewer. When I think about sewers, peep toe shoes, skinny jeans, and spaghetti straps don’t exactly come to mind first as preferred spelunking wear. Galoshes, raincoats, and pants that repel moisture, yeah. Clothes from the $5 bin I don’t mind throwing out after, sure. My Coach bag and (if I owned any) $400 Jimmy Choos? Hell, no.

A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.

Now, male artists do this for male characters too. The problem is, of course, that you can actually make a case for fighting in biker boots, a loose leather jacket, and jeans. That’s actually practical street combat wear. Leather jackets work as makeshift armor, they can absorb a fair amount of impact. Biker boots are thick, made of leather, protect the shins, and they’re designed to take impact. They armor the foot. Loose men’s jeans are practical, provide freedom of movement, and they’re durable against friction burns. They survive longer and they’re thicker than other kinds of pants. So, when Steven Stallone turns to the camera in a goofy 80s action movie and says “You don’t need to get fancy, lady.” He’s actually right. You don’t.

However, if you have Black Widow do the same in a catsuit, high heels, or even just skinny jeans, a tight fitting leather jacket, a very nice red satin shirt that exposes her breasts, and heavy makeup, it’s not exactly comparable in impact. (One of the nice things about The Winter Soldier was how practically they had her dressed when wearing civvies.) 1) Because she already is dressed fancy and 2) her clothing isn’t any more practical to the situation than the person she’s bitching out.

Plenty of Urban Fantasy protagonists, super heroines, and movie characters do this. I’m not picking on Black Widow, but she’s getting passed around a lot. Buffy did this all the time and it’s part of why I couldn’t take her seriously (especially in the early seasons). Going down into the sewers in a satin pink spaghetti strap, a mini skirt, and matching sandals. Why? Because she likes sacrificing $100 to $200 in clothing every day. Single parent home, pushing minimal income, constantly complaining about her allowance, while burning a metric shit ton on clothing every single week. How is she affording that? The answer is she’s not. The clothing just pops out of the snow, like daisies. The same can be said of the female protagonists on The Vampire Diaries.

On the other hand, I give Charmed a pass because they constantly acknowledge how hard demon fighting is on their clothing. They try to fix their clothes with magic, they have to come up with money to repair the manor, they have to buy new clothes, they think about trading in their old styles for more practical ones and decide against it. The daily rigor, the stress on their wallets, the general mundane realities of every day life are expressed in the choices and habits the characters make and maintain. If they have time before facing a given crisis, you’ll even see them go run to change. Their clothing isn’t practical, but the show at least acknowledges that and uses it to humanize their struggles with being women and demon hunting witches.

The big problem with style and fashion is they help contribute to the idea that women primarily exist in fiction (and in real life) to be looked at. They’re decorative first, even when they’re dangerous. If you remove that aspect, men and women will in fact complain.

Yes, both of them.

Women are presented with a cultural idealization of beauty day in and day out, the stereotypes we’re presented with become a part of what we expect to see and may even idealize in ourselves. Recognition of beauty, being admired, is presented as a goal all women (whether or not they can even achieve the standard)  should aspire to. Not appearing beautiful is presented as bad by media, unworthy, unable to be loved. Conform to be worthy. For many people, they want both. To fit the cultural ideal of female sexualization while simultaneously rejecting it. It’s wish fulfillment and there’s no shame in it, media has told you you’re entire life that this is what you should want to be.

It doesn’t exist, but you’ll see plenty of people try to make it so anyway like the girls I knew in gym who’d cake on makeup before going out to play basketball or run the mile.

Looks first.

To challenge the stereotypes, you have to recognize them and that may require changing how you see women in media. It’s insidious and, more importantly, not necessarily evil. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, to be beautiful, to be recognized. But how a character looks and what they wear should always, always come second to what they need to get their job done.

I try to beat this by thinking about the situation first, instead of character. I construct a character to deal with a situation. With this set up, practicality usually prevails.

I challenge you followers. When you think of a powerful woman, or a dangerous female, what do you think of first?

-Michi

Super comprehensive and informative (if lengthy) post regarding fighting in high heels. A MUST-READ FOR EVERYONE!

Let me just quote the most important paragraph of it (that relates to female hero costume design in general, not just the footwear):

“A character doesn’t become more badass by ignoring the physical constraints and dangers of the world around them. They just look more stupid. The required level of suspension of disbelief is higher for these characters than their male counterparts.”

Finally someone found perfect words for the point that is my answer to all of Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo. Thank you so much, howtofightwrite!

~Ozzie

What time is it? Time to remind everyone of all the arguments why FIGHTING in high heels is a terrible idea!

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

rambleonamazon:

Gamer culture has pushed the argument about women’s roles so far to one side that most of them honestly believe the status quo of default objectification and women-as-rewards is the “neutral,” “nonpolitical” starting position.

What we’re reminded of every time someone defends a ridiculous outfit.  Doesn’t matter what excuse they bring – it’s always one that supports this notion that it’s all how it should be.

And if it doesn’t look like how it should be, there must be a special reason that people just don’t understand (frequently this reason is so special it cannot be explained, only experienced!)

– wincenworks

And don’t forget: if we don’t like how it’s ‘supposed’ to be, then it should be totally up to us to create more diverse games!

~Ozzie

Bringing this back since we’re still getting people insisting that the only way anyone could possibly see any problem with the eye gouging double standards in video games is if they don’t play/understand/have 100% achievements in the games.

It can’t possibly be that there’s some problems that have been brushed off with excuses or attempts to game criticism for literally decades… that’d mean that we live in an imperfect society!

image

 – wincenworks

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

rambleonamazon:

Gamer culture has pushed the argument about women’s roles so far to one side that most of them honestly believe the status quo of default objectification and women-as-rewards is the “neutral,” “nonpolitical” starting position.

What we’re reminded of every time someone defends a ridiculous outfit.  Doesn’t matter what excuse they bring – it’s always one that supports this notion that it’s all how it should be.

And if it doesn’t look like how it should be, there must be a special reason that people just don’t understand (frequently this reason is so special it cannot be explained, only experienced!)

– wincenworks

And don’t forget: if we don’t like how it’s ‘supposed’ to be, then it should be totally up to us to create more diverse games!

~Ozzie

Bringing this back since we’re still getting people insisting that the only way anyone could possibly see any problem with the eye gouging double standards in video games is if they don’t play/understand/have 100% achievements in the games.

It can’t possibly be that there’s some problems that have been brushed off with excuses or attempts to game criticism for literally decades… that’d mean that we live in an imperfect society!

image

 – wincenworks

The Post about Sex Appeal in General

costumecommunityservice:

Ah, sex appeal and costume design. It’s a sprawling, multifaceted topic that requires that you be versed in many OTHER sprawling, multifaceted topics if you want to understand it from every possible angle. Like designing with anything else in mind, you (hopefully, most likely, please) want to do it intelligently and respectfully. I am not a teacher; I am merely a foulmouthed artist on the internet, but maybe putting my rant and inevitable tangents in paragraph form will convey something useful on the subject.

The thing I always keep in mind when designing a titillating character is that no matter what anyone designs, no matter how much or how little the character wears, someone will find it sexually appealing. Look up any [AAA-game] character. There is porn of them. Seriously. For that reason, in my opinion, it’s not even that necessary to TRY and make a costume “sexy.”

First of all, making a costume sexy in the conventional way (less clothing = more sexy) (hereafter shortened to “sexy”) can reach a point of diminishing return. The less coverage there is on a combatant character, the more it stretches the suspension of disbelief for the part of your audience that cares about that sort of thing. Trading believability for “sexiness” is basically guaranteed to alienate some viewers. There will also ALWAYS be a small contingent clamoring for MORE TITTIES but those people really, really don’t need any more pandering to. Ignore them.

(There will also be a group of people clamoring for ALL ARMOR ALL THE TIME, which… well, if the character fights, I won’t say these people don’t have a point. On the other hand, sometimes you want to take the opportunity to show something about a character beyond “they fight.”)

So it comes down to this: “sexy” costumes are more likely to only be subjectively appealing. Flattering (meaning: well designed, fits correctly, highlights attractive parts of the character) costumes that make contextual sense are more likely to be universally appealing, or at the very least, not be offensive or confusing.

Never forget: People will or will not find characters sexually appealing regardless of your intention.

So back to the clothed=neutral/nude=sexy fallacy spectrum, here’s something most of tumblr will agree with: skimpiness disparity in the same outfit on different sexes is not cool. The only reason to dress female characters in less clothing than the male equivalent is that somebody on the food chain of game development wants to see sexy ladies in skimpy outfits and hasn’t given any critical thought to the matter. It stems from a big societal clusterfuck with contributing factors from many sources that the rest of tumblr can elaborate on at length if my dear reader is not up to date on their feminism.

The TL;DR version: if your male version is in full plate armor, the female version better be as well. If the female version is wearing a bikini, the male version better be wearing a speedo. Any inconsistency on this front and it’s just perpetuating a disparity that is exhausting, trite, childish, pandering, transparent, shallow, and other synonyms thereof.

From what I have seen, Guild Wars 2 has some interesting wins and fails on this front. This departs from this post’s theme of ‘sexiness’ a bit, but given my perspective that anything can be sexy to anyone, it doesn’t really matter.

I would declare [THIS] a win. I like how the bare areas on both costumes show off areas of physical strength: her well defined abdomen and his muscular chest. She has adequate support up top. Details are appropriately scaled to fit the proportions of each character. Overall Guild Wars likes to make female outfits more feminine and male outfits more masculine, and this is no exception, but mobility and comfort are not really sacrificed for the sake of girl-ifying the outfit. In fact, the only thing that makes me go “huh” are the straps on his chest – are they taped there? I feel like it’s missing an extra strap across the chest. Anyway, I’d say these characters are sexy for the same reasons. They’re both strong and rugged-looking… for fashion models. They look like they wear less because they’re so boss that the cold is no obstacle.

[THIS] bothers me a lot more. The male version is fucking badass. It feels like its from a unique fantasy culture with a rich history, and you can infer a little bit about his job from his accessories. (Colorful bottles imply magic or alchemy, the skull and the claw details on the hood and boots give it a darker vibe. Necromancer, poison expert, something like that. I haven’t played GW2.) The female version is like, they took some aspects of the male design and projected it onto a Lolita outfit. It’s like the Halloween costume version of the male design. There are no teeth/skull details, no feathers, no utility belt, no fur lining, nothing that informs what her job might be. There’s a weirdly inconsistent level of tailoring and structure between the versions. She has a rigid corset, he has a soft fur-lined jacket. I wouldn’t think a society with the level of technology to make the costume on the right would have the means to make sheer stockings and elastic. I would argue that based on the male version, the appeal of this costume might come from the aspect of mystery and danger. The mystery and danger of the female version is somewhat hampered by the pom-pom boots and frilly skirt and it just becomes something we’re supposed to find attractive because stockings and corsets are visual shorthand for “sexy.”

Anyway, none of this is taking into account the specific character you are designing for. So far I have looked at this question from the angle of, say, designing for an MMO, where the only objective (apart from fitting in the art direction) is to show what class the character is.

In the case of story-driven games, there are always exceptions to this idea of sexy vs. logical & flattering. In an existing IP, for example a direct sequel, if your art direction has established it and your audience is accustomed to and expects a certain level of costume-logic-bending, then it’s generally acceptable… until it reaches the point of Unwearable By Humans. It’s also fine to tell practicality to fuck off when the entire IP is consistently over-the-top deliberately tacky oversexed insanity, as in the case of Bayonetta.

Sexiness, when it comes to characters defined by narrative designers/a plot, is pretty simple.

1)   Considering all factors (role in the story, personal priorities, cultural background, values, etc), would the character wear this?

2)   If not, it’s probably pandering.

In characters with personalities, you have many ways to reinforce the idea of sexiness, namely animation and dialogue. If a character wants to have lots of sex, says s/he wants to have lots of sex, and actually does have lots of sex, it’s probably appropriate for him/her look like she is DTF. The quintessential example:

 

You see cleavage because SHE wants you to see cleavage. She wears no pants because ISABELA NEEDS NO PANTS, and also because “how quickly can I take these clothes off again” is something I guarantee she thinks about when getting dressed in the morning (verified by Sheryl Chee, sort of, I quote: “if she has a problem she will probably just knife the clothes off”). She’s also a pretty damn good duelist, and awfully confident, and maybe for that reason she thinks avoiding damage is a non-issue. If you consider the entire spectrum of video game ladies, though, she’s fairly modestly dressed.

If a character’s sexuality isn’t even brought to the table, or the character has a million things above “sex” on his/her to-do list, or sex is a private matter for them, then appearing Sexy In The Less Clothing Kind Of Way is not appropriate. Someone out there will want to rub one out to that character regardless of what the costume is, and that person doesn’t need the help of cleavage-window armor. You need to design for the character, not necessarily for the audience; otherwise it’s basically just porn.

There’s nothing wrong with porn, of course, but I do have a problem with trading an opportunity to show something about a character for something that is purely for the shallow gratification of some of the audience.

We can’t, however, forget that it’s possible for a character to be from a culture where wearing less clothes is not synonymous with sex appeal, body shyness might be an alien concept, modesty might not have anything to do with being covered up, and so on. So go ahead, design that topless lady character. HOWEVER:

If the only women in that culture with bare breasts are young and conventionally attractive, you are being dishonest. If you are an animator and use posing to emphasize those bare breasts, you are being dishonest. If you are a cinematographer and use camera angles and lingering shots to showcase those bare breasts, you are being dishonest. When it stops being about the character and starts being about you, there is a problem.

This kind of grossness only ever happens with female characters, for more reasons that tumblr can explain if you’re not caught up on your feminism. For the record, it also applies to characters with COVERED breasts. Anyway, I doubt we’ll see a bare-chested non-prop female character anytime soon for ratings and general immaturity reasons, but, y’know. I’m ranting. I DO WHAT I WANT.

Soapbox time: I think sex appeal in characters is mostly about respecting your audience. This is especially true in the case of story driven game where you’re trying to develop a fictional person for whom fans will hopefully have feelings about and become invested in. If you want your audience to love a character like a person, treat the character like it IS person. Hopefully that’s easy to get, because it’s hard to explain. This is a burden shared with narrative design, but, yeah.

Are there really people not capable of liking a character unless there is a cleavage and thigh accompaniment? If there are, don’t do anything for them. Ever.

I’m running out of steam on this topic and I’m on page 3 of a Word document. I will post a TL;DR version eventually, and then get back to the original question of sexiness in relation to armor.

Time for a throwback of this old post from @costumecommunityservice. It explains in depth why taking “sexy” shortcuts and having a double standard when designing a character/costume works against the audience’s immersion and why the broader context of the world, tone, story and the motivation should be taken into account when designing a character

~Ozzie

The Post about Sex Appeal in General

costumecommunityservice:

Ah, sex appeal and costume design. It’s a sprawling, multifaceted topic that requires that you be versed in many OTHER sprawling, multifaceted topics if you want to understand it from every possible angle. Like designing with anything else in mind, you (hopefully, most likely, please) want to do it intelligently and respectfully. I am not a teacher; I am merely a foulmouthed artist on the internet, but maybe putting my rant and inevitable tangents in paragraph form will convey something useful on the subject.

The thing I always keep in mind when designing a titillating character is that no matter what anyone designs, no matter how much or how little the character wears, someone will find it sexually appealing. Look up any [AAA-game] character. There is porn of them. Seriously. For that reason, in my opinion, it’s not even that necessary to TRY and make a costume “sexy.”

First of all, making a costume sexy in the conventional way (less clothing = more sexy) (hereafter shortened to “sexy”) can reach a point of diminishing return. The less coverage there is on a combatant character, the more it stretches the suspension of disbelief for the part of your audience that cares about that sort of thing. Trading believability for “sexiness” is basically guaranteed to alienate some viewers. There will also ALWAYS be a small contingent clamoring for MORE TITTIES but those people really, really don’t need any more pandering to. Ignore them.

(There will also be a group of people clamoring for ALL ARMOR ALL THE TIME, which… well, if the character fights, I won’t say these people don’t have a point. On the other hand, sometimes you want to take the opportunity to show something about a character beyond “they fight.”)

So it comes down to this: “sexy” costumes are more likely to only be subjectively appealing. Flattering (meaning: well designed, fits correctly, highlights attractive parts of the character) costumes that make contextual sense are more likely to be universally appealing, or at the very least, not be offensive or confusing.

Never forget: People will or will not find characters sexually appealing regardless of your intention.

So back to the clothed=neutral/nude=sexy fallacy spectrum, here’s something most of tumblr will agree with: skimpiness disparity in the same outfit on different sexes is not cool. The only reason to dress female characters in less clothing than the male equivalent is that somebody on the food chain of game development wants to see sexy ladies in skimpy outfits and hasn’t given any critical thought to the matter. It stems from a big societal clusterfuck with contributing factors from many sources that the rest of tumblr can elaborate on at length if my dear reader is not up to date on their feminism.

The TL;DR version: if your male version is in full plate armor, the female version better be as well. If the female version is wearing a bikini, the male version better be wearing a speedo. Any inconsistency on this front and it’s just perpetuating a disparity that is exhausting, trite, childish, pandering, transparent, shallow, and other synonyms thereof.

From what I have seen, Guild Wars 2 has some interesting wins and fails on this front. This departs from this post’s theme of ‘sexiness’ a bit, but given my perspective that anything can be sexy to anyone, it doesn’t really matter.

I would declare [THIS] a win. I like how the bare areas on both costumes show off areas of physical strength: her well defined abdomen and his muscular chest. She has adequate support up top. Details are appropriately scaled to fit the proportions of each character. Overall Guild Wars likes to make female outfits more feminine and male outfits more masculine, and this is no exception, but mobility and comfort are not really sacrificed for the sake of girl-ifying the outfit. In fact, the only thing that makes me go “huh” are the straps on his chest – are they taped there? I feel like it’s missing an extra strap across the chest. Anyway, I’d say these characters are sexy for the same reasons. They’re both strong and rugged-looking… for fashion models. They look like they wear less because they’re so boss that the cold is no obstacle.

[THIS] bothers me a lot more. The male version is fucking badass. It feels like its from a unique fantasy culture with a rich history, and you can infer a little bit about his job from his accessories. (Colorful bottles imply magic or alchemy, the skull and the claw details on the hood and boots give it a darker vibe. Necromancer, poison expert, something like that. I haven’t played GW2.) The female version is like, they took some aspects of the male design and projected it onto a Lolita outfit. It’s like the Halloween costume version of the male design. There are no teeth/skull details, no feathers, no utility belt, no fur lining, nothing that informs what her job might be. There’s a weirdly inconsistent level of tailoring and structure between the versions. She has a rigid corset, he has a soft fur-lined jacket. I wouldn’t think a society with the level of technology to make the costume on the right would have the means to make sheer stockings and elastic. I would argue that based on the male version, the appeal of this costume might come from the aspect of mystery and danger. The mystery and danger of the female version is somewhat hampered by the pom-pom boots and frilly skirt and it just becomes something we’re supposed to find attractive because stockings and corsets are visual shorthand for “sexy.”

Anyway, none of this is taking into account the specific character you are designing for. So far I have looked at this question from the angle of, say, designing for an MMO, where the only objective (apart from fitting in the art direction) is to show what class the character is.

In the case of story-driven games, there are always exceptions to this idea of sexy vs. logical & flattering. In an existing IP, for example a direct sequel, if your art direction has established it and your audience is accustomed to and expects a certain level of costume-logic-bending, then it’s generally acceptable… until it reaches the point of Unwearable By Humans. It’s also fine to tell practicality to fuck off when the entire IP is consistently over-the-top deliberately tacky oversexed insanity, as in the case of Bayonetta.

Sexiness, when it comes to characters defined by narrative designers/a plot, is pretty simple.

1)   Considering all factors (role in the story, personal priorities, cultural background, values, etc), would the character wear this?

2)   If not, it’s probably pandering.

In characters with personalities, you have many ways to reinforce the idea of sexiness, namely animation and dialogue. If a character wants to have lots of sex, says s/he wants to have lots of sex, and actually does have lots of sex, it’s probably appropriate for him/her look like she is DTF. The quintessential example:

 

You see cleavage because SHE wants you to see cleavage. She wears no pants because ISABELA NEEDS NO PANTS, and also because “how quickly can I take these clothes off again” is something I guarantee she thinks about when getting dressed in the morning (verified by Sheryl Chee, sort of, I quote: “if she has a problem she will probably just knife the clothes off”). She’s also a pretty damn good duelist, and awfully confident, and maybe for that reason she thinks avoiding damage is a non-issue. If you consider the entire spectrum of video game ladies, though, she’s fairly modestly dressed.

If a character’s sexuality isn’t even brought to the table, or the character has a million things above “sex” on his/her to-do list, or sex is a private matter for them, then appearing Sexy In The Less Clothing Kind Of Way is not appropriate. Someone out there will want to rub one out to that character regardless of what the costume is, and that person doesn’t need the help of cleavage-window armor. You need to design for the character, not necessarily for the audience; otherwise it’s basically just porn.

There’s nothing wrong with porn, of course, but I do have a problem with trading an opportunity to show something about a character for something that is purely for the shallow gratification of some of the audience.

We can’t, however, forget that it’s possible for a character to be from a culture where wearing less clothes is not synonymous with sex appeal, body shyness might be an alien concept, modesty might not have anything to do with being covered up, and so on. So go ahead, design that topless lady character. HOWEVER:

If the only women in that culture with bare breasts are young and conventionally attractive, you are being dishonest. If you are an animator and use posing to emphasize those bare breasts, you are being dishonest. If you are a cinematographer and use camera angles and lingering shots to showcase those bare breasts, you are being dishonest. When it stops being about the character and starts being about you, there is a problem.

This kind of grossness only ever happens with female characters, for more reasons that tumblr can explain if you’re not caught up on your feminism. For the record, it also applies to characters with COVERED breasts. Anyway, I doubt we’ll see a bare-chested non-prop female character anytime soon for ratings and general immaturity reasons, but, y’know. I’m ranting. I DO WHAT I WANT.

Soapbox time: I think sex appeal in characters is mostly about respecting your audience. This is especially true in the case of story driven game where you’re trying to develop a fictional person for whom fans will hopefully have feelings about and become invested in. If you want your audience to love a character like a person, treat the character like it IS person. Hopefully that’s easy to get, because it’s hard to explain. This is a burden shared with narrative design, but, yeah.

Are there really people not capable of liking a character unless there is a cleavage and thigh accompaniment? If there are, don’t do anything for them. Ever.

I’m running out of steam on this topic and I’m on page 3 of a Word document. I will post a TL;DR version eventually, and then get back to the original question of sexiness in relation to armor.

Time for a throwback of this old post from @costumecommunityservice. It explains in depth why taking “sexy” shortcuts and having a double standard when designing a character/costume works against the audience’s immersion and why the broader context of the world, tone, story and the motivation should be taken into account when designing a character

~Ozzie

Blizzard “progress”

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Liliana submitted:

So, remember when a Blizzard VP was acknowledging how dumb bikini armours were and promised progress in the future? Fantastic. Now a new patch for Diablo III is coming out soon and they’re going to include new sets of armours.

Diablo is known for its ridiculous outfits, but hey Blizzard is starting to get it, and so the new wizard outfit will no doubt be…

Sigh.

Nevermind.

Oh Blizzard… I want to be disappointed in you but it’s so hard when you continually recognize the issues with your products and manage to make your attempts to improve into even bigger jokes.

-wincenworks

More on World of Warcraft | More on Diablo | More on Overwatch

Probably a good time to bring this back since, well we’re still having people assuring us that Blizzard – a company with literally billions of dollars and armies of talent people… is really trying!  Just look at them trying so hard with Overwatch!  Examples include going from this:

image

To this:

image

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination – trying. There is no classroom in the world where this would be considered a passing grade improvement despite the claims of caring by lead.  (If you missed the outrage by… people claiming others are outraged, there’s a great summary here.)

Yes, it is scary for companies to change up imagery when working with an established brand – but making the actual changes is the only way that it still perpetuates all the problems.  Ultimately, all they’re doing is well…

image

The only way they’re going to fix things is to really take an actual whole new direction with it – and they probably won’t get that right the first time either.  

Lara Croft was still wearing a spaghetti strap top to show off her boobs in Tomb Raider (2013) but the overall shift was enough they were able to make big improvements in the next game (mostly) and stay away from backsliding. Gauntlet’s Valkyrie has gone from bikini babe to certified badass.

Neither of these games improved by trying to get credit for minimalist changes and writing nice quotes about how their game is for everyone.  They did by actually digging into what was wrong and looking at ways to avoid doing that.

If you’re a big brand who announce you’re trying to do things better, and the headline combined with a press pack image is an instant joke… you’re not doing better and nobody should credit you for it. At all.

– wincenworks

Blizzard “progress”

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Liliana submitted:

So, remember when a Blizzard VP was acknowledging how dumb bikini armours were and promised progress in the future? Fantastic. Now a new patch for Diablo III is coming out soon and they’re going to include new sets of armours.

Diablo is known for its ridiculous outfits, but hey Blizzard is starting to get it, and so the new wizard outfit will no doubt be…

Sigh.

Nevermind.

Oh Blizzard… I want to be disappointed in you but it’s so hard when you continually recognize the issues with your products and manage to make your attempts to improve into even bigger jokes.

-wincenworks

More on World of Warcraft | More on Diablo | More on Overwatch

Probably a good time to bring this back since, well we’re still having people assuring us that Blizzard – a company with literally billions of dollars and armies of talent people… is really trying!  Just look at them trying so hard with Overwatch!  Examples include going from this:

image

To this:

image

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination – trying. There is no classroom in the world where this would be considered a passing grade improvement despite the claims of caring by lead.  (If you missed the outrage by… people claiming others are outraged, there’s a great summary here.)

Yes, it is scary for companies to change up imagery when working with an established brand – but making the actual changes is the only way that it still perpetuates all the problems.  Ultimately, all they’re doing is well…

image

The only way they’re going to fix things is to really take an actual whole new direction with it – and they probably won’t get that right the first time either.  

Lara Croft was still wearing a spaghetti strap top to show off her boobs in Tomb Raider (2013) but the overall shift was enough they were able to make big improvements in the next game (mostly) and stay away from backsliding. Gauntlet’s Valkyrie has gone from bikini babe to certified badass.

Neither of these games improved by trying to get credit for minimalist changes and writing nice quotes about how their game is for everyone.  They did by actually digging into what was wrong and looking at ways to avoid doing that.

If you’re a big brand who announce you’re trying to do things better, and the headline combined with a press pack image is an instant joke… you’re not doing better and nobody should credit you for it. At all.

– wincenworks

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ghostofcrux:

On the topic of people defending bikini armor by saying that they’re distracting,

Does anyone really think about boobs when they’re in a place where their balls could be chopped off? Just asking, since I’m female and all.

I highly doubt it, but let’s ask the cishet male mod. So, wincenworks?

~Ozzie

As a man who is attracted to women (which I think is the larger part of the issue), I would say the answer is: No.

I can say that with great certainty because I have:

  • Attended numerous Dr Sketchy’s and similar art events where sexy models pose in very sexy outfits, and artists (many of them men) concentrate and draw them in short periods of time – somehow overcoming the distraction
  • Been to at least one high speed car race where there were numerous cases of women flashing their breasts to the crowd and the racers – and not a single accident or near miss as a result
  • Seen acrobats and aerial performer groups in titillating outfits perform stunts without getting distracted and injuring themselves
  • Talked to multiple bouncers who have assured me that even when there is a performer doing a full blown strip show, it’s not that hard to keep your attention on your job
  • Helped out a women’s self defence course (I was the fencing dummy) which covered a lot of techniques and tricks – not one of which involved using sexual traits for distraction.

It turns out, amazingly, that straight men as a group are capable of focus and basic self control when necessary!  Shocking I know!

It’s also always baffling to me that the only “distractions” that supposedly generate this bonus are sexy bits on ladies.  I mean, there are other things that’d keep me distracted with sheer puzzlement or shock for much longer.

Juicy!

Since there are apparently men who want to contradict this claim, making this argument with all seriousness – I’ve included five points to highlight just how stupid this claim is – beneath the cut.

-wincenworks

Keep reading

Bringing this back as a master post of why arguing that skimpy “armor” provides distraction (and that it’s somehow more beneficial to a warrior than physical protection) is pure nonsense.

In short: it’s extremely insulting to pretty much every party involved.

Good companion piece to this article is the in-depth breakdown wincenworks later did on MatPat’s “Boobies in Dead or Alive Are a Legit Combat Strategy”* video.

~Ozzie

more about “distraction bonus” rhetoric

*I may or may not be paraphrasing.

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ghostofcrux:

On the topic of people defending bikini armor by saying that they’re distracting,

Does anyone really think about boobs when they’re in a place where their balls could be chopped off? Just asking, since I’m female and all.

I highly doubt it, but let’s ask the cishet male mod. So, wincenworks?

~Ozzie

As a man who is attracted to women (which I think is the larger part of the issue), I would say the answer is: No.

I can say that with great certainty because I have:

  • Attended numerous Dr Sketchy’s and similar art events where sexy models pose in very sexy outfits, and artists (many of them men) concentrate and draw them in short periods of time – somehow overcoming the distraction
  • Been to at least one high speed car race where there were numerous cases of women flashing their breasts to the crowd and the racers – and not a single accident or near miss as a result
  • Seen acrobats and aerial performer groups in titillating outfits perform stunts without getting distracted and injuring themselves
  • Talked to multiple bouncers who have assured me that even when there is a performer doing a full blown strip show, it’s not that hard to keep your attention on your job
  • Helped out a women’s self defence course (I was the fencing dummy) which covered a lot of techniques and tricks – not one of which involved using sexual traits for distraction.

It turns out, amazingly, that straight men as a group are capable of focus and basic self control when necessary!  Shocking I know!

It’s also always baffling to me that the only “distractions” that supposedly generate this bonus are sexy bits on ladies.  I mean, there are other things that’d keep me distracted with sheer puzzlement or shock for much longer.

Juicy!

Since there are apparently men who want to contradict this claim, making this argument with all seriousness – I’ve included five points to highlight just how stupid this claim is – beneath the cut.

-wincenworks

Keep reading

Bringing this back as a master post of why arguing that skimpy “armor” provides distraction (and that it’s somehow more beneficial to a warrior than physical protection) is pure nonsense.

In short: it’s extremely insulting to pretty much every party involved.

Good companion piece to this article is the in-depth breakdown wincenworks later did on MatPat’s “Boobies in Dead or Alive Are a Legit Combat Strategy”* video.

~Ozzie

more about “distraction bonus” rhetoric

*I may or may not be paraphrasing.