From what I know men can't either ; other thing I was always told is that a knight in full armor can't get up alone once he falls on his back.

Well, from what I've found, full knight equipement would weight around 30kg. It's less than modern soldiier's equipement but yes, marathons are rather out of the question.

So again, males should be less dressed!

Armours weren't that heavy as they looked like. The heaviest probably weighted said 70kg but I don't think they were widely used in combat. Maybe on mounted combat, but not on foot.

I tried to apply that to your avatar... but it didn't work!

Yup, just checked. Plate + hauberk + leather (all at once) was shortly used during the "hundred years war" cuz of dem dam' english archers ... but highly impractical so it really was a few year fashion => which is amusing because it's been decades that most medieval videogames have their emblematic full-plated knights without horses :p

Sorry for digress people.

That makes you both gays.

If one is going to talk about "realism", then all armour in games is nonsense. You think Geralt would REALLY be able to jump around and pounce and flip and dodge in the heavier armours in the games? Or the same for characters in Skyrim or Two Worlds or Gothic or Torchlight or Diablo or any of the other similar games? If they answer is "No, but he/they have magical mutant abilities" or "But he upped his STR to 100!" (as it usually is), then the answer would be the same for women.

If you want armourless characters, they're usually available in those games (under the Barbarian class or whatever, or sometimes Amazonian for women), but if you're getting a Knight or some other armoured class (depending on the game), it is a bit silly to give the woman a chainmail bikini.

I realise that in reality the average woman would be anatomically weaker than the average male, but in these games you're not usually mimicking reality, and the players you choose to play as- you're not usually going for "average".

Except that the usual ilk, supposedly promoting this so called "awareness", invariably places accusatory labels on people, their worldviews, and thoughts, not in an effort to scientifically classify them or innocently "deconstruct" them to help civil society at large, but to aggressively impose their own worldview and assumptions without any real discussion or debate about the real underlying assumptions they base those labels on. How exactly does one prove that one is not a misogynist, or whatever implicit or explicit label they are directly making or insinuating? The truth of the supposed conclusion has already been assumed, and that is called "Circular Reasoning".

You want to assert that something is "riddled with old-fashionned prejudices, racism, misrepresentation, or sexism" without proving that actually was the intent. The burden of proof is on you, but is fairly typical with this mindset, it most likely will be invariably dismissed with assertions of "privilege" and supposed systemic oppression and discrimination. You want to pretend that the social pressure you would like immediately imposed on whatever worldview, speech, or thoughts you dislike, wouldn't eventually be totalitarian in nature and aggressively refocus on new "solutions" once more "subtle" grasping for power over the ideas and lives of others fails to reach the conclusion you desire. Based on what exactly? Your good intentions?


I think that this is naive and ignorant, at best. The idea that nothing more will ever be intended other than what you consider to be minor attempts at control for your desired end. The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) draft Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance recently debated in the Civil Liberties committee of the European Parliament specifically states "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups. ". It then goes on to comprehensively list out guidelines for the surveillance, monitoring, prosecution, and punishment of “abuses” of “freedom of expression.” This is a clear and concrete move to restrict freedom of speech/expression once a "disadvantaged group" of people feels they have been hurt by "intolerant speech". The normal burden of proof in these potential legal cases is reversed, "special protection" is given these "disadvantaged groups" and the supposed perpetrator of the supposed "intolerant speech" would have to prove that he didn't commit the offense instead of having an assumption of innocence. For juveniles, they will be "required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance”, so, a re-education camp.

If this is codified into law, just how long do you think it will take for some aggressive pressure group with an extremely radical agenda to use this to push against and control whatever they dislike? Legal actions have already been directed at movies, books, and public displays of freedom of expression, how long until it is games? Oh, all because of well-intentioned efforts to protect some group from what they consider to be "hate" or "intolerant" speech or expression, of course. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. I prefer actual freedom of expression and speech though. Freedom and liberty, including unpleasant intolerance, over the tyranny of political correctness and identity politics.

I doubt Blizzard (or any of these other companies) actually INTENDED to riddle their games with old-fashionned prejudices, racism, misrepresentation, or sexism. Nobody would actually set out with that intention. They probably simply did it because they see it as that is how it has always been done- and that trend is what all the questions, discussion and dialogue is about.

Again, nothing wrong with having sexy female characters, but when the vast majority of all major female characters in games are specifically designed to be "sexy", and a very small minority of male characters are (and yes, having a male character that is a big, rugged, muscled power fantasy is different than having a muscled male character that is the object of sexual gratification), there is nothing wrong with bringing attention to that disparity, and questioning it.
Claiming that such questioning and debate (and boycotting and all that if it is found reprehensible) shouldn't be done because further along the line such things might get ratified into law is a bit...odd.

Would be enough to comment on that disparity that there doesn't seem to be a big market for games with sexy male characters? A bit like there doesn't seem to be a big market for pr0n magazines aimed at women ("Playgirl" was one, but I think quite a big portion of its readers were (are?) gay men), or romantic tear-jerker movies aimed at men?

That is not to say there aren't women who like pr0n or men who like romantic movies... but maybe they are a smaller niche.

One comment I've heard from some women about adding more sexy and under-dressed men to commercials and such has been "so then men know how women feel when there are good-looking women in ads!". So it is not that much that they enjoy seeing hairy-assed men in commercials, but some kind of revenge against men.

If nude males sold lots of goods to women, I am quite sure it would be used much more in commercials. I still believe that men in general are more aroused of seeing nude women, than women are aroused by seeing nude men. Men in general are more "visual", while women get their kicks from stories and such. Yes, stereotypical, and I would be gladly proven wrong.

Which reminds me of this TV commercial, which didn't make me angry when it has been running on TV here (there was a whole series of these Dressman underwear commercials on TV):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLQDSLIzqUU

Why don't I feel threatened by those Dressman commercials? I quite often buy clothes from Dressman, they have pretty competitive pricing.

Fun fact: many (if not most) heavily sexualized female characters are designed by female artists who look like regular or even particularly nerdy women themselves.

Another fun fact: most male characters are sexualized as well and nobody gives a shit.

I'll start criticizing overly erotic female character designs the day I get offended by ridiculously muscular male heroes. Yes, never.

I don't know what this thread is about (I'm crazy but im not stupid to read it's 21 pages) neither do I care about what RPS has to say

All that I have to say is: We need more Ass and titties in Videogames

The Japanese have been delivering quite nicely on that front lately and CDprojekt has been pleasing me as well

So I know to whom my money will be going

If most women wanted muscular men, there would be more demand for actors like Stallone and Vin Diesel and less demand for actors like DiCaprio and Depp.

Not only that - Stallone and Vin Diesel would be staring in "Chick Flicks" :)