Is ff 14. Too feminine?

[Eloah]

This is more of an urban legend built on poor research and has been shown to be largely untrue.

source: http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...c_Urban_Legend

Did you look at the arcticle, cause it states what I said. It's mostly about individual color preferences, not cultural. An actual line states, and I am paraphrasing,

"a study of books from 1880 - 1980 show that current gender color trends, pink for girls and blue for boys, clearly intensified during the middle of the 20th centery."

Which if I'm not mistaken was what I said. I never said no one viewed pink for girls or blue for boys prior, I mearly said the dynamic shifted.

[Felis]

There are a very small number of sets that look totally different on male and female characters in this game overall (Dragoon AF chest has an inexplicable boob window for women, [...]

Belly window, not a boob window ^^

[Kosmos992k]

Belly window, not a boob window ^^

I believe that this says it all...(and has been posted before I am sure);

http://www.geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=1878

[Sensual]

"Feminine"

[Wobble]

Man skirt!!

[Kosmos992k]

Actually the Colosseum Armour is for dps classes, the Sentinel set if the one for tanks from Dark hold.

Disciple of War, not simply DPS classes, tanks can wear and glamor it just as well as any other DoW class. The sentinel set is limited to tanks. The post you were 'correcting' is actually 100% correct. I should know I wear the steel bikini as a Paladin.



This clearly demonstrates the superior protection of less metal, I mean, look, no scars or anything.

Of course this was before I switched to a sun cat, and got the dye-able version...



Still have to find something decent to wear on the feet that works with the armor though. I'm kind of saddened that the armor is there, but there is no matching footwear, or at least something that works with it, and doesn't obscure the shin guards.

It should be stressed that Kos doesn't *always* dress this way, it's simply a favored option. She also has several "looks" that are much more conventional, and visually protective at least.

[Dyne_Fellpool]

Did you look at the arcticle, cause it states what I said. It's mostly about individual color preferences, not cultural. An actual line states, and I am paraphrasing,

"a study of books from 1880 - 1980 show that current gender color trends, pink for girls and blue for boys, clearly intensified during the middle of the 20th centery."

Which if I'm not mistaken was what I said. I never said no one viewed pink for girls or blue for boys prior, I mearly said the dynamic shifted.

No, in response to Gramul you basically said "not even 100 years ago pink was for boys and blue was for girls, and it shifted in the 1950s":

Hell, a hundred years ago, many people considered pink to be the masculine color and blue the feminine color...

Actually, it hasn't even been 100 years, the color dynamic of, pink for boys, blue for girls, shiftered around the 1950s. And the reason for pink for boys is because, and most people forget this, pink is just a light red. And since red was/is viewed as a male color, a lighter red, ie pink, was used to represent young boys.

You both were advocating the concept of Pink-Blue Reversal, the idea that somehow before a certain time pink was the standard color for boys and blue for girls and that it somehow reversed in the 40s or 50s. That concept has been debunked, as shown in the article I linked:

If one considers the totality of evidence, the most parsimonious conclusion is that the PBR [Pink-Blue Reversal] as usually described never happened, and that the magazine exerpts cited in support of the PBR are anomalous or unrepresentative of the broader cultural context. Not only do the present findings run counter to the standard PBR account; they also fail to support Paoletti's claim that pink and blue were inconsistently associated with gender until the 1950s. They are, however, consistent with the notion that gender-color associations became progressively more salient accross the 20th century.

Of course it ultimately is going to come down to personal preference. Thats obvious. But this idea that the colors are so arbitrary that they were completely reversed not even 100 years ago is totally bunk.

[Hayward]

This thread is a sterling case for more diversity in the gaming/tech industry. No uncle should have to explain to his nephews why this line of dudebro logic is looney-tunes. With the oversaturation of these testosterone-laced FPS games and GTA/Assassin's Creed ripoffs, though, it's almost impossible for teen boys to realize that assigning gender characteristics to video games (as well as movies, music, etc.) is INSANE.

[Niwashi]

Disciple of War, not simply DPS classes, tanks can wear and glamor it just as well as any other DoW class. The sentinel set is limited to tanks. The post you were 'correcting' is actually 100% correct. I should know I wear the steel bikini as a Paladin.

It's equippable / glamourable for all DoW classes, but the post referred to it being BiS for a little while (though not very long). That part is true only for DPS classes. It's BiS (when on-level) for DoW DPS. It's equippable, but not very good, for tanks.

[Kosmos992k]

It's equippable / glamourable for all DoW classes, but the post referred to it being BiS for a little while (though not very long). That part is true only for DPS classes. It's BiS (when on-level) for DoW DPS. It's equippable, but not very good, for tanks.

It's most certainly not BiS for Tanks at any time, but it does look rather good...

Also, the poster mentioned that it was BiS for an incredibly small period of time for DoW classes, and went on to talk about the Sentinel set for Tanks. I thought it was implicit from that that the DoW meant DPS classes other than tanks since tank armor was specifically mentioned separately.