Please do NOT alter Dark Knight AF for female characters.

[Kosmos992k]

I have to agree, armour should look the same regardless of the character's gender.

Why? As someone else pointed out, this DRK AF gear on a ROE , Au Ra, Elezen or Highlander male would look imposing and powerful, but on a Lala? Or an Au Ra or Miqo'te female? Not so much. The point that several people made, including myself is that females can look powerful, but not by simply donning a smaller copy of what the males wear. Female power is every bit as real as male, but it's not the same, so why would their armor be the same?

It's funny that rather than celebrate differences and different types of power, so many people want to rail-road females into being mere copies of the males. Why? Why not instead give females the respect of exhibiting their power in a way unique to females? And no, that does not mean belly windows or bikini armor, it simply means having armor suited to females instead of using the male armor and 'making it work'.

Personally I think that suppressing the gender difference and relegating females to being smaller copies of the male form is extremely disrespectful and treats femininity as something to be surpressed. I think that *all* of the AF gear ought to have a version for males and an appropriately styled version for females; that maintains the look of the set for BOTH genders.

[Samcaesar]

Gosh, this thread is reminding me so much of Kate Beaton's "Powerful Female Characters" comics so much. >_>

[TruebladeNuke]

In the end, somehow a discussion about making armor in a video game not cater to the typical 'women's armor must look sexy to be women's armor' has devolved into talks of misogyny and other stuff ^^ We'll all see soon enough and we'll have to be happy with whatever SE has decided (though I'm betting female DRK armor will be just like female WAR and PLD armor -- basically the same).

Sounds like typical forums to me.

I've already stated my own opinion earlier in this thread, but I'll say again that I'll probably be laughing my head off if the DRK armor ends up looking a bit skimpy, because the rage that'll ensue if it happens... hee hee.

I'll also say again that even though I'd be laughing about that, I'd still prefer it if the DRK remained looking like that art picture on the first post for female avatars, and I'm fairly certain it will, given that the tank armor for WAR looks unchanged at all and PLD armor is literally only a 1% difference. (Equip all PLD unique armor, and then remove the chest piece to see the difference on the pants) So again, being Tank armor? Yeah, I don't see it being modeled to be skimpy by any means.

On a side note, this thread is STILL going? Where's my lemonade?

[Niwashi]

Personally I think that suppressing the gender difference and relegating females to being smaller copies of the male form is extremely disrespectful and treats femininity as something to be surpressed.

This argument would be more believable if the people who espouse it didn't all want the females to be the ones getting the gear modifications. If half the people who agree with you wanted the basic Dark Knight set from that concept art to be just for women and that the men should be the ones getting stuff switched around to avoid looking like copies of the female form, then maybe you'd have a point. It's the very notion that the basic form is inherently male that leads to the whole problem.

[Kosmos992k]

This argument would be more believable if the people who espouse it didn't all want the females to be the ones getting the gear modifications. If half the people who agree with you wanted the basic Dark Knight set from that concept art to be just for women and that the men should be the ones getting stuff switched around to avoid looking like copies of the female form, then maybe you'd have a point. It's the very notion that the basic form is inherently male that leads to the whole problem.

Um, the entire context of this thread is a request not to modify DRK AF for female characters. That right there is why the notion that the basic form of the gear is inherently male, it's implicit in the topic of the thread. Throwing up a highly contrived point that ignores this as a response to my post, is no repsonse at all. I don't much care whether you find my argument believable or not because you've very effectively shown that you skipped the context of the discussion.

Aside from that, it's fair to say that the majority of armor sets in this game have a very clear and definite male feel to them. Once again I fail to see why female avatars have to wear such gear sets, rather than ones that have ben modified to fit their form. if that situation were reversed, I would make the same argument for male avatars. To some extent it's possible to make that argument already with DoM gear, although typical casters in other cultural references usually wear robes of one sort or another, which does rather weaken the case.

[Samcaesar]

Snip

The entire context of the request is "Don't make the DRK AF for girls show off cleavage, have a midriff, show off skin", OP isn't saying "This armor is super masculine! Keep it that way!" They're saying they don't want unneeded changes to make the AF gear have sex appeal.

I fail to see how the armor sets have a "Clear and definite male feel", they're suits of armor, how would you make it look like it had a "female" feel to them?

[Niwashi]

Um, the entire context of this thread is a request not to modify DRK AF for female characters. That right there is why the notion that the basic form of the gear is inherently male, it's implicit in the topic of the thread. Throwing up a highly contrived point that ignores this as a response to my post, is no repsonse at all. I don't much care whether you find my argument believable or not because you've very effectively shown that you skipped the context of the discussion.

I don't think my point was contrived at all, and it fits perfectly into the context of the discussion. Indeed, my point was to some extent about the context of the discussion, or at least where the discussion has led. The OP wants her gear to look like the concept art, to not have stuff changed to be sexier, like happened with the Dragoon AF. Those who agree with her are for the most part asking for the gear of both genders to look alike (apart from adjustments to properly fit both). A number of other people dislike that idea because having both look alike, particularly for such fully covered gear, essentially removes the gender identification from the character. But everyone I've seen complain that they want to be able to tell the genders apart and have each get their own gear seem to all be asking for the female version of the set to be the one that's altered.

There are three basic possibilities: (1) Both males and females get the same set with only the adjustments necessary to fit each race and gender. (2) The males get the basic Dark Knight set as shown in that concept art, but the females get something slightly different. or (3) The females get the basic Dark Knight set as shown in that concept art, but the males get something slightly different.

#1 is is the possibility that the OP and a number of people who have agreed with her are asking for. #2 is the possibility that everyone who dislikes #1 is asking for. But if the reason is because people want the genders to appear different, isn't that equally achieved by either #2 or #3? Why aren't the people wanting the genders more distinguishable calling for the male version to be changed as much as the female? You yourself referred to option 1 as "relegating females to being smaller copies of the male form". But why is it that you would, in that case, regard them as smaller copies of the male form rather than seeing males as larger copies of the female form?

(The concept art itself is rather ambiguous about gender. The character displaying the gear has a femininely trim waistline but masculinely thick thighs. It could equally be either one.)

[TThibi]

Don't care if they're flipping nude, in fact "All Right!!" Seriously though people getting bent out of shape over a little skin I invite you to read the old comic series Red Sonja, Conan the Barbarian never complained about her Chain mail bikini armor and she didn't take much permanent damage either. It's time to grow up if you want to look like a man in a fantasy setting then roll a male character, it's cannon if you play a female in fantasy setting you're gonna show more skin. We're not all protestants with seafood lodged sideways up our rectums so stop speaking as if you speak for all of us.

[Samcaesar]

Snip

Not everyone who plays a girl character in this game wants to be eye candy. We've progressed a good bit past Conan the Barbarian in terms of making women in fantasy settings wear sensible armor. Considering Conan started in 1932 and Red Sonja was introduced over 30 years ago we should have progressed passed that. You've got the coliseum set if you want to show some skin, let those of us who want to play a girl character and look sensible not have to worry about that.

[Kosmos992k]

Not everyone who plays a girl character in this game wants to be eye candy. We've progressed a good bit past Conan the Barbarian in terms of making women in fantasy settings wear sensible armor. Considering Conan started in 1932 and Red Sonja was introduced over 30 years ago we should have progressed passed that. You've got the coliseum set if you want to show some skin, let those of us who want to play a girl character and look sensible not have to worry about that.

This point right here is why I no longer take your comments seriously, in fact it's the comment that convinced me that you are a man trying so very hard to convince someone (perhaps yourself) that you are enlightened and non sexist, and yet I think you are doing more to denigrate female characters than anyone you accuse of objectifying females.

What am I talking about? This quote;

Red Sonja was introduced over 30 years ago we should have progressed passed that

Oh really? I'm a little confused by that since Sonia gets to wear more than Conan. However this idea that we have progressed beyond that. Beyond what exactly? You repeatedly post things that seek to diminish or erase the differences between genders. No offence to you but you are delusional if you think that male physiology is not typically more muscular with a larger frame than female, biological fact is fact. Male and female are different. By seeking to deny this fundamental truth and insread diminish any difference, you are in fact putting the cause you apparently support back. How is it moving forward to deny differences rather thsn celebrate them.

Equality is not uniformity. Equality celebrates the differences between genders, because each gender has an equal chance to shine with it's own merits. That's always been one of the ironic things about traditional feminism, it seeks to make females into copies of males by making females equivalent to males - regardless of their inherent differences. Yet that is what you are preaching. A truly feminist point of view - allows females the opportunity to be as free as males without compromising their gender identity. So if Red Sonia wants to wear a scale mail bikini, she can, or if she'd rather put on plate armor, she can, because she is free of societal expectations todo one or the other. That freedom would be progress, but simply labelling the scale mail bikini as bad because it's not progress, shows how little you have progressed.