So its 0-2 in the male female glamour department, yay?

[Serilda]

The problem is...gear such as the bustier is quite clearly designed to be used by females. Which is fine - but making it available to men doesn't do much to solve the issue of there being a real lack of gear designed for men first and foremost. We end up getting stuff like suits which are, ultimately, rather bland and designed to be used by both genders whilst also having a real lack of detail when compared to stuff like the bustier.

What some players are saying - and I agree with their sentiments - is that making everything unisex benefits everyone in the long run. Back when it was relevant my (male, if it matters) friend bitterly complained about the way the Noct Lorica looked on his female Miqo'te because the breastplate was too macho. Then there are the complaints from players with female Dragoons who have to wear their 'sexier' version of the cool job-specific armour; they want access to armour pieces which haven't been adapted to show as much skin as possible. In my friend's case, he would benefit from having access to more 'feminine' gear. In the case of the Dragoons, they want access to more 'masculine' gear. Both groups are using female characters yet they have diverse opinions about how they want their characters to dress.

As a result, I feel that it's important that all players have access to the same number of options so that when a specific piece of gear doesn't agree with them they have equal opportunities to change the way it looks. Most endgame equipment is presumably intended to be suitable for anyone (though it's not always adapted well; burly Astrologians got short-changed with their AF and its lack of detail when stretched over their larger frames) while nobody is going to be forced to wear a level 1 Thavnairian Bustier unless they go out of their way to have one crafted. Glamour items are never forced on anyone.

As nobody can agree on what exactly constitutes 'masculine' and 'feminine' even on an English-speaking forum used by a small percentage of the players of a single video game, I strongly believe that pushing for more unisex options so that each individual player can decide what suits their character is the best way forward, and unlocking the growing number of extra items female characters can use that males cannot. If it then turns out that Square-Enix's staff are currently struggling to make gear without designing it on petite females first and clumsily adjusting it for male characters as an afterthought, that's a separate creativity issue which needs to be addressed behind the scenes.

I think we need to be clear that having access to equal volumes of gear is our message first and foremost as the innate suitability of each piece of equipment for any given gender is in the eye of the beholder. The current knight-heavy Ishgard storyline lends itself to inspiring elaborate armour suitable for both of the game's genders so it's down to the designers to give that to us - once they stop going down the easy route of releasing sexy costumes for girls and ignoring male characters entirely.

[FallenArisen0990]

I think they should start importing gear/causal wear from XI and start adding it to the game.. XI had a lot of beautiful gear.

[raymon]

snip

i agree that that rather then male exclusive and female exclusive. it should be more unisex options. but this only works if SE puts puts uniqueness into both sides (male and female)of the gear. take the Halloween even gear for example. its unisex but the male version is just a re-skin of a shirt we have a half a dozen in the game already. the female version at least somewhat unique.

[BreathlessTao]

If it then turns out that Square-Enix's staff are currently struggling to make gear without designing it on petite females first and clumsily adjusting it for male characters as an afterthought, that's a separate creativity issue which needs to be addressed behind the scenes.

Here's a thought: I just read the other day that Facebook is forcing employees to use (non-top-tier) Android phones to better understand the feel and needs and workings of the system. Now, I don't know what characters the devs and designers play, in general, but perhaps forcing them to play males for half a year or so, getting through all the story, events, etc, would help them understand the situation and get a better grip on what sorts of outfits there are, what sorts there should be, and what restrictions we face. It's easy enough to execute too.

[Lukha]

i agree that that rather then male exclusive and female exclusive. it should be more unisex options. but this only works if SE puts puts uniqueness into both sides (male and female)of the gear. take the Halloween even gear for example. its unisex but the male version is just a re-skin of a shirt we have a half a dozen in the game already. the female version at least somewhat unique.

Agreed, although if they'd at least used, say, the Weaver's 55 bodypiece as the base, rather than an item that can already be glamoured by anyone, they might have seen fewer complaints. It's like they put no thought into it at all.

[Niwashi]

The people I refer to, I've encountered one directly in-game, asking for heavy male-only armors and comparing to how there are so many more female-only glamour gear. When you know... those heavier, masculine armors, tend to be the default look on combat gear. That's the type I refer to when I say they cling to the numbers game. If what they want isn't available, the argument shouldn't be about the gender specific gear, but rather the gear design itself.

It's not just numbers, though that's what makes the difference so obvious and provides a clear way of pointing out the problem. A cute sexy outfit for one gender would not serve as a counterpart for a cool badass outfit for another gender, and vice versa. In fact, when the Gold Saucer outfits were first revealed, and people thought the gambler's set was going to be the male counterpart to the bunny set, there was a lot of quite justifiable outrage at that, because that would NOT make a suitable counterpart. Then when the actual versions were clear, it switched to equally justified outrage at the lack of any male counterpart.

Every time one gender gets a cool badass outfit, both genders need to get a cool badass outfit that fits within the same theme.
Every time one gender gets a cute sexy outfit, both genders need to get a cute sexy outfit that fits within the same theme.
Every time one gender gets a relaxed casual outfit, both genders need to get a relaxed casual outfit that fits within the same theme.
And so on...

All the outfits also need to suit the gender they're on, which in some cases means adjustments to the design. The spring dress, for instance, is a "pretty" look on females, but would be a "humorous" look on males if it was released as-is. So a direct copy in that case wouldn't be the best equivalent (though it would still be better than nothing, which is what we have now). Some minor adjustments to make the male version less frilly, though, might be enough to make it pass as a caster robe.

Most of the currently female-locked items, on the other hand, would need little or no alteration to work equally well on male characters. There's a whole thread devoted to how well the Thavnairian Bustier would look on males (either with or without alteration). And there's nothing at all feminine about bunny ears (though there is with a couple of the other pieces of that outfit - I'd leave off the fishnet stockings for one and maybe replace the shirt with a skimpy open chested vest).

The reason most of the discussion leans towards talking about sexy outfits is simply that that's where the majority of discrepancies lie. The only reason to need more "heavy male-only armors" would be if there was currently a preponderance of heavy female-only armors, which isn't the case. In the heavily armored category, we've got a pretty good mix already (apart from some gripes about a gender specific belly-window in a certain AF set, and a couple other sets that only seem to fit properly when worn by one gender). Now, people could certainly want more heavily armored glamour options in general, but that's a separate issue from whether there's a good gender balance in them.

In DoM gear, the issue isn't so much about how much gear is available (since all stat providing gear is available to both genders regardless of how it looks) but about the fact that male and female gear isn't distinguished enough. Robes are the traditional wear of mages of both genders, but just putting the label "robe" on what's clearly a dress doesn't make it one. There are several robes that really need to lose some of the frilly details when males wear them.

The Lightning outfit could be worn by a guy then.

It's a uniform of the Guardian Corps, which has both men and women. We only associate the outfit with being for women because from amongst the characters who wear it, the only one who's a major character of the game happens to be a woman. (And I believe the uniform has pants for men and a skirt for women, but with the same shirt, cape, gloves, boots, and that pouch thing for both genders. If SE had decided to give everyone the Guardian Corps uniform, they'd only have had one piece to completely re-do rather than all of them by substituting in Snow's outfit instead of the male Guardian Corp outfit.)

females will always outnumber males in terms of stuff. This is just an unwritten law with JP games.

It wasn't the case in this game when it was released, nor in its first major patch. This trend only started with the second major patch and has grown since, changing an initially equal treatment into a decidedly non-equal treatment. We're watching a game that we'd already gotten hooked on change course to start discriminating against us, after the fact that it didn't was (initially) one of its significant draws.

Perhaps a better way of suggesting it is what are you willing to give up to get the things you want? If they have a set amount of work they are capable of doing then something has to be given up for new things to be developed.

Good point, and it has a very simple answer. The people developing new gear appearances need to finish one before adding more. It's better to get one new cosmetic set that everyone can use than to get two which exclude half their playerbase (actually more than half their playerbase, as male characters are slightly more popular). Don't add any piece of gear until it's completed, and "completed" means available to everyone. If they don't have the time to make a male version of something, then it shouldn't be added at all. (The same would of course be true if they didn't have time to do a female version of something, but that they don't seem to have a problem with.)

The problem is...gear such as the bustier is quite clearly designed to be used by females. Which is fine - but making it available to men doesn't do much to solve the issue of there being a real lack of gear designed for men first and foremost.

The Thavnarian Bustier was designed for females but would look great on males as well. The Thavnarian Bolero was designed for males but looks great on females as well. The later they allowed everyone to use, which would be great except for the fact that they failed to do the same for the former. Both looks should be available to everyone.

[SchalaZeal]

So a direct copy in that case wouldn't be the best equivalent (though it would still be better than nothing, which is what we have now). Some minor adjustments to make the male version less frilly, though, might be enough to make it pass as a caster robe.

Frilly hasn't always been a sign of feminity. It used to be a sign of refinement, wealth, aristocracy. Even in men. See the clothing of kings and princes. It's frilly. Very much so. It didn't emasculate them, it made them "not working class", and apparently today people think "utilitarian only" = masculine, and *anything* aesthetic = feminine. It's not so.

[Noxifer]

The spring dress, for instance, is a "pretty" look on females, but would be a "humorous" look on males if it was released as-is. So a direct copy in that case wouldn't be the best equivalent (though it would still be better than nothing, which is what we have now). Some minor adjustments to make the male version less frilly, though, might be enough to make it pass as a caster robe.

Like SchalaZeal says, frills aren't really what separates "male" from "female" though... And a caster robe wouldn't really be the equivalent of a period "day dress". A frock coat or similar (with waistcoat visible beneath, of course) would, on the other hand. I'm not sure why they didn't go for that kind of look instead of the sailor outfit.

Picture of outfits of (IMO) the same general period/sense as the Spring Dress:

(American dress of 1790-1800 from McClellan: man in a brown broadcloth “shad-belly” coat worn by a Mr. Johnson of Germantown, PA, c. 1790, mauve crepe gown worn by Mrs. Sartori, dress of fine glazed cambric worn by Mme. Chevalier, c. 1797, man in the style of 1800, Muslin dress worn by Deborah Logan of Philadelphia, 1797.)

[myahele]

Like SchalaZeal says, frills aren't really what separates "male" from "female" though... And a caster robe wouldn't really be the equivalent of a period "day dress". A frock coat or similar (with waistcoat visible beneath, of course) would, on the other hand. I'm not sure why they didn't go for that kind of look instead of the sailor outfit.

Because:

[Zhexos]

Hey everyone,

We're fully aware of the situation where we're short on male outfits and discussing with the dev. team. For now, I just wanted to give you all a heads up, and let you know that we're adding not only Minfilia's outfit, but outfits for the following members of Scion at the same time:

• Thancred
• Papalymo
• Urianger
• Yda
• Y'shtola

So hang tight, and keep those great suggestions coming!