Curse

Chris616263 · Nov 29, 2006, 03:30 PM // 15:30

I sort of like Gladiator armor for both sexes. Especially the plates that cover the right arm and not the left. I like that. Slap the chest and hand pieces on, then 15k kurzick leggings and boots. Tell me what you think.

Darq · Nov 29, 2006, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Andy, I know how you feel, when I first started this game I knew I was going to go Necromancer, so I rolled one, I was, well, surprised to see what the armour looked like. I expected dark robes and perhaps a hood for necros, making them look rather sinister, but there was may rather wiry necro in tight-fitting leather pants, dodgy. But I played on, I did and still do, like the scar pattern headgear though (and was glad to see variety in factions), I thought perhaps the armour design would get better, and perhaps higher level armour would look better. Well the high level armour does look better, but for the most part it looks the same, just with fancy do-dads added on.

What would be quite nice perhaps, and I have very little idea of how it could be implemented, would be armour based on skill, and as the character develops, and becomes more skilled, his armour can be changed to denote his "rank" (anyone read 'Magician'?). Just an idea, but yes, I agree with you, a little diversity in design would be most welcome.

a_ndy · Nov 29, 2006, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darq

Well the high level armour does look better, but for the most part it looks the same, just with fancy do-dads added on.

What would be quite nice perhaps, and I have very little idea of how it could be implemented, would be armour based on skill, and as the character develops, and becomes more skilled, his armour can be changed to denote his "rank" (anyone read 'Magician'?). Just an idea, but yes, I agree with you, a little diversity in design would be most welcome.

I think in a way, armor does change as your character develops. People wearing 15k armor or Fissure armor are basically saying "Been there, done that, got the Hauberk." As for armor developing with "skill", I think that would be a rather difficult measure to qualify. For me, the problem is not really method of acquiring armor, but the point you brought up initially: New armors might look slightly different or better (though imo, often worse) than what came before them, but it tends to be trapped in a model that basically presents us with more of the same, whether or not we liked what was there to begin with or not. New should at least involve some options that are different and appeal to tastes previously unexplored.

Darksun · Nov 29, 2006, 07:58 PM // 19:58

I dissagree with most of the OPs statement except the ones about the Male Elementalist. Whatever the style is supposed to be, most of it just look dumb. pretty much all of the Prophecies designs are pretty retarded.

Canthan designs were a tad better. And the Vabbi & Anchient are probably the best. The Primeval? oh. dear. Lord. what on earth were they smoking? It's insulting really. I was thinking of making a Dervish be and elementalist just because he acctually wore ROBES! Yeah, the tight-jeans/spikey-flare clothing is just plain BAD. Aeromancer? wow.... just... WOW. This is Guild Wars not City of Villians.

Jecht Scye · Nov 29, 2006, 08:16 PM // 20:16

It's my personal opinion that all male necromancer armor sucks except for the FoW minus the leggings and the 15k Tormentor's with a 15k Chest Tatoo design. They really need better designs there.

Darksun · Nov 29, 2006, 08:25 PM // 20:25

I like some of it:
Fanatic
Scar
15k Kurzick & Luxon
but man.. Necros got SHAFTED in Nightfall! terrible!
Primeval? geez....

Happy · Nov 29, 2006, 09:01 PM // 21:01

@Necris:

Judging from your obvious resentment of female character armour and how it is wrong for them to look sexy.
I have come to a conclusion:

1. You are fridgid
2. You are Gay

Option 1 well it happens.
Option 2 nothing to be ashamed off but there are easier ways out of the closet than relating to sexy elementalist armour in guild wars.

GreatLich · Nov 29, 2006, 09:07 PM // 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necris

Because you are one?

There's nothing wrong with looking nice. However, when you get into extremes... Well. You'll see that in a bit...

Look at my bloody avatar. Look at what I've said. Do I seem like the type to pretend to be a gender I am not? I've got a pair of nads in my pants, boy.

Somehow I get the impression you're not totally comfortable with your sexuality. I'm assuming this is because of upbringing...

Quote:

Yeah. I've seen it in my classroom. It's bloody distracting because I'm trying to pay attention in class. Not to mention it's disgusting. When you have three inches of crack showing from your arse or your chest, it's just not modest. Am I the only nineteen year old who doesn't think with his penis?

You're distracted by women who show cleavage and yet you mantain not to "think with his penis"? Interesting logic, I suggest you rethink that statement.

Quote:

Yeah. I'm sorry for calling you a twit. You're not an idiot.

And, yes, you may be right, *narcissist is the wrong word to use here. I'll get back to you momentarily on that. Regardless, I still firmly believe that the design philosophy for some of the female armour should be rethought. It's an attempt to give eye candy to the boys so that they don't instead decide to go and play World of Warcraft because World of Warcraft has swimsuit wearing night-elves.

God dammit, what happened to adequate, modest, realistic character design? Did that get flushed down with this obsession with the human body? Specifically the female one.

Do you really think that the female players appreciate these kinds of designs? I'm pretty sure normal women don't go around wearing stuff like that.

Therefore implying that women who do dress "like that" aren't normal. You "sir" are a mysoginistic relic of the 50's. But I shouldn't be trying to offend you, rather I'd like for you to seek professional help because your views on the opposite sex are somewhat distorted. You could really hurt some poor girl, someday...

a_ndy · Nov 29, 2006, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksun

I dissagree with most of the OPs statement except the ones about the Male Elementalist. Whatever the style is supposed to be, most of it just look dumb. pretty much all of the Prophecies designs are pretty retarded.

Canthan designs were a tad better. And the Vabbi & Anchient are probably the best. The Primeval? oh. dear. Lord. what on earth were they smoking? It's insulting really. I was thinking of making a Dervish be and elementalist just because he acctually wore ROBES! Yeah, the tight-jeans/spikey-flare clothing is just plain BAD. Aeromancer? wow.... just... WOW. This is Guild Wars not City of Villians.

I don't know why you think that you disagree with most of my statements... it sounds that with the exception of the Lopsided Motif, you've subscribed to all of them. Clearly with the male elementalist (which is the most extreme illustration of most of my points), the gender disparity is obvious because you've taken issue with only the Male Elementalist armor. As for the "tight-jeans/spikey-flare clothing", that's exactly the kind of trend that I am suggesting that not all armors need to follow.

I don't really agree that Canthan and Elonian designs are better. If I were to judge, I would say that 15k Geomancer armor was actually the nicest. Canthan armor, in addition to the tight pants and skinny jacket introduced a strange motif of circular holes in the outer-jacket... In Vabbian armor, I'm still scratching my head at the metal plate on his chest, and why nobody bothered to close it at the top and bottom. The coat in Ancient armor is subject to all manner of strange angles, which is really nothing new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

It's my personal opinion that all male necromancer armor sucks except for the FoW minus the leggings and the 15k Tormentor's with a 15k Chest Tatoo design. They really need better designs there.

I'm a 1.5k Bonelace guy myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy

@Necris:

Judging from your obvious resentment of female character armour and how it is wrong for them to look sexy.
I have come to a conclusion:

1. You are fridgid
2. You are Gay

Option 1 well it happens.
Option 2 nothing to be ashamed off but there are easier ways out of the closet than relating to sexy elementalist armour in guild wars.

While I don't agree with Necris' opinions, I can't really see what relevance your post has to this thread. It's merely an inflammatory statement grounded in a superficial pretense of logic and with very implicit prejudices, assumptions, and judgements.

Quote:

You're distracted by women who show cleavage and yet you mantain not to "think with his penis"? Interesting logic, I suggest you rethink that statement.

I thought this was an interesting statement, and the logic makes sense. But I really think this is just semantics. It's pretty clear what Necris means. Every guy is driven by his libido, but not everyone approves of the sexually charged and immodest atmosphere produced by those who dress provocatively.

In any case, this isn't a discussion on pop culture, it's a discussion of Armor Design, and personal attacks aren't really constructive.

Series · Nov 29, 2006, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatLich

Therefore implying that women who do dress "like that" aren't normal. You "sir" are a mysoginistic relic of the 50's. But I shouldn't be trying to offend you, rather I'd like for you to seek professional help because your views on the opposite sex are somewhat distorted. You could really hurt some poor girl, someday...

So since he doesn't agree with you, his views are "distorted" and he is wrong? Maybe you're the wrong one. Or maybe it's a matter of opinion. But you have no right to tell him he's wrong unless he's hurting someone which he obviously isn't... and I doubt he's gonna hurt a girl by having her not be a little skank. And if you're going to use "intelligent" words like, as you say, "mysoginistic", learn to spell them... or at least use them right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ndy

I thought this was an interesting statement, and the logic makes sense. But I really think this is just semantics. It's pretty clear what Necris means. Every guy is driven by his libido, but not everyone approves of the sexually charged and immodest atmosphere produced by those who dress provocatively.

That's a good way to put it. Every person, male or female, has sexuality and a desire for the same and/or opposite sex. That doesn't mean every person approves of provocative clothing.

Darksun · Nov 29, 2006, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ndy

I don't know why you think that you disagree with most of my statements... I don't really agree that Canthan and Elonian designs are better.

There's a start. yes, I think the asymetrical nature of much of the armor in the game is great, but you used the Elementalist as an example not as the only cited issue. I don't hink there is anything wrong with a theme for the classes. (what you call a "Fixation with a particular model") I don't think the "Gender disparity" is a big issue besides the Elementalist. I think the Male Warriors look way cooler than the female.(but that is because, to me, they didn't give the female Warrior a buff enough body. I want me a Frazetta woman! lol) And I don't agree that they should go too far away from the set themes.

Also, I don't see the Ancient armor as "subject to all manner of strange angles". I see quite a change from the traditional Elementalist. I dunno, maybe as an artist I pick up on the little things, but it's a far cry from the Aeromancer joke-armor.

I made this design for my brother using Guild Wars concept art as an influence and I don't feel it's hugely off the Elementalist class(with the exception of the cape which is half-off to show the under-armor)

Happy · Nov 29, 2006, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Series

So since he doesn't agree with you, his views are "distorted" and he is wrong? Maybe you're the wrong one. Or maybe it's a matter of opinion. But you have no right to tell him he's wrong unless he's hurting someone which he obviously isn't... and I doubt he's gonna hurt a girl by having her not be a little skank. And if you're going to use "intelligent" words like, as you say, "mysoginistic", learn to spell them... or at least use them right.

His views are distorted because from saying girls shouldn't dress sexy because it makes them look "skank" to saying "Girls that look sexy are asking to be handled like lust objects" is a small step.

Series · Nov 29, 2006, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy

His views are distorted because from saying girls shouldn't dress sexy because it makes them look "skank" to saying "Girls that look sexy are asking to be handled like lust objects" is a small step.

Um... no. Saying girls who dress like "skanks" look "skanky" isn't distorted at all... it's true.

GreatLich · Nov 29, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Series

So since he doesn't agree with you, his views are "distorted" and he is wrong? Maybe you're the wrong one. Or maybe it's a matter of opinion. But you have no right to tell him he's wrong unless he's hurting someone which he obviously isn't... and I doubt he's gonna hurt a girl by having her not be a little skank.

If defining a girl as a "skank" because of the way she dresses isn't caught by the word "hurt" then what is?
And he "obviously" isn't hurting someone? I assume you know Necris personally, then? I'm reading between the lines, but i'm geting some serious phallic frustration from Necris (you, too I'm afraid) If getting Necris and you help, saves some girl grief I think I have every right!

Quote:

And if you're going to use "intelligent" words like, as you say, "mysoginistic", learn to spell them... or at least use them right.

"Mysogynistic" it is, then. I usually spellcheck "intelligent" words by typing them into Google. "did you mean..." didn't show up so I assumed my spelling correct.

Quote:

That's a good way to put it. Every person, male or female, has sexuality and a desire for the same and/or opposite sex. That doesn't mean every person approves of provocative clothing.

This and the quote you referenced are both very much correct. I for one am also uncomfortable when around scantily clad women; IRL that is... both you and Necris apparently are unable to distinguish between feminine looking 3d models and actual women. This qualifies as disturbed in my book; some, like me, even call it dangerous. I'm sorry it has to be me to tell you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Series

Um... no. Saying girls who dress like "skanks" look "skanky" isn't distorted at all... it's true.

What, may I ask, are you wearing?

a_ndy · Nov 29, 2006, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksun

I made this design for my brother using Guild Wars concept art as an influence and I don't feel it's hugely off the Elementalist class(with the exception of the cape which is half-off to show the under-armor

This armor concept is beautiful. But I do disagree that it's not hugely off from the way that elementalist designs tend to be. The leggings take a broad stance and have a nice robe-esque (sorry I couldn't cough up a more accurate description), both of which don't emphasize the slender figure of the elementalist the way most armors in the game do. The cape is full length and hangs down straight as opposed to flaring half way like most GW armors do. In addition, many coats for elementalists make an exaggerated inverse V of some sort up towards the chest which ends either in the aforementioned V or a circle. The ornamentation is much more regal in comparison to what you have referred to as "City of Villains" fare. Lastly, while you may not feel that this is off much from the Guild Wars concept art, concept art rarely makes its way as is into the game. While you could certainly draw some of the male elementalist armors in the game to look nice, when modelled they often become tighter and lose the nice crumply fabric effect that I so adore in your concept art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy

His views are distorted because from saying girls shouldn't dress sexy because it makes them look "skank" to saying "Girls that look sexy are asking to be handled like lust objects" is a small step.

I do believe that calling the armors "skank" was first posed by someone who wanted to keep them that way, not by Necris. Once again, your logical leap is significant, and you merely attempt to sway the issue with your charged language. Women who dress provocatively are not "asking to be handled like lust objects", but they are inviting a certain kind of attention - the same kind of attention that a guy with a perfect six pack invites when he walks around without a shirt. This kind of dress is not reflective of, say, "Hey check me out, I have a sweet personality", it says "Hey check me out, I'm so hot." I think you are not only downplaying the amount of thought that goes into wardrobe decisions, but again presenting your personal attack with facade of logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatLich

This and the quote you referenced are both very much correct. I for one am also uncomfortable when around scantily clad women; IRL that is... both you and Necris apparently are unable to distinguish between feminine looking 3d models and actual women.

This isn't really a question of distinction. After all, most of Necris' comments that you attacked were, in fact, in regard to real life women (in his math class as I recall). His preferring not to translate that kind of style into the game world is his own preference. While I personally don't have a problem with it, this is not indicitive of the inability to draw an actual distinction. You may still argue that Necris or anyone else has trouble distinguishing between 3D models and real women, but even if so, that's really not a unique problem. It's the precise reason that people get the giddies out of dancing around half naked in town and screaming "Naked dance party!" Clearly there's some kind of pleasure coming out of that, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Series · Nov 29, 2006, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatLich

If defining a girl as a "skank" because of the way she dresses isn't caught by the word "hurt" then what is?
And he "obviously" isn't hurting someone? I assume you know Necris personally, then? I'm reading between the lines, but i'm geting some serious phallic frustration from Necris (you, too I'm afraid) If getting Necris and you help, saves some girl grief I think I have every right! "Mysogynistic" it is, then. I usually spellcheck "intelligent" words by typing them into Google. "did you mean..." didn't show up so I assumed my spelling correct.

This and the quote you referenced are both very much correct. I for one am also uncomfortable when around scantily clad women; IRL that is... both you and Necris apparently are unable to distingiush between feminine looking 3d models and actual women. This qualifies as disturbed in my book; some, like me, even call it dangerous. I'm sorry it has to be me to tell you....

lol wow dude. Let me go through that stinker step by step:

Defining a girl who dresses like a "skank" as "skanky" isn't hurting the girl... unless she can only afford 100 dollar skirts that show her lack of underpants when she bends forward 2 inches, she has the ability to dress like a modest being and chooses not to. Maybe you have very little experience with girls- well, that's obvious- but anyway, typically, "skanks" dress like "skanks" and other girls dress less revealing.

And lets see... based on what he has typed, no, he isn't hurting ANYBODY. Seeing how that's the only evidence either of us has, then yes, I'm right.

Save some girl some grief? You can easily accomplish that by never speaking to another female again.

Your spelling is incorrect... and if you need Google to spell a word for you, you probably shouldn't be using it. After you become older, you're vocabulary will increase on it's own- don't force it.

That last bit makes no sense at all... in fact, your complete lack of logic makes you disturbed in not just my book, but the book of any licensed psychologist or psychiatric specialist. Really... I'm dangerous because I don't approve of girls dressing like "skanks"? Someone call the cops on me before I go cover up some cleavage! -_-

Darksun · Nov 29, 2006, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ndy

I do believe that calling the armors "skank" was first posed by someone who wanted to keep them that way, not by Necris. Once again, your logical leap is significant, and you merely attempt to sway the issue with your charged language. Women who dress provocatively are not "asking to be handled like lust objects", but they are inviting a certain kind of attention - the same kind of attention that a guy with a perfect six pack invites when he walks around without a shirt. This kind of dress is not reflective of, say, "Hey check me out, I have a sweet personality", it says "Hey check me out, I'm so hot." I think you are not only downplaying the amount of thought that goes into wardrobe decisions, but again presenting your opinion with only a facade of logic.

Oh! owned lol. See now here I totally agree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ndy

This armor concept is beautiful. But I do disagree that it's not hugely off from the way that elementalist designs tend to be. The leggings take a broad stance and have a nice robe-esque (sorry I couldn't cough up a more accurate description), both of which don't emphasize the slender figure of the elementalist the way most armors in the game do. The cape is full length and hangs down straight as opposed to flaring half way like most GW armors do. In addition, many coats for elementalists make an exaggerated inverse V of some sort up towards the chest which ends either in the aforementioned V or a circle. The ornamentation is much more regal in comparison to what you have referred to as "City of Villains" fare. Lastly, while you may not feel that this is off much from the Guild Wars concept art, concept art rarely makes its way as is into the game. While you could certainly draw some of the male elementalist armors in the game to look nice, when modelled they often become tighter and lose the nice crumply fabric effect that I so adore in your concept art.

Thanks, I may have made an assumption since I wans't accutally using Elementalist art as the ref, but things like Shiro, Wardens, Canthan Pesants, & Shiro'ken. The Elementalist Elements (wow) that I see are the Vabbi long coat (without the ugly back-forward protrusion) The Chanthan & Ancient Collor (there is a tight collor underneith then a larger one surrounded by one-pass guards) the buttoned/suit-like chest of the Kurzick armor & an extended version of the loin cloth from the collectors/Elementalist's armor.
I understand many of the changes that go on from concept to 3D and kind of assume they would happen if this were to happen to my concept. But I can see it (again, with teh exception of the cape) being workable, but recognizeable.
Not, for instance, making them look like Gandalf (who is the man. lol)

GreatLich · Nov 29, 2006, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Series

lol wow dude. Let me go through that stinker step by step:

Defining a girl who dresses like a "skank" as "skanky" isn't hurting the girl... unless she can only afford 100 dollar skirts that show her lack of underpants when she bends forward 2 inches, she has the ability to dress like a modest being and chooses not to. Maybe you have very little experience with girls- well, that's obvious- but anyway, typically, "skanks" dress like "skanks" and other girls dress less revealing.

I have in my previous posts assumed you and Necris to making the same connection "revealing == skank". I'm repating myself here: this is simply not true...

Quote:

And lets see... based on what he has typed, no, he isn't hurting ANYBODY. Seeing how that's the only evidence either of us has, then yes, I'm right.

Right up to the point when Necris starts dating your little sister. Honest answer please: you like the idea of some frustated character like Necris touching your sister? Or even someone like yourself who divides women into categories such as "skank" and "not-skank".

Quote:

Save some girl some grief? You can easily accomplish that by never speaking to another female again.

I enjoy many conversations with women, regardless of how they dress. The whole concept of "them v. us" is lost on me...

Quote:

Your spelling is incorrect... and if you need Google to spell a word for you, you probably shouldn't be using it. After you become older, you're vocabulary will increase on it's own- don't force it.

And your failure to correct me shines in it's absence. I now know how to spell mysogyny, if you're paying attention so will you.

Quote:

That last bit makes no sense at all... in fact, your complete lack of logic makes you disturbed in not just my book, but the book of any licensed psychologist or psychiatric specialist. Really... I'm dangerous because I don't approve of girls dressing like "skanks"? Someone call the cops on me before I go cover up some cleavage! -_-

No, you're dangerous because you devaluate individuals based on their wardrobe, of all things... Don't make me invoke Godwin's Law. I reconsider, no need for good old godwin. I just realized that the people who flew planes into the twin towers and you share a trait: the "need" to cover up womens bodies

Happy · Nov 29, 2006, 11:03 PM // 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ndy

I do believe that calling the armors "skank" was first posed by someone who wanted to keep them that way, not by Necris. Once again, your logical leap is significant, and you merely attempt to sway the issue with your charged language. Women who dress provocatively are not "asking to be handled like lust objects", but they are inviting a certain kind of attention - the same kind of attention that a guy with a perfect six pack invites when he walks around without a shirt. This kind of dress is not reflective of, say, "Hey check me out, I have a sweet personality", it says "Hey check me out, I'm so hot." I think you are not only downplaying the amount of thought that goes into wardrobe decisions, but again presenting your personal attack with facade of logic.

Nice move dear Sir you just made my point for me:

This kind of dress is not reflective of, say, "Hey check me out, I have a sweet personality", it says "Hey check me out, I'm so hot."

It says that in your head, as such i find your view to be distorted (if not Necris's) there is absolutely no reason to presume that a girl who dresses in a short skirt with a tanktop with a lot cleaveage is trying to get your sexual attention she might simply be trying to be fashionable as many women do. She might be a girl with a great personality who happens to like wearing fashionable clothing.
Mind you many not quite so "hot" girls also dress in mini skirts and i would presume many of them do so because of the style being in fashion, not because they are trying to draw sexual attention. A lot of women care about being fashionable and are not trying to get some sexuality point accross by doing so.

Uber Mensche · Nov 29, 2006, 11:07 PM // 23:07

If I may be so bold...

Sex sells. ANet knows this. Everyone who has been outside their parent's basement knows this. Guys will buy a game with girls who wear (what seems to be) three yards of cloth and saucepan lids. Girls (don't deny it!) will buy a game with buff guys wearing tight-ish clothing that shows off their bodies.

Also, a ndy gave me some perfect backing for my argument for making a female ele and assassin. The armor is creepy. The guys are creepy. Creepy squared. This is just my personal opinion, but I believe many share it. I don't sit in front of my computer screen for hours on end watching my elementalist dance with no clothes. I PLAY THE GAME. I suggest everyone else does too.