Some of this goes back to Edgar Rice Burroughs (and, of course, Robert E. Howard). Keep in mind that in Sword and Sorcery depictions as well as Burroughs work (the Barsoom/Mars stories, Tarzan) even the men were depicted not wearing much clothing. Granted, men usually wore more than the women, but typically, they wore little more than loin cloths, possibly boots and a helmet, Somehow the art of sword and sorcery and typically male adventure stories infiltrated the kind of medieval fantasy with armored knights and robed wizards... except it mostly affected female dress. This is what I'm talking about with regards to Sword and Sorcery:
Sigh. Casting spells is not the same *at all* as leaving extremely vulnerable parts of your body exposed to missiles. Heard of the term 'glass cannon'? That's basically what she is. She might pack a punch but sneeze at her in that garb and she'd fall over. Sure. But that was the style of art, and the tone it went for. I would genuinely bet a wad of cash that if they had advertised this game with a male character he would be almost entirely covered with some form of armour (or, if a mage, clothing). But a bloke walking around in a fur loincloth is not the same as an image of a bloodied woman with almost her entire breasts on display.
It really depends on how willing you are to prosecute the marketing department over this Arguments could easily be made that heavy armour reduces agility and magic potency, not to mention barrier or shield spells making armour optional. Glass cannon builds are arguably the most played play-style, as well. Apart from the occasional vitality gem, I've never seen people stack more than their primary stat in Diablo (III, of course) to increase their longevity. I'm just saying EDIT: also, there are plenty of real-life examples of people wearing ridiculously unsuitable clothing in an attempt to look more appealing to the other sex. It just might be more realistic than you think. Anyway, sadly I won't have the time either, as I've got NaNoWriMo on my schedule as well! No idea what I'll do yet, so I'll probably spend this week on figuring it out, rather than rush to check out the game. (I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't be able to stop playing come 1 November, too )
That argument does not make sense at all. 1. Gameplay, design and 'reality' are three different things. You can do things in games (e.g. carry around 20 swords and 3 breastplates) you cannot do in the real world (at least not with any ease). They go against reality for the sake of gameplay. Leaving your chest exposed is something that goes against reality, but has no gameplay bearing. It is nothing except bad design. Why? Because your chest is basically the weakest point of your whole body. Lungs, heart and a crapload of blood vessels. Any damage to that is going to do serious, serious damage to your ability to live, let alone your ability to fight. 2.The more powerful mages typically can't wear heavy armour in games because they trade off vitality for power. You'll find in those kinds of games, 'tanks' (i.e. warriors in heavy armour) trade off damage dealing for vitality and damage management, because they need to absorb damage and hold attention rather than deal it. Rogues are vaguely similar, in that they wear lighter armours as a trade off to allow them to have better attacks and crowd-control. That is how games work. 3. Marketing with boobs is tacky, outdated and pointless. Very, very easy to argue it's sexist and demeaning (hint: because it is). Uh. See, this point doesn't even work. At all. Wearing clothing that accentuates things in order to appeal to potential partners (of any sex/gender) is not in ANY way, shape or form anything like the argument against revealing/accentuating clothing *when you are fighting*. What you go into combat, whether you're a mage, a warrior, a rogue or a pack mule, you *need* to be protected. You cannot leave vulnerable (neck, chest, arm-pits, stomach, inner thighs) spots exposed. The need for this relaxes as you increase distance, but even mages and ranged combatants need protection from *other* ranged combatants, and for the possibility of melée combat. Why? Because this is common sense, and because it constitutes being adequately prepared. You don't know what's going to happen, you don't know who or what you'll face. It's utterly pointless marketing that serves no purpose other than "lolboobs".
Every character starts as an exile on a boat that crashes, and you wash up on the beach in rags. The Marauder's in a loincloth, the Templar's in basically a nightshirt, etc. As you pick up equipment your appearence changes, and both genders of player characters get more modest eventually. That said, Act 3 involves many fights against animated stone/gold/silver statues of completely naked people, male and female, some of which are 3 times the height of your character; meaning at whatever graphics settings you're playing on, you'll see some genitals. (there are also topless demonesses in a few areas) So, yeah. It gets even worse than the marketing suggests Unless you're ok with it being considered "art" since a lot of famous real-life statues are naked too. Still makes it difficult to recommend this game.
That's okay as such, it's not so much about the genitals on statues because we - like as in we in the world - have art of naked people. And it can be tasteful. It can also be erotic and tasteful. But if you're marketing your game - irrespective of the content - with a woman with a hefty amount of boobage on display, you're either advertising a sex-based game, or you're really, really unoriginal and need to take a good look in the mirror.
The problem with this one, Gorbax, is how common fanservice, not only for marketing but in general, has gotten nowadays. I do understand that many people find it pleasant and desire it, and that statistically speaking more people who play these games want it than not. And I am no prude myself so it's not that I am getting scandalised or anything of this sort. But its constant presence has gotten frustrating already. Sexuality is a part of life, yes, so pretending it doesn't exist is stupid. But on the other hand, it is a part of life, and trying to insert it anywhere and everywhere is neither proper nor desired. It has its own place and "everywhere" is not that place. If I start playing a game, it is because I want to play a game and not because I seek to see naked female bits. And if I wanted to see a female breast (honestly, it stopped being all that interesting after some time, it's just "something", a normal thing) I wouldn't start playing a game but would instead ask my girlfriend to get less dressed than she is. And the "suspension of disbelief" bit? Yeah, right. You see, the problem with that one is that it's not about "metal interfering with magic" or anything of this sort, but rather about blatantly inserting sexuality into things, something that some people are simply getting tired with. If you had a female mage who had to stop using metal armour because it interfered with her casting, she would be a mage wearing a leather armour set with robes on top of that to act as protection from cold. And if she were a warrior she wouldn't wear some sort of quasi-erotic armour but rather something which decreases the chance of getting hit with a glancing strike and bleeding out to death; that is, unless she planned on becoming a zombie courtesan from the start, but this only incites further questions. The only place where "incomplete" armour of this sort would not be out of place is a gladiator's arena; but even then the armour would still likely be covering a female warrior's breasts and nether regions and instead would simply leave her head, abdomen, arms, and legs uncovered; not for the sake of sexuality but rather to make drawing blood easier as that makes gladiatorial fights more interesting. I do understand that you are trying to justify something which, in your opinion, isn't all that bad. And you aren't making a bad job there. It's just that what you are trying to defend is not something which ought to be defended - people who make these designs should really stop for a moment and think about it. Because yes, sex sells; but it also leaves people who aren't horny teenagers annoyed at how ever-present it is. And since we are talking about the game in general, I'd need to get rid of some random junk I have on my HDD to play it again. That, or get a new HDD, but I don't have time to go on a shopping trip in search of decent ones, so it'll probably be half a month before I get back to it (and to my 2nd difficulty 3rd zone duelist).
I think the issue is that some people find the depictions of female characters as offensive. I'm not going to discuss why some people don't find it offensive and others do, because that's not at issue. What I do think is that when you have a good game that appeals to a varied audience, it behooves you to not alienate part of that audience. Sex may sell, but what sells even more is positive word of mouth. Let those with crap products stoop to crap advertising practices. Civilization might have sold a few boxes to a different audience had they used scantily clad pictures of Cleopatra to sell it, but they would have lost a whole lot more at the same time. It's just dumb.
