Oh boy, really? the MAJORITY of FF outfits don't make any sense, practically speaking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Printable View
Oh boy, really? the MAJORITY of FF outfits don't make any sense, practically speaking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
I don't see how a SOLDIER with a sleeveless sweater is supposed to fight safely either. Except the shoulder armor their is nothing to actually protect them. Not that they need protection, they are overkill in this fantasy world anyway.
Celes is an Imperial general running around in a green bathing suit.
A majority? No. Some of the outfits are silly fantasy-wear, but very few make active non-sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal_Khan
Other troutty examples are supposed to make this troutty example less troutty? There are practical reasons for not wearing armor, and, despite my complaints, it is okay for outfits to not make sense in a fantasy world. Those things make the choice to dress Cidney in such a ridiculous outfit tolerable perhaps, but not any less stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Why can't I just think her outfit is stupid and sexist without people coming at me with "but other outfits are stupid too!" like more troutty examples somehow makes things better? What kind of logic is that? And, given the gaming industry is currently receiving heavy criticism over the percentage of female characters that are over-sexualized, I think maybe you could stop and consider whether giving me more examples of women dressed in skimpy clothes really helps your argument. Yeah, I'm already fully aware that female characters having their body on display isn't new; let's not try and portray it as some kind of "tradition."
I'm okay with Tifa's sexy outfit, Lulu's massive cans, Rydia's leggy sorceress outfit... No one's saying put video game women in burkas. All I'm saying is Cidney is a smurfing mechanic wearing a titty shirt, hotpants, and thigh boots and it makes no sense and looks ridiculous. Does that personally offend you? I don't understand your motivation for defending the outfit.
Goldeneye DD7Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
It does not make it "less trouty" because that, so what you actually think of all these examples, is completely up to you. And you really think people risking their lives have more right not to wear armor out of convenience than a person who only risks getting a bit of oil on her body?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
It is the logic of fairness. You are okay with other things you think of as equally stupid and justify them but have a serious problem with this example of Cidney which is seriously not worse than people risking their lives wearing no actual protection and you still justify as practical. I am not actually targeting you, by the way. This has become an actual problem all over the world. People get upset because of everything, no matter how pointless it is. People do not mean anything as if they are sexists and are called sexist, people don't mean their comment racist and are called racist, they do not mean anything homophobic and are still called homophobic. Being so quick with calling people names results in a prejudice itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
You say you see no motivation but at the same time I see no motivation for the sexism card just because there is another open-hearted person in a position where in our world it is inconvenient. I think this is getting old. Sex sells and it will always be like this. We should not make more about this than it is because it does not actually cause any harm.
EDIT to not get debate problems:
Which is wrong. Case A counts and Case B doesn't is because of a different relation but once the core elements of what someone wants to talk about are the same then it very well is of relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
We talk about convencient clothes, not matter if sexist or not. And in terms of clothes you're trying to justify your view with points that are really not good enough. And why? Because fantasy. And yes, this is an actual thing if it takes away half of the points like "this is not good to use because of reason x" as character x actually does not have that problem or this "problem" is actually insignificant.
In this relation both the mechanic and the soldier example is completely fine. The gender "issue" is not relevant for this single aspect when it comes to compare a similiarity. And if you actually want a half-naked fighter example that was in army and has like no armor which is inconvenient then I still refer to Celes.
It hampers nothing. This is Final Fantasy, a world where either light armor or speed beyond imagination exists and people can jump with large weapons, no matter what. There is a great variety of armor that would still be good even if speed is the problem, which isn't. I am sorry but the only real insult comes from you by using words like "petty" and "dismissive" as if our words are worth nothing and yours are justified just because they are "against sexism" (which is not even the problem to be honest because I am against everything that is not moderate and causes harm but this here does not). You see, my thing here is not "yeah, sex sells is great" but a "so what"? I am a man and I like it. Do you hate me now or call me perverted just because I admit that one of the oldest instincts, an actual normal thing that is supposed to be good for life, that is also a part of you is a part of me? You get upset because of something that was not even meant to be an insult in the first place. And no, just showing a half-naked woman that might not be necessary for us is still no insult. Sex sells is not always sexism. It can be an insult to you personally but it is questionable how much things that were never meant to be, in no way meant to be, insults, should be understood as an insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
This is getting nowhere, however.
Yea id be less annoyed if the criticism was consistent. Most FF outfits don't make any sense for protecting them from Guns, Sword, etc. So why should it be any different for engine oil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Also, this- http://i.imgur.com/tiCLOGj.gif
(SPOILER)sry, couldn't help myself
I don't like the outfit. To me there is a difference between a sexy outfit and a sexualized outfit. But I can forgive stuff like that if the character is actually a well written and enjoyable character. If the character gets treated like a walking sex object, I'll dislike the outfit that much more. Obviously not saying that's the case here as I have no idea what they're doing with her, just talking about in general
I also just find the outfit incredibly ridiculous looking and unappealing, overly sexualized or not.
As far as having a female Cid, could be a neat idea depending how its handled. I would have expected an older lady though because Cid is usually older. We will see how it goes~
She won't win my best Cid award anyway because that one will stay with Cid Raines.
A cool anime man comes in Final Fantasy before a good-looking lady - in my book.
Just.... Eyeroll
Don't be butts to each other. Mockery isn't cool so knock it off. Thank you for your co-operation.
I didn't mean for this thread to be a debate, so I'll just say this: Sexualization isn't black-or-white. It's not that all displays of sexuality are objectification or none of them are, especially when it comes to fictional characters who, by definition of being fictional, have no real agency. A person, in being sexual, can be a sexual subject or a sexual object, and trying to say that someone must be either okay with every instance of sexuality or none to be consistent shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what sexual objectification is.
Whether a character is a sexual subject or sexual object is highly subjective. Cidney's outfit bothers me because it's extreme in its sexual nature, makes no sense for her role as a mechanic, an, based on what little I know about her, doesn't seem so far to suit her character. It seems to me that she was dressed that way to be eye candy--she's fan service. She's a sexually objectified character. If you don't agree, then I'll live with it, but don't try and get on me about how it's "not consistent" unless I dislike every leggy outfit. Or maybe the fact that 96% of sexualized imagery features women's bodies has made me sensitive--I wonder why that could be a problem. Hmm.
As for armor, aside from it having nothing to do with the frequent objectification of an entire gender, isn't always appropriate. It hampers speed and agility, which are also important. When an armor choice is absolute nonsense then it's annoying, but it doesn't result in that character being objectified--the character is just dumb. Trying to equate armor choice to sexual objectification feels petty and dismissive to me. Unless you just plain don't think sexual objectification is a real thing, which is possible--I've been told sexual objectification is just a feminist buzzword invented to shame men several times recently, which is just...
https://bensbitterblog.files.wordpre...bert.gif?w=676
This, by and far. Overall, it could be considered a minor issue in a way. It's just the notion that this keeps happening over and over and over again, game creators putting women in revealing outfits for [pick your reason]. The fatigue over this issue is emphasized even more by the total boy's club vibe that this game has going for it, which, like Shlup, makes it off-putting enough for me already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockharted
And also, Tara's example of Kaylee Frye vs. Megan Fox was so apt.
I really like her face, but she could have zipped up that zipper.
I wonder if she'll be like Lucca.
No. She is an object. Thats all she will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon