Still Sexism in costume choices? Really?

It's not that a new piece is easier than porting a jacket, it's that porting a jacket is no less difficult than making a whole new piece.

No, that's less diversity when pieces that can theoretically be worn on either gender is restricted to just one. E.g., If I might want to put the Foo Jacket with the Widget Boots, but the Foo Jacket is only for males and the Widget Boots is only for females... how is that diversity? It's a *limitation*.

So you're saying that the art department has to choose between:

1. Foo Jacket for males and Widget Boots for females
2. Foo Jacket for males and Foo Jacket for females
3. Widget Boots for males and Widget Boots for females

Edit: fixed the example.

And they've been regarding options 2 and 3 as *less* diversity, so they go with 1. Well then, heck, why ever bother porting any piece to any model? Just have the female, male, and huge models each have their own unique set of pieces not shared by the other models? Wouldn't that be the greatest amount of *diversity*? Wouldn't that allow the art department to produce the most amount of unique pieces?

Listen, I'm not looking for a bras for men. But it's clear that the decisions being made over what gets ported or not ported is being based on some pretty obvious gender bias and stereotypes and the claim that it's all for diversity falls flat when you consider you don't really extend that diversity criteria to the huge model and make separate pieces for it, nor was that diversity criteria ever really expressed historically. Especially since Devlopers have gone on the record in the past that their previous gender bias decisions were made precisely out of gender bias ("Kilts? We're not giving skirts to men!")

And historically, how often have you heard players asking for gender-distinctive pieces as opposed to threads like this complaining about gender-restricted pieces?


I'm not comfortable with the 'in the future' replies from the art department any more. First, there's the issue of fixing things in the past that is being glossed over. There's a long list of gender disparate issues in the costume creator and not just in the Steampunk pack which should be rectified. Secondly, we were told that 'in the future' when new NPC factions are made, their costumes would be made such that they could be more easily ported to player characters. Noble Savage made a point that such will be the case with the IDF costumes. He even told us it was coming in Issue 19. Then he had to retract that and told us he was mistaken and it will be coming in the next issue (that would mean Issue 20).

Well it's just about Issue 20.5. Where's the IDF costume set? What happened to "in the future we will make NPC costumes available to PCs"?

That's why I wince when I hear the art department telling us that policies will change "in the future."

Fix'd and /signed.

Well... I'm not going to say it's easy (standard code rant), but, once the concept art is drawn for one model, redrawing it for another model should be quicker than developing a brand new piece of similar complexity. And in some cases, there is no need for new concept art (cigars and shoulder pets, e.g.).

There's also the case that if a brand new generic texture is used (as opposed to one that gets special paintings on it), it can be repurposed for the other models rather easily... bumpy leather texture is bumpy leather texture.

And it's not like there isn't a huge library of existing pieces to repurpose as frameworks.

So, yes, it isn't as simple as pressing the "port to new model" button. But it isn't the case that in every situation it is completely as much work as a brand new piece from scratch.

I am at this point as well. I had high hopes when David started posting, those hopes have passed though.

I really am not a fan of new costumes for NPCs that do not also go to PCs. What is even worse is that the PC version is not as good as the NPC versions. The GR PPD costume is a prime example.

I love the incarnate stuff, unlike some. I do love new costumes even more though.

I will take this thread even a step further. It is not just about male and female parts, but how mutually exclusive parts within the models themselves are. Why again can't I use the warrior belt with the tight top option? No cyborg arms with Warrior tops? Yeah, that is even more messed up.

Fixed... Pay attention, would ya!

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

I agree. I really dislike costume pieces that can't be color or texture matched except to other pieces in the same set. Especially when it the turns out that the set is missing gloves and boots.

Future options. So the stuff that players want brought over to Male or Female characters from the previous packs are a no go, huh? Disappointing.

Even stranger is parts that don't come up despite being allowed in identical costumes for the other gender. I had a costume I was designing with Dress Shirt 2, Open Science coat, Tucked in Cargo pants. With the male option, I could use the tied cloth belt (Martial Arts 2) or the "Tactical" belt with the row of pouches. Neither option can be used on the female model wearing the exact same costume. In fact, they only get about 80% as many belts as men do under those conditions.

This

I also really dislike that so many of the newer costume pieces are so conceptually limiting. Conceptually limited pieces are what booster packs are for, true, but costume pieces ported from NPCs are often even more limiting, and that's what mostly made up the last batch of free new costume options.

I also dislike that so many sets have a textured "boots" or "gloves" piece but no texture for smooth boots or gloves. The shapes of many of the boots are frankly unattractive, and the bulky gloves can't be work with sleeves and clip with shields.

So in a nutshell, Quantity > Quality... but it may change?

Originally Posted by VoodooGirl [*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*

Fixed. Thanks.


And while we're on the subject of pieces that won't go together and inexplicable matching of pieces on one model but not another though both models have all the pieces, when will the missing cape options for females be fixed?

The Costume Creator is in need of an overhaul. And I'm not talking about the pieces we want and don't exist, I mean the byzantine nature of the costume menu were the existence of pieces come and go like it was Schrodinger's closet.

This, right here, is the crux of the issue in my mind.

Look, if you want women running around in lingerie, or wearing what you might call slinky (and what I might call something else, perhaps), go right ahead. That's fine. It has a long tradition in comics, I grant you, little though I've read of them. You have about three thousand five hundred and six different options on how to go about it.

But that does not mean that all female options should constantly be limited to corsets, bras, tiny skirts and maybe a set of gloves. Women should have as much variety in costume as men, and that variety should range from "skimpy lingerie" to "a nice, respectable coat" to "civvies" to "awe inspiring and dignified magical". And at present female toons really don't get that. The costume selection applicable to a character that does not run around in lingerie in the best of comic tradition hasn't changed in any significant measure since they added in day jobs. That's issue 13, people! We're at issue 20.5!

I am not even going to - though I could - harp about the incredible, immense sexism inherent in that "best comic tradition" everyone's so keen on. It's enough for me to point to the history of the packs in this game and the costume pieces the women keep getting again and again. Look at the magic pack for instance. Men got a Baron coat - an incredibly nice and utilitarian piece of costuming that can be used almost anywhere: I've seen it used as a fancy overcoat, as a trenchcoat Mal Reynolds style, even as a labcoat. They got a top hat. They got a dignified magician-esque look. What do women get? A push-up corset and a transparent skirt with holes in the stomach.

The message? Men who do magic are dignified, intimidating and formidable. Women presumably run around in cabals of orgies every other night, and dress accordingly.

This pack is not really any better. Steampunk men get a variety of styles pf clothing. Women get close to the same repetitive items again and again. Why can't we, if this variety is so much tauted, get a more varied appearance to or female characters? Why are they limited to one specific look which is, to be honest, full of very sad sociological implications? Why can't we have some of that, and a little of the other?

Let's not just glue ourselves to that famed and very problematic comic tradition. Comics were created in the 20's, when women just got the vote in America. They were made in the 1950s, when it was dutifully assumed that a woman's place is at home, entertaining her successful husband's guests. They were drawn in the 1960s, when the feminist movement was just waking up and rubbing its eyes... We're not there anymore. We can transcend the obvious sociological imprints of severe gender bias, and allow ourselves do go further. Women can wear clothes. Even coats! Costumes in video games are allowed to reflect that from time to time.

Once every other pack would be okay.

+1

Guess that means we'll never see a version of the Baron or Victorian coat for females.

That stinks. >_<

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration where one isn't justified. I'm all for more cross-over pieces myself in the general case, but the diversity issue really comes down mechanically to something that was stated earlier: there really isn't any such thing as "porting" most costume pieces: they have to be created almost from scratch to fit the appropriate body models and animations. So if you are going to make, say, a jacket for male, female, and huge, you're really making three jackets that just happen to look superficially identical.

Because of this fact, the creation of costume pieces is somewhat independent effort-wise. So suppose you're someone on the art team making costumes for the male rig. You have a list of stuff you'd like to do, but whenever someone makes something for the female rig, you're told you *have* to make a version of this thing yourself. Conversely, whenever you actually find the time to make something original, the person making costumes for the female rig is given the same instruction: no matter what you want to work on, you have to make a comparable analog piece first.

If that's done excessively, it *does* reduce costume diversity from the perspective of the fact that the art priorities for the different gender models might be different but not expressed in that rule. *Why* the art team might make one thing a priority for one gender and a different thing a priority for a different gender is an artistic decision.

The answer to your rhetorical question is that sometimes priorities or thematic issues align, and sometimes they don't, and a rule that says "make everything completely different" is just as absurd as "make everything the same." There has to be a balance between those two, and that balance point can be debatable, but the one thing I'm absolutely certain about is that its not at either edge.


I'm not going anywhere near the other "sexism in female costume parts" issue itself.

Not really. If you're in a position of power and you give favoritism to a select few, then those few will do just about anything for you because you're making their lives easier. This includes keeping the masses uneducated and powerless.

Peasants couldn't read--that was the clergy's job. The peasants also couldn't own any real weaponry, as buying that much steel for any luxury item (outside of standard farm equipment) was outside the means of most in the lower classes. And, all the hatred that welled up within the peasant class was generally directed at whomever their government was currently P.O.ed at, i.e., "It's THEIR fault that you have to work so hard for so little!"

Actually, that last one still works surprisingly well in this day and age.

Note that I'm actually fully agreeing that this was a horrible way to rule and live, GG, but the people in the system couldn't do anything at the time... But when they were able to, they did so with bloody vengeance (see Marie Antoinette). It just wasn't until later, when things like the printing press made mass education possible, and the diversification of labor allowed access to better and cheaper weapons on par with those used by those in power that something that makes so much sense to a person with modern sensibilities could become a reality for the impoverished masses.

End threadjack.

Originally Posted by Nethergoat it's NEVER too late to pad your /ignore list!

Well, see, that's where you're missing the point. The sexism in the costumes leads to limited choices. No one's saying "take out all the lingerie!" They're saying, "Why are the featured costume pieces for the Female model of this booster pack mostly lingerie?"

Let's say you're the one and only costume creator artist for a brand new MMO that has three models: Huge, Male, and Female. You've sketched out three basic costumes: a robe; a tunic/mini-dress; and metal armor. But before you can even start to create anything, your boss comes running in and says, "We have to get this game out in one week or it will close down in financial ruin." And suppose one week was the time it took to create three full-body costume pieces.

What do you do? Make the armor for the Huge, a robe for the Male, and a tunic/mini-dress for the Female? Or a robe for all three?

The first sounds like 'the most diversity'. Except if you wanted to play a female warrior: "Wait, in order to be a warrior and have armor, I have to be not only Male but freakin' Huge?!"

The diversity of the costume choices gets *limited* by gender. There are two axis of diversity that costume pieces fall under: by model and by distinction from other costume pieces. By making the same piece for all three models, you lose the ability to make more pieces that are distinct from other pieces. By making more pieces that are more distinct from others, you don't have time port them to other Models and so you lose the number of pieces that the Models have access to.

And when you take the latter route, you create Model envy... and disparity, especially if such choices are influenced by 1950's mores of what's appropriate for the male and female genders... which they are and have been, self-admittedly by the Devs.

So... that's *why*. We were specifically told at one time that kilts were off the table for Male and Huge models because they were somehow inappropriate for men to wear and the fear of... cross-dressing!! You don't have to wonder if there's sexism at play when they out and out tell you that that's their reasoning. Granted, they changed their minds... but not by that much.

Now, is the Male model cigar so incompatible with the Female model that it has to be re-created from scratch?

This.

Didn't we have this EXACT same discussion back in April of 2009 (yes, over two years ago) when the Magic Super Booster came out and guys got awesome jackets and women got frilly witch costumes? Yes, yes we did--along with a promise to do better in the future.

-Buxley

Actually, there's very little in the costume creator that looks like real lingerie - it's more like extreme clubwear.

Switch them out with Swedes I say.

And on that note, I really have a hard time understanding how a e.g. cloak for a thin male model wouldn't fit a regular female model. They get scaled by size anyway, why would you need to create something from scratch anew? Are the animations really that different that it would cause clipping?


Oh and on a sidenote I noticed that the male model Martial Arts Pack Warrior shoulder pieces already do clip very nicely with the respective Warrior robe.

I very much disagree and I've seen spectacular costumes in all manners of design. I'd always love more stuff but I think comments like this do a disservice to the "issue".

Simple explanation for that, and it's in Zwallendorf's post above"

Oh wait. That scenario you describe actually allows for less variety in character design options.

How can that be?