If that distinction was made, that's fair enough. But the distinction hasn't been made, and it still must be said that a rogue or a mage would still have to be prepared for melée combat. It wouldn't take much for someone in that armour (or lack thereof) to be cut down, whereas even just some padded armour or lighter leather/mail could easily make the difference between life or death.

You can look to, say, Dragon Age 2 to compare the clothing mages are depicted in. It's fairly gender-neutral for mages (and rogues), in that in most cases both classes are covered in a robe. There might be some differences in the patterning and the cut, but both are roughly equally covered. But then compare two of the mage followers - Anders and Bethany. Anders wears clothes that cover him. Bethany has an exposed chest, which is made more ridiculous by the chain mail covering her stomach (any competent archer would aim for the upper chest in that scenario - a lot of exposed veins, arteries and so on). Merrill, on the other hand, is fully-covered in a mixture of clothing and armour (her 'romance' armour set being even more feminised, but still with a lot of protection). Both she and Anders are not directly exposing anything particularly vulnerable (except their heads, but that's games for you), whereas Bethany basically has - in real world terms - a giant bulls-eye painted on her chest.

They might not necessarily engage in close-combat, but any sensible warrior would be protected, at least lightly, just in case. Heck, you just need to look at our real-world history to see that even archers wore protection. Helmets, light/medium armour and so on.

My point is more this. Having men protected/covered and women not so is, really, nothing short of stupid. It doesn't make sense. Do women have some sort of innate magical protection that means they don't need armour? Well... in that case, why would they be wearing partial armour? It would just weigh them down, be uncomfortable, restrict their combat abilities and so on. They'd be much better served even in just a tunic and trousers. If you don't have that system in place (let's be honest, no-one does because it's a steaming pile of rubbish), then why have this difference? You can feminise armour without reducing its practicality, its ability to protect and its safety. Boob cups on armour are a potentially fatal choice to make. They reduce the safety, they reduce its ability to protect. It directs blows into the centre of the chest or, if the wearer falls onto their chest, it can crack the centre. In other words, any blow to the chest will be amplified as the pressure will be directed to a soft spot.

The real life argument (i.e. more revealing female clothing/lighter armour mirrors real life) isn't quite there. You have characters running around for hours in full plate. Realism has a stopping point, and there is a level artistic license that can be exploited. That's why we can accept exaggerated flourishes on armour, ease of movement within plate, the wearing of no helmets. But it doesn't - or, I dare say shouldn't - cover the revealing feminine armours. They are, without a doubt, impractical, pointless and *stupid*. When you put armour on, you do so to be protected. If the armour that is displayed on your character exposes key weak spots (neck, thighs, waist, chest, etc.) then it is not doing its job. That is a fact of any system - fantastical or realistic.

We are in the year 2012 now, Original Sin looks to be coming out in 2013 or thereabouts. We should be moving on from things like "boob armour" and into more serious and egalitarian depictions of characters. We should not still be having the debate about whether revealing armour should be included in games - it's either revealing for all, or it's not revealing at all. Any other system is unbalanced, and at worst it's sexist, objectifying and does nothing to contribute to the inclusion of women within the video game industry and community, which is still a very big problem.