Dwagginz, I can't believe that "Skyrim got it right" just because one or two of its armour sets look the same on women as men when many more of its armour sets are literal fur bikini's in the frozen wasteland of the north that show far more skin than anything in Divinity 2.
You're comparing two sets of armour, though. Heck, two completely different sets of armour, not to mention you're missing my point.
My point with Skyrim was that it, roughly, got the design balance right. You could tell at a glance (bar Dwarven armour, IIRC) what a character was, because the armours looked slightly different. Sometimes the differences were a bit silly (e.g. the boob plate steel stuff), but largely it was a case of slight changes and tweaks to fit a different model. The fur armours you describe? Well... look at the male and female ones for each kind. The female stuff typically only covers a little bit more (the breasts) - but even in the more covering fur/hide armours (there are a few variations) are still pretty balanced in that respect.
Yes, they were a bit revealing for such a cold area (regardless of gender), but I don't think it was much of an issue within the game itself. It didn't go against the aesthetics of the setting. They didn't stand out as being out of place, instead they seemed to fit in fairly well. But regardless of how silly they were or weren't, they were fairly equally made for both genders.
To contrast, if "bikini armour rules" were in effect, the male fur armour would be fairly covering and sensible, whereas the female armours would leave a lot exposed.
