Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 armour appearance

True. I hope for variety of armors. Something for both sides.

So much overthinking for something so obvious. Almost all games cater to male power fantasies. If the men are exposed, it's to show how masculine and powerful they are. Female characters are there for the men to look at.

This concept is so ingrained into really any media that I'd bet most people don't even notice it anymore. That's why it's still very odd for gamers (in general, not all) when they see a trans character, or a gay male couple. the default for almost any game is: Girls look sexy, boys look badass. Honestly I'd be surprised if most video game armor designers even think "oh, this needs to be sexy" when designing female armor, it's just the default.

ha !
who ever wants to respond to that with the "fantasy world card" again, just before you do so, grab your girl friend or you mom's heels and go for a walk outside - 1-2 miles. Please - just a walk, because in game characters are running - don't run for this test ! So after the "WALK" assuming your ankles are still intact, come back here with your experience We can keep talk about fantasy then.

Not all males have the same fantasies.

Oh gosh ... ok. I'm a girl and I think the opposite ! Girls are badass and we enjoy looking at sexy men. And in this "fantasy world", I would invite you for a walk in the underdark and have a pit stop at the Menzoberranzan city, prepare to be chocked.

It is known. Nothing under the robes.

On the Gith armor and the rest it should go either way -- either give men and women pants or take them from both. I think the aesthetic the artists were going for was high fantasy Spartan. So if Greek armor is the basis both would have greaves but otherwise bare legs.

And I'd like that representation throughout the game -- if you are going to give Wyll's patron a neckline that plunges all the way to the top of the pubis, do the same for Cazador or some other figure.

I agree with this -- even if wouldn't say 'irrational' because of all the connotations of that word. I think many people have a desire to believe that there tastes are universal and natural. I suspect that this is because people want to believe their tastes are something more solid than tastes, that these are something solid, something concrete or based upon something solid and concrete.

@Starlights To be straight with you i'm not a fan of the centurion style armors. A girl has to buy me dinner first to glimpse at my quads. If anything I prefer Aragon and Boromirs style from Lord of the rings. Assuming you want to be on the realistic-ish side of things. I'm partial to frontline fighting but if i had to pick mage attire I'd roll with maybe jedi/sith robes. Swotor has a very nice selection of variations. I lean towards modest attire regardless.

You won't be able to please everyone, which is why it's best to target the majority. Individual approach is very good, I agree with you! But often it is not implemented in games, because there is too much variability, so many tastes and views...

I agree with this, it should be done for both, sexy or practical, it does not matter. But it should be different. I believe that women's and men's armor should be different. Both in the case of a practical option, and in the case of a sexual one. At least for the sake of visual diversity.

ok, fair enough for both examples. The roman armor example is an idea to stay protected while having agility. Perhaps, if I go to the other extreme that I don't like and find ridiculous, is something like this for both male/female:


That looks like a coke can; adventuring with that for days doesn't work out for me.

Ok so with this armor it would depend on the game itself. In realistic leaning game setting this armor is problematic. The armor would be slow with rigid and limited movement. Double plated in some area's is foolish.The weak points of this armor is the armpit and the back of the knee. The plated neck means he wont turn fast and the double plated shoulders means his range is shorter than it looks. He is a dead man in a realistic game.

In a free full fantasy setting this armor is amazing. I'll just anime magic the things. I have zero problems with this. In fact I prefer it. At least I have a larger variety of things to wear. More fun for me. Fun is a priority for me after all. However I believe, in some things at least, a middle ground can be fun. Even more so than extremes.

If we are talking just purely about looks, I think it looks great.

Oh, boy! Let me see if I understand this right. The original poster is offended and complains in a roundabout way about perceived sexism because Larian has two armor sets out of eight, where the legs of the female variants are bared as opposed to the male variants. She then proceeds to question the principles/double standards of those who like women in a fantasy game to be a little more feminine and revealing. Yet she has no objections to the barebreasted male clothing, in fact, she wants quite a bit more of it - suggesting the one of the most vulgar armors I've seen, easily the equal of any silly chain mail bikini, is tasteful. Am I missing something, or is this a case of deliciously involuntary irony?


Two to the left: SEXIST! Two to the right: TASTEFUL!

Not even close. lul


No, those who like women in a fantasy games to be a little more feminine and revealing BUT are against the same applying to men if the outfit is the same.


The main point is that it's different, innit? Sexism is not the outfit but the difference, three to the left btw. I don't have a problem with females wearing the outfit on the right, I actually have zero problems with ANY outfits whatsoever.


When you see what you want to see, how can it not be?

Come on...honesty! You found bare female legs tasteless, but pierced man-titties tasteful lol. If it was truly only about this extremist view of equality, not mixed in with your very own set of double standards, you would logically have objected to the bared male nipples as a *much* worse offender than bared female legs instead of suggesting more of it. When you call out others for hypocrisy albeit in a nice manner, you better be sure your own doorstep is squeaky clean

Ah! More delicious involuntary irony!

Are we reading the same forum?

I found that armor trashy because the legs are bare out of the blue while the rest of the armor design seems to be pulling in another direction, it would look equally trashy on a male, while the purple robe would look good on a female also and has a design that works. Even your typical chainmail bikini looks better than that example, because atleast it is designed to be sexy, this one however looks like a more serious armor but the female randomly forgot to put her pants on.


I don't have double standards. As tasteless as that armor is, removing pants from the male model also would already make it fine for me.


Yes, more irony is always welcome.

It all depends on how the armor morphs. It should change to fit the shape of the body underneath, obviously. If design and color changes too, that's... okay, I guess, as long as the armor isn't made "feminine" just by taking away bits of it, as in some of your examples. That's lazy, and reveals how much male = default is still built into our thinking.


I want both, so I can dress my stereotypically seductive sorcerer differently than my stereotypically studious wizard. Regardless of whether those characters are male or female.

I don't consider the Gith armor to be trashy -- it's just a weird mix. It's space fantasy top, Hopilite on the bottom. My guess as to why is that the writers have gone for Gith culture = Ancient Spartan culture. People keep saying Roman centurion but I'm seeing Greek:

@KillerRabbit

We talking about this one though, not the Gith armor: