>>1923530 >>1923451 Actually, if you really think about it; it would be somewhat more better if she was scantilly-clad. Do you really think the goblins would just walk away, just because she's wearing more clothing? If this was reality, they would mostly beat her to death, before they get to remove any of her clothing for wearing more clothing!

Never kill yourself.

>>1927564 No, people who whine about bikini armour should definitely kill themselves.

>>1927634 The sheer ass-hurt radiating off this post is palpable.

>>1927634 I was okay with it as a joke nearly a decade ago but realized eventually there are legit people who get anal over it. Overtime, I became intolerant of people who can't tolerate the slightest bit of absurdity, humor, and suspension of disbelief even in dark settings. That being said I'm not exactly into fully wholesome media either.

>>1927747 The people who get 'anal' about this kind of shit are always just playing social games, there's nothing else to it beyond that.

>>1926883 No, you really don't understand do you? You need to be murdered really, but you unaliving yourself is the best, most comvenient way for it to happen. Let everyone around you breathe a sigh of relief knowing they don't have to humiliated by associating with you anymore. Commit suicide, you don't have a choice, except for how you do it. Jumping off a building would be pretty cool, but really you deserve to slit your wrists and bleed out.

>>1927634 People who think the entire world needs to cater to their fetish need to be lined up against a wall and shot for being so insufferable.

>>1927657 >>1927845 >>1927847 Go back to your Trannycord

>>1927634 true

>>1927858 Commit suicide. You don't have any other options left. It's the only thing you can do at this point. Livestream it.

Bikini armor is gay. All females should be naked at all times, both in reality and in fiction. And I don't want any of that "better left to the imagination" shit. How about you imagine you can't see her naked, faggot? I wanna see the goods.

I wonder why that one in particular subject makes people so hostile... Is it because people are traumatized by the sex appeal silencing that's been going on that feel the need to act aggressive about even the slightest bit of argumental opposition? ...or is it because these are just a bunch of 4chan goons engaging in unfaithful arguing for the sake of it? I mean, I get it, let hot girls and guys be hot, but no need to be so utterly aggressive about it...

>>1928151 >All females should be naked at all times, both in reality and in fiction. This except with niggers and they can be legally hunted.

>>1928151 I can see your point, but considering most of our typical media platforms these days (Facebook, Youtube, etc.) will just ban nude characters. On the other hand, there are other people that are very sensitive to nude women nowadays. Think of scat, there are many spectrum's of what many scat fetishists believe is perfectly acceptable and sexy. This ranges from just seeing a girl shitting her diaper and pants to shitting a toilet and then to seeing a fully nude girl with her anus expanding to push out all the turd that was inside her. But there is even more to this spectrum, like someone literally shitting into someone's mouth, shit smearing, and eating shit. Think of Jeff Gerstmann's Gamespot review of Soul Calibur 4 and his comments relating to Ivy's thong attire. >>1928200 There are multiple reasons. 1. SJW faggotry which leads to more bland and uncreative games 2. Shills to disrupt any meaningful conversation, and also concern trolling shills 3. There are many people that genuinely like bikini armour, and to them there's nothing wrong with having a bikini armour in a fictional realm because they have their own reasons for liking bikini armour and rightfully so. 4. Escapism, because faggot SJWs and control freaks, wants to control as many people's fantasies as possible.

>>1928347 >That whole first paragraph What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, SJWs will try to censor stuff, but what the hell is with that analogy? As for the censorious SJWs, caving to them isn't going to solve anything. Gimme all the nudes. In fact, more games need to be designed to highlight the nudity. Just modding a character to be nude doesn't do enough, since in most poses you can't see much anyway. Gimme fighting games designed to have all the girls nude, so all the flying kicks and whatnot show off all the goods. No panty shots. Fuck that gay shit. Just show the pussy. I'm sick of acting like half-measures are good enough.

>>1928347 >1. SJW faggotry which leads to more bland and uncreative games >4. Escapism, because faggot SJWs and control freaks, wants to control as many people's fantasies as possible. So it IS trauma, okay... I mean, those things are actual problems* that need to be radically opposed, sure, but putting everyone under the same "SJW Faggot" sack and acting radically over something like a non-ideological critique is nothing short of absurd. At times it makes me think people on this side of the argument are no different than those they oppose, as both act extremely unreasonably. >2. Shills to disrupt any meaningful conversation, and also concern trolling shills That is true, there are retards on both sides of the argument being retards for the heck of it. >3. There are many people that genuinely like bikini armour, and to them there's nothing wrong with (it) Personally I don't, less so because it's obscene (I don't care) and moreso because most authors don't bother to give it a reason other than "horni" AND it leaves nothing to the imagination. I like to see fabric and how it suits its wearer, even something as simple as Samus' Justin Bailey or Palutena's exposed leg... and I also like to see a good reason for characters to dress the way they do, it's lore and I'm all for it. At least those are my preferences and I'm not going to chimp out over someone opposing them. (*): Okay, schizo theory: I believe the SJW nonsense is too easy of an explanation to be true; you can call them power freaks or protestant retards... but what I think is that these motherfuckers are just pushing their own fetishes into everything solely because of their fetishism. Ideologies and social justice are nothing but a front to paint their degeneracy in a good light by forcing the existence of a known enemy onto them, it's easier for normies to stomach things when you put the excuse of a "greater good". Our preferences being erased is not a matter of social fighting, it's just because they so happen to be in these faggot's way, otherwise they wouldn't give a single shit about them.

>>1927010 >anon would rather get his ass raped by mutant fungal chimps than die Are you a slut or something?

>>1928518 based rational thinker, I'm sorry for the spergout that's going to happen to you >schizo theory I really don't think there's anything schizo about that, subversive types using objectively morally good standpoints as a trojan horse of sorts to push radical ideologies and degeneracy is nothing new and more common than you think. Just about everytime you hear "but think of the children!", what you just described is happening. I have learned to immediately distrust any opinion that uses child safety as a talking point.

>>1928347 Is there some reason why the bikini armour can’t be worn by civilians, nurses, women who aren’t in combat which should be all women because women fighting is fucking retarded.

>>1928455 Was just trying to imply that many artists and game designers (that are not pozzed) have their own personal tastes and would make their own art and games in a way that would gravitate to bikini armour, than actual nudity, the analogy was that many scat fetishes have their own personal tastes and level of tolerance on what they would find sexy until they become repulsed. But you have a point for the nudes, >>1928518 1.4. I was refering to how creative the artists want to be without it being radially altered by some freak. Yes, if an artist wants to make a game about truama, then go and make it, but I'm talking about games where any artist wants to craft any escapist fantasy they want to without their artist vision being filtered. 2.Agree 3.This is more of a to each their own. Whether you find bikini armour obscene is just subjective and has no actual basis in actual morality. I'm all for having logical explanations for the justifications for why the characters dress the way that they do, but then you look at MGS5 for the explanation for why Quiet is dressed the way she did and see how other reviewers (Jim Sterling) react to Quiet's dress lore. We can see why many artist probably won't care about giving a lore, because there are people like Jim will just bitch about Quiet's design, no matter how reasonable and logical the game's explanation is. >>1928778 Nah, more like get rid of the mutant chimps instead. Plus if they do beat you to death, what makes you think they won't rape your corpse and cut your body parts and shove them up your ass? You're going to carry a grenade to blow them up suicide bomber style? >>1928518 >>1928816 is right, there are so many people that are using children as their go to, but more than likely don't have any actual moral standards and may have a lot of immoral baggage and try to use their standpoints as a shield to avoid any legitimate criticisms. >>1929679 No, they should be able to wear bikini armour whenever they want to,

>>1930340 I forgot to add about how strict many platforms are on the subject of nudity. Many game developers need to be more aware of many platforms that are more free than your usual suspects and will allow nudity on their platform.

Not a trope but I hate when the main creator of an video game franchise is trying to slowly retcon almost everything that was written in text and add so much bullshit gimmicks and "complex" narratives that no one asked for, all for the sake of making it more "deep" when in reality you're making it so much worse that no one bothers anymore.

>>1930340 >no matter how reasonable and logical the game's explanation is Wasn't the explanation that she had some made up disease that's never talked about before or after her that will cause her to suffocate if she covers up too much skin? That's not a great explanation at all, and it would have been better if the reason was because she just likes dressing as a pole dancer. Paper thin, bullshit excuses for what is obviously just plain jerk off material irritates me immensely. Stop jumping through hoops and conjuring up medical conditions to justify something that doesn't need it.

>>1940275 That sounds more like a singular, specific instance rather than a trope.

>>1591335 FFVIII of all games address this. The party and other human NPCs only use paramagic, which is a knock off of real magic that only a sorceress can use, since her power is descended directly from God. Or half of god's body or something.

>>1591335 Hat World New Testament is pretty good about its different elements being unique. I really love the wish spell that gives you a few random effects to pick from, and if you use it on the keeper each option is replaced with "praise Maris Reis" and it kills you. The game is god-tier, free, fully translated, fucking play it. >>1923015 I'm not going to try to seriously follow this discussion but no one had a washer and dryer in their house in pre-modern times and cloth fibers that got into a wound were pretty much guaranteed to cause fatal infections so the only reason someone would wear unarmored clothes into battle would be purely practical such as climate. Clothes in general were more practical before modern times and they also didn't have modern sewing machines so no one was making complicated undergarments that conform to the body and cover everything for no reason but modesty; people generally went bottomless and by climate/culture might not wear tunics that reached below the waist. I think the idea behind this post is inherently stupid because it's trying to filter both all of fantasy and antiquity through the extremely specific and removed modern culture. The old pantheon were celebrated with naked unisex mudwrestling and pagan gods were all over the place. This point could only apply to explicitly christian nuns wearing explicitly fetishistic clothing and there is no provided example in the post. Priestess(Goblin Slayer)'s outfit covers her whole body without constricting her legs, anything more would be too much.

>>1940387 The reason why I though it was a great explanation, was the symbolism; no matter how smart the developers at Kojima Productions were. It reminds me of something I read about the sun, where people can heal themselves by sun bathing, and increasing their Vitamin D levels. Quiet's sun bathing in her prison, seems reminiscent of scantily clad humans from ancient tribes, gaining energy from the sun.

>>1953070 >It reminds me of something I read about the sun, where people can heal themselves by sun bathing, and increasing their Vitamin D levels. Quiet's sun bathing in her prison, seems reminiscent of scantily clad humans from ancient tribes, gaining energy from the sun. That's not good writing, that's borderline schizophrenic. I'm not even trying to be mean; you're seeing patterns where there are none. None of what you said has anything to do with MGSV. I promise you that nobody who had a hand in Quiet's design was thinking about mudfucking cavewomen standing in the sun naked to recharge their mana. Kojima wanted a hot babe in his game, and then felt so guilty about it (while keeping her in anyway) that he created, or ordered somebody to create, a logical justifaction for including her. That's it.

>>1953529 >>1940387 Multiple things can be true. The photosynthesis & 'breathing through your skin' thing has been in the game since MGS3, it's what the End had that allowed him to be a extraordinary sniper because he could camp in position for days and stop his breathing to hide/steady himself. Kojimbo also happened to want a hot babe in his game. The only extra justification MGSV adds is that Quiet's actual lungs are shot due to the parasites.

>>1940392 Not really. Tekken and (not vidya) Star Wars are very notorious examples.

>>1953701 Thank you, i was not that familiar with MGS lore. I still think it's a flimsy excuse, but it makes more sense now.

>>1953709 The original Star Wars novel, technically released before the first movie, gave a basic outline of the prequel trilogy, even specifically naming things like the Sith, Chancellor Palpatine and Coruscant, which aren't mentioned in the movies until Phantom Menace. But Lucas did have the basic outline the whole time. I forget if there's evidence if he actually thought of Darth Vader as Luke's father until after making the first movie, but nobody complains about that one retcon. Also, his name literally means Dark Father, and I think that's a pretty glaring piece of evidence. There are even notes Lucas made before Empire Strikes back that outline the sequel trilogy, as well as three more standalone spinoff movies. These are much less fleshed out, as Lucas didn't seem to care about them as much (and the spinoffs even less than the sequels), but they're there. The original six movies were based on his initial draft of Star Wars, which was the basic story of all six, with the rise and fall of the empire. Of course it changed somewhat significantly once he realized it wasn't practical to make it as one movie, with things like Luke and Anakin becoming separate characters, but the basic outline was there. The sequel trilogy and spinoffs seemed like things he started thinking about once he saw the first movie was a massive cash cow, and he started trying to think of ways to milk the hell out of it. Like he was never planning to direct the spinoffs himself, but once he tried not directing Empire and Jedi and realized he cared too much to hand them off, he seemed to lose interest in spinoffs, as he realized they wouldn't be as low-effort for him as he thought. One of those standalone spinoff movies, about Chewbacca and his family, seemed to form a very loose basis for the Holiday Special, and that probably also soured him on further spinoff movies, at least live action ones. And as Disney likes to point out sometimes, the actual sequel trilogy is extremely loosely based on Lucas's actual idea. There were going to be two protagonists, Han and Leia's son and daughter, and they were going to be trained by Luke as the next generation of Jedi. Those characters were distorted into Rey and Kylo Ren (Lucas's versions had different names, not to mention significantly different personalities and stories). Lucas did fiddle with the sequel notes more once the Disney deal approached, though. Like in the '70s, his basic idea was that The Emperor would survive and then be truly defeated in the sequels. By Return of the Jedi he decided against doing the sequels at all, and just killed The Emperor (though maybe at one point he was planning to make it look like he died here and just bring him back later). By the time he sold to Disney, his idea was to have Darth Maul come back and be the main antagonist. This is why he had Darth Maul come back in The Clone Wars. While he was pretty hands-off with that, he occasionally provided ideas. Another one was an arc that actually dealt with The Whills, who are originally referenced in the first novel, which I remind you came before the movie (but was based on his screenplay). I recommend a Youtube channel called Rick Worley. He has an extremely in-depth series called How To Watch Star Wars. One part in particular is about the development of the series, which is relevant to this discussion. Other parts are about things like why the Special Editions and Prequels are legitimate. All the parts go deep on things like themes and symbolism and filmmaking and Lucas's plans, style, and intention. >tl;dr: Star Wars is deep for real and almost all of the retcons and depth were planned very early, if not before the original movie, then before the first sequel, which everyone loves. Even the sequels were planned before the original trilogy was finished, even if Disney bastardized them nearly beyond recognition.

>>1953796 >One of those standalone spinoff movies, about Chewbacca and his family, seemed to form a very loose basis for the Holiday Special Dear god, i cannot imagine how bad that would have been.

>>1953976 >Dear god, i cannot imagine how bad that would have been. Yes you can. You can watch it. That's the spinoff movie that was actually made. It turned out much worse than Lucas intended (even though he intended to be quite hands off with it), and he hated the result and reportedly tried to hunt down every copy and destroy them all (before the internet came along and made that impossible), but it got made, and you can watch it, and it's even worse than the one you're imagining. But I love it and I consider it part of the series. I include it every time I marathon the series. It fits perfectly between the first two movies, and introduces Boba Fett, which is pretty important.

>>1953796 >his name literally means Dark Father, and I think that's a pretty glaring piece of evidence. The retcon is Darth being a title among the Sith since it's pretty obvious in A New Hope "Darth Vader" is treated as a proper name (Or at least Obi Wan does.)