File talk:Medium orrian.jpg

I'd make a medium armor character just for this.--Gerroh 02:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan, but I do want to see what the heavy version looks like. And I do love all the variety. --Moto Saxon 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More interested in the light armor version. Probably going to be very common on necromancers. Konig/talk 02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is nice, but I don't think I'd get it. Something about it doesn't quite suit my style... Venom20 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the armours seem a little strange, but I think it's more because we're seeing the new styles and have to get accustomed to this way of designing things. Still, like the trenchcoats for adventurers :D 68.144.99.199 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just the shoulderpieces.... - Infinite - talk 17:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably leave out the shoulder pieces myself. The mask is what I want most. Konig/talk 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I like how the tail comes out and the coiling bit around the waist is cool too. --Xu Davella 11:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The illusion of a belt has been bothering me this whole time. They are just 2 individual pieces. It would've been cooler (in my opinion) if it was a single piece. - Infinite - talk 12:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ohh right I didn't notice that it splits on both sides. bummer. --Xu Davella 12:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the hole in the female version. It just seems stereotypical. The heaviest armor I've seen to date. So long, and heavy, just so much material... oh btw, should totally be able to see the cleavage. /rage A F K When Needed 04:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably would see cleavage if there was a person in there. --Moto Saxon 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The last line of his was sarcasm. And I didn't see that... shame. :/ I'm hoping there will be at least a *handful* for each class that aren't sex appeal and are actually reasonable for actual armor... Konig/talk 14:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You should look at some of the other concepts, Konig. Yes, the disparity of "female armor = cleavage, male = covered up" is disappointing, but there are a fair number of sets where the female armor is as reasonable as the male version - and not designed in such a way that the styling of the armor screams "look right here, there are breasts under here!" Less than I'd like though, certainly... Arshay Duskbrow 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not asking for topless men but... hey, I'm Scottish. Gimme some facepaint, a kilt, and a weapon. I'll be more than happy. A F K When Needed 17:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"What it lacks in protection, it makes up in distraction." But yeah. Mediggo 07:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Or in AFK's suggestion, it makes up in disgusting the foe. Konig/talk 17:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

...not racist at all. A F K When Needed 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

FREEEEDOMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^^ gotta love the scottish --The Holy Dragons--[[--31.151.75.38 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(RI)Sure am sick of all the complaining of sexism and crap. It's a fantasy game, it doesn't need to be realistic in the slightest. Skimpy armor can protect just as much as full armor. Go complain to Western society as a whole, make a big march out of it or something. Blehh!--Gerroh 02:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I sure am sick of all the complaining about minions not looking as they used to in the previous game. (srry couldn't resist)--The Holy Dragons 14:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"...not racist at all." Wasn't meant to be if you were being sarcastic there. Whether scottish or not, a kilt can be used to disturb or gross others out. :P

@Gerroh: realism makes for more invoking and engulfing (aka immersive) games. Fantasy or no. "Skimpy armor can protect just as much as full armor." Not really, it's just a means to sell game to hormone-filled teenage boys (and adult guys as well I guess). Honestly, I'd probably complain if there was such means for the ladies as well, as then it wouldn't be blatant diminishing of value - and I'm not talking sexism here, but rather that it makes games look rather immature (e.g., like they're meant for/made by teenage boys). Konig/talk 16:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, I am still going to whore out my male characters all the same. I see Gerroh's point, though; in a world of fiction, anything goes if that is what the creators wish. - Infinite - talk 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Disregard that, I was trying to be sarcastic, but then I realized how sincere it sounded when you take into account it coming from me. - Infinite - talk 17:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is some serious horseshit, it truly is, Konig. I am sick of hearing that "Sell to hormone filled _____" shit every time sex-appeal comes up. I design and develop stuff in my spare time, a good portion of it involves nudity and sexuality, not to get myself or anyone else off, but because that's the art style I feel like making at the time, just like Michelangelo, and Sandro Botticelli. Skimpy armor is there because it's the creator's wish, it's their expression. Get off your high horse and learn to appreciate art, fuck sake's I'm sick of hearing that shit. Not just you, everyone on this goddamn wiki.

And realism? C'mon, it's Guild Wars! If you want realism and immersion, you can start by complaining about the retardedly over-sized weapons, and realism in a fantasy game is a joke, anyway.--Gerroh 03:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I dare say, you need to calm down. 1) I never said that all art involving nudity or sexuality is sex-appeal; not all of it is made to be sold, therefore it cannot be. I would instead argue that most, if not all, sexuality (not necessarily nudity either mind you) in advertisements is for such - if not all - and this is proven and has existed since the bodice rippers (which were used to attract the ladies more than the guys), if not far far earlier (that's just the earliest scenario I recall atm). 2) While some of the skimpy armor is likely there for the artists' desire, I think it's equally "serious horseshit" to say that is the case for all. It is a rather proven fact that people's attentions are drawn to the things in society which are more 'hidden' (sexuality being a, slowly diminishing, case in our society). 3) I do appreciate art. My dad is an artist, as are most of my friends, and even I dabble in art. I do appreciate just about every single concept art of GW I see but that doesn't mean that I cannot criticize what I enjoy - in fact, I could hardly say I enjoy something without criticizing it, because then how would I know where its faults are so that I can see how it can improve? I'm not (intentionally) on a high horse, and tbh, it sounds to me like you're trying to be by telling everyone else they are and to get off of it. Hypocrite much.

Regarding "I am sick of hearing that "Sell to hormone filled _____" shit every time sex-appeal comes up." That's what sex-appeal is - to sell things with the appeal and promises of sex (be it directly or indirectly). Even coca-cola does it (just more sneakingly than game and movie/show ads).

Finally, regarding your last line, I do find the over-sized weapons rather silly, but unlike armor they are not as apparent (or were in GW at least, and we don't really see weapon sizes in GW2 yet, just some concept art/renders of weapons), and honestly there's a difference between this armor set and, for example, this one.

So Thank You for taking my comment way out of context, hypocrizing yourself, and continuing a conversation which would of currently otherwise have ended should you have never commented. Konig/talk 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You made the assumption that the skimpy armor is to sell to "hormone-filled teenage boys", that's what my primary problem is. It's simply not. It's unfair to say it is because for one, that's an assumption based entirely off your opinion and your view of the armor, and two, anyone buying the game has access to the internet, and therefore probably wouldn't be drawn in very easily buy a pair mostly covered tits, especially when you consider that there are LOADS of sights that said teenage boys would find a major turn off(Example: The tons of shirtless/scantily clad men in the Norn area, and to a lesser extent, some of the GW1 armors). And you really can't consider the skin showing in GW1 and GW2 to be "hidden" in our society. It's legal where I live and in many other places in Western culture for women to be topless in public and the clothes that a lot of young people wear today show more skin than the vast majority of armor in GW1 & 2.

The "high horse" comment referred to the pretentious attitude and tone that a lot of people on the wiki have, using words like "hormone-filled", "boys", and "sad" to describe anyone who mentions tits in GW. You can't really be so blind as to not see that kind of shit on here. I saw it on another page, just a few minutes ago, it's rampant across this wiki, which brings me to another point. The whole mini-rant I put up there wasn't directly solely at you, nor this page, nor this discussion, and I even specified that(Please try reading). It was directed that the aforementioned attitude/tone towards anyone who mentions tits, jugs, body parts of any sort. I just took a quick jump over to Livia's page and saw some of it, and I knew I would, because it's becoming the fucking norm on this wiki. So again, get off your high horse, and realise these complaints about "sexism", "sex-appeal", "unrealistic", etc are retarded.--Gerroh 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

umm guys, correct me if im wrong, but i thought these were pages to talk on where to add these pictures and other things, and that opinions were more for someones page? honestly ur fight is quite entertaining, but i dont think this is really the place for it. and to add my two cents, if they dont want the cleavage showing on this armor, dont get it. not that hard. some girls do like that look though because they think its sexy as well. i think we all can agree that not all armor will look like that. just sayin. no i dont feel like arguing. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.139.68.70 (talk).

Your advice on how to wiki would carry more weight if you knew how to sign your comments. A F K When Needed 06:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)