Ce sujet est fermé
marbatico wrote...
ooh, can i join in?CrookedAsylum wrote...
How very lovely. This well-composed argument, both tactful and respectful, urges me to listen to NKKKK's ideas with an open mind, and not treat him like a young child. Later, I shall offer him tea and biscuits.
MerrickShep wrote...
I think it would be cool if on like Male Hawke you could go topless and just have gauntlets and some pants or something. Was a thing for me in the first game I wanted to go topless but you couldn't do that without going pantless.
Modifié par SirShreK, 27 septembre 2010 - 08:57 .
Guest_Puddi III_*
Maverick827 wrote...
I don't think the two are very equivalent. I don't follow the Conan universe, but I'd assume that his people did not have advanced metal working capabilities? Someone mentioned earlier that such loose garb would be logically acceptable on a Chasind, both male as well as female, so the "Conan" equivalent would be underclothed Chasind.filaminstrel wrote...
I do think, for the sake of argument, that if they were to have chainmail bikinis, then they could have equivalent shirtless Conan the Barbarian-esque "armors" for males. So I dunno about it being a gender issue.
The chainmail bikini is a paradox; any people with the capability to forge such a thing would be intelligent enough to know how useless it would be and, subsequently, never craft one.
I don't think there is a male equivalent. The concept is so illogical that the universe can only sustain one at any given time before imploding in on itself and starting anew in hopes that the new sentient lifeforms do not conceive of it the second time around.filaminstrel wrote...
Hm, well, okay... A chainmail pair of pants with assless chaps? I dunno, how about, take whatever would be an equivalent comparison, and replace my Conan suggestion with that.
NKKKK wrote...
Sure, why not. Personally, I just dislike it when something skimpy has the best ratings in the game forcing me to wear it. Fanservice should not come at the expense of gameplay. I remember KotOR2 had the dancer's outfit that would give a charisma bonus (possibly just to men, IIRC). If you know what I mean. I was okay with that. Of course it was for fanservice, but I didn't need to wear it, and if guys wanted to use it to ogle at the women, fine, whatever. It wasn't interfering with my enjoyment of the game.
Wow, progress.
But if fanservice armor is included the way you're asking for it, it is more than likely going to be the female version of a regular armor set, which is what I have a problem with.
NKKKK wrote...
But if fanservice armor is included the way you're asking for it, it is more than likely going to be the female version of a regular armor set, which is what I have a problem with.
I never specifically said that either, making it regular armor for women, that's you assuming again.
Modifié par SirShreK, 27 septembre 2010 - 09:15 .
Lukas Kristjanson wrote...
Smartass: I am amused that there are some who are generally opposed to revealing armor, but would make an exception if the character had a reason. As though observers would be thinking "Oh, it's a cultural thing? Then I shant be titilated." Would the character have to make the viewer aware before the distinction could be made, so as to avoid some sort of quantum state of arousal/unarousal? Perhaps a pamphlet entitled “Upon my Preference for Showing the Goods.”
Although it would allow me to write an epic thong. W’dge of the Chasind has a ring to it. And not much else. Badum-TISH.
Serious: I’m sure we’ll have opportunity for sexiness that both appeases and offends depending on your nature, but in general, the more armored you are, the more armor you are wearing. That’s a design choice to support the mechanics/appearance of the IP and give clarity to players. And Origins did have some juggling between the benefits of mobility versus raw protection, so we'll probably have similar tradeoffs this time around.
joriandrake wrote...
I don't really care how much actual protection such clothes/armor would give if they are included, mage spells and other class abilities can defend the character anyway
joriandrake wrote...
Lukas Kristjanson wrote...
Smartass: I am amused that there are some who are generally opposed to revealing armor, but would make an exception if the character had a reason. As though observers would be thinking "Oh, it's a cultural thing? Then I shant be titilated." Would the character have to make the viewer aware before the distinction could be made, so as to avoid some sort of quantum state of arousal/unarousal? Perhaps a pamphlet entitled “Upon my Preference for Showing the Goods.”
Although it would allow me to write an epic thong. W’dge of the Chasind has a ring to it. And not much else. Badum-TISH.
Serious: I’m sure we’ll have opportunity for sexiness that both appeases and offends depending on your nature, but in general, the more armored you are, the more armor you are wearing. That’s a design choice to support the mechanics/appearance of the IP and give clarity to players. And Origins did have some juggling between the benefits of mobility versus raw protection, so we'll probably have similar tradeoffs this time around.
I don't really care how much actual protection such clothes/armor would give if they are included, mage spells and other class abilities can defend the character anyway, and I am sure if there were such clothes I would use them atleast occassionally or for a single full walkthrough for the fun of it. And seriously: Who doesn't want/like them just shouldn't wear them, that is all. (although forcefully being thrown into an arena with such clothes would be a fun event ingame)
Lukas Kristjanson wrote...
Smartass: I am amused that there are some who are generally opposed to revealing armor, but would make an exception if the character had a reason. As though observers would be thinking "Oh, it's a cultural thing? Then I shant be titilated." Would the character have to make the viewer aware before the distinction could be made, so as to avoid some sort of quantum state of arousal/unarousal? Perhaps a pamphlet entitled “Upon my Preference for Showing the Goods.”
Although it would allow me to write an epic thong. W’dge of the Chasind has a ring to it. And not much else. Badum-TISH.
Serious: I’m sure we’ll have opportunity for sexiness that both appeases and offends depending on your nature, but in general, the more armored you are, the more armor you are wearing. That’s a design choice to support the mechanics/appearance of the IP and give clarity to players. And Origins did have some juggling between the benefits of mobility versus raw protection, so we'll probably have similar tradeoffs this time around.
Modifié par NKKKK, 27 septembre 2010 - 09:42 .
That's how Bethesda's latest two (FO3 and Oblivion) worked, especially the medium+ level armors. I think the armor should be feminised, because a woman's armor would clearly fit differently to a male's armor, but I don't think it should be made less protective.GearRust wrote...
If the guys profession of his group requires them to wear armor, then the women in that same group and profession are required to wear the same armor.
No exception.
Khayness wrote...
joriandrake wrote...
I don't really care how much actual protection such clothes/armor would give if they are included, mage spells and other class abilities can defend the character anyway
That kind of thinking led to cleavages in zero atmosphere
Retour en haut