734 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Valandil]

Sabariel wrote...

RPG = Remove Pants Game

Now that's a game I'd play.

[Morroian]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hmm, it started off as something about chainmail bikinis...and now it has, like countless other threads, officially devolved into what constitutes an RPG? Do people ever get tired of doing that? Well, maybe in this case "devolve" isn't quite the word I should be using, considering that the topic WAS chainmail bikinis...

*runs away from sight of a dead horse being beaten for the ten millionth time*

And Sylvius hasn't even joined the discussion yet

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

RPG = Rowdy Porcupine Gardner

You are now correct.

[Gavinthelocust]

Morroian wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hmm, it started off as something about chainmail bikinis...and now it has, like countless other threads, officially devolved into what constitutes an RPG? Do people ever get tired of doing that? Well, maybe in this case "devolve" isn't quite the word I should be using, considering that the topic WAS chainmail bikinis...

*runs away from sight of a dead horse being beaten for the ten millionth time*

And Sylvius hasn't even joined the discussion yet

Find a way to attract a mod to the tread before he does, rather see this infected dog of a thread get shot than have Sylvius join in.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

RPG = rocket propelled grenade

See this is what I have been saying this entire time.  I'm surprised so many people want Bioware to make such devices as usually they are highly illegal

[lv12medic]

I don't know, the revealing clothing in Bioware games aren't horribly over the top. I never realized Isabela had no pants (I thought she had skin-tight pants or something maybe) until people started doing frame-by-frame analysis of the video. Even looking closesly, its barely noticeable in motion. Plus, the trailer is made with a free moving camera while I'm sure in game the camera will be much more restictive (over shoulder and iso-kinda-maybe-metric-ish).

[ShrinkingFish]

I like how every time anything is even remotely sexual appears in a video game people immediately jump all over it and make wild claims. Like it must be a marketing ploy to "appeal to teenage boys" or some such.



I mean, I didn't even notice the up skirt shot until everyone started shouting about how inappropriate it was. Just like I didn't notice that Bethany even had a bust until eighty different threads pointed it out to me.



Let us just get a little bit of perspective on this, shall we? There are plenty of fighting techniques, disciplines and styles all based on the freedom of movement overpowering high levels of protection/encumbrance. Warriors who wear lots of heavy armor and carry big shields are commonly less skilled fighters and therefore use these things as crutches to compensate for their unsuitability for the battlefield. A minimally armored individual who is skilled enough in battle has an immense advantage over a heavily armored foe, as the heavy armored individual will tire much faster and easily be dispatched.



Honestly, I find all of this complaining about her outfit being unrealistic to be incredibly sexist. Seriously... how many threads have you seen where people complain that it is unrealistic that Qunari go into battle half naked? None. Not one.



And yet how many threads do you see complaining when any female character shows just the tiniest bit of skin? Seriously.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I agree with the majority of your points but fighting effectively in heavy armor takes - from what I understand - a great deal of skill. Not so much finesse, but skill.

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I agree with the majority of your points but fighting effectively in heavy armor takes - from what I understand - a great deal of skill. Not so much finesse, but skill.

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

The only people who ever wore armor that heavy with that much protection were nobles who did not fight. They wore it simply for protection as it's use highly limits killing power, exhausts the wearer and renders them helpless very quickly.

The most common use of heavy armors were in sports, not battles or any real fights, where the protection of the competing nobles was paramount to their ability to damage their opponent.

[upsettingshorts]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

Except of course sergeants at arms (professional soldiers armored like knights) and the most famous heavy infantry of all time: The Roman Legion.

Granted, legionaries weren't particularly skilled at one on one combat, they certainly had skills - they just relied a lot on organization and discipline.

Thats all I meant.

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

Except of course sergeants at arms (professional soldiers armored like knights) and the most famous heavy infantry of all time: The Roman Legion.

Granted, legionaries weren't particularly skilled at one on one combat, they certainly had skills - they just relied a lot on organization and discipline.

Thats all I meant.

Fair enough.

Certainly there are armies or at least units that valued a heavy amounts of protection. But these groups most often used this high amount of protection as a weapon. Fighting as a larger, impenetrable unit as opposed to individual combatants.

The fighting styles reserved in the Dragon Age series do not include unit based warfare but skilled and deadly individual fighters who must rely entirely on themselves and their own skills to preserve them in a one on one fight.

[Lord_Valandil]

@ ShrinkingFish



I agree completely with you.

[falconlord5]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I agree with the majority of your points but fighting effectively in heavy armor takes - from what I understand - a great deal of skill. Not so much finesse, but skill.

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

The only people who ever wore armor that heavy with that much protection were nobles who did not fight. They wore it simply for protection as it's use highly limits killing power, exhausts the wearer and renders them helpless very quickly.

The most common use of heavy armors were in sports, not battles or any real fights, where the protection of the competing nobles was paramount to their ability to damage their opponent.

Spartans. The French Knights (especially later in the medieval period). The rest of the Greek City-States.

Many nations and cultures wore plate armour, and where highly skilled heavy infantrymen and calvary.

Admittedly, geniune plate and video game armour have nothing to do with each other.

Modifié par falconlord5, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:27 .

[Kileyan]

Who gives a crap, this is fantasy were wearing 3 pieces of armor or wearing a ring gives you extra str or stamina. Most warriors outside of a close knit unit never wore very heavy armor.

Most of those warriors never had a ring of +1 str and +2 agility. They didn't have dragonbone armor. They weren't walking into dark caves full of evil critters.

I DO NOT care if real knights wore armor while they were cooking eggs for breakfast. I do care that if my hero, was walking into a hole in the ground, full of scary things of nightmares and unknowns, he'd likely wear some heavy armor, and tell one of the historical writers to shut the **** up, and c'mon down in this same hole of evil with a pair of grey sweatpants and a spoon.

oh, its a fugging game:)

Modifié par Kileyan, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:34 .

[ShrinkingFish]

falconlord5 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I agree with the majority of your points but fighting effectively in heavy armor takes - from what I understand - a great deal of skill. Not so much finesse, but skill.

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

The only people who ever wore armor that heavy with that much protection were nobles who did not fight. They wore it simply for protection as it's use highly limits killing power, exhausts the wearer and renders them helpless very quickly.

The most common use of heavy armors were in sports, not battles or any real fights, where the protection of the competing nobles was paramount to their ability to damage their opponent.

Spartans. The French Knights (especially later in the medieval period). The rest of the Greek City-States.

Many nations and cultures wore plate armour, and where highly skilled heavy infantrymen and calvary.

Admittedly, geniune plate and video game armour have nothing to do with each other.

As to Spartans. They carries heavy shields and armor into battle where they fought as units. Not individuals.

In addition, they did not wear plate armor, they actually wore an armor composed, not of metal, but of various other materials to maximize it's light weight, freedom of movement, and protection. They, nor did any other Greek nation, march into battle in heavy plate armor.

However, they did all carry heavy shields. But again, these only benefitted them due to the Greek phalanx, which cannot be executed outside of a well trained unit.

When fighting one on one, Greek warriors most often fought completely naked.

And the French Military has always been more showy than practical anyways. Also note that French Knights were most often nobility and thus did not actually participate in combat. Instances when they did were rare to say the least.

[Nadiasama]

Wearing armor does not necessarily equate to heavy plate armor. There is also the more versatile leather armors such as tunics and lamellar which was usually worn over a hauberk. So yeah it won't hurt her to cover up a little more.

Who says you can't be sexy and modestly clothed?

Doing my part in keeping this thread on track.

Modifié par Nadiasama, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:34 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Nadiasama wrote...

Wearing armor does not necessarily equate to heavy plate armor. There is also the more versatile leather armors such as tunics and lamellar which was usually worn over a hauberk. So yeah it won't hurt her to cover up a little more.

Who says you can't be sexy and modestly clothed?

Doing my part in keeping this thread on track.

It actually would hurt, depending on her fighting style. Perhaps maximum freedom of leg movement and flexibility is the most important aspect of her fighting style. Thus any leather armor would impede her ability to move.

And nobody says you can't be sexy and modestly clothed. But that is hardly the point. I would also argue that this thread is still on topic and never diverged its course. There was simply a short deture of real world examples to illustrate a point.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:38 .

[Ryzaki]

Frankly I always felt outfits that were form fitting but leaving just a little cleavage far more sexy than people with their breasts and ass hanging out.

That said I have a thing for teases.

That said she's optional so if you really think she's that horrible looking just skip her. I plan too.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:39 .

[Kileyan]

Ok, this is the 100th thread or so where people argue historical facts about why and how people wore armor, and use this weapon or that weapon.

Lets try a different take on this. Realism doesn't work there. What kind of armor would people have worn if you told a 13th century man at arms to walk into a hole full of undead ready to eat their soul. Now figure that kind of thing has been happening for 100's of years. They don't just fight human to human battles for land, but fighting monsters is normal. Now include the existance of magic, and it is able to affect armor and weapons.

Would armor and weapons have stayed the same, I dunno, just sayin?

Modifié par Kileyan, 29 octobre 2010 - 01:40 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Frankly I always felt outfits that were form fitting but leaving just a little cleavage far more sexy than people with their breasts and ass hanging out.

That said I have a thing for teases.

Ditto.

[ShrinkingFish]

Kileyan wrote...

Ok, this is the 100th thread or so where people argue historical facts about why and how people wore armor, and use this weapon or that weapon.

Lets try a different take on this. Realism doesn't work there. What kind of armor would people have worn if you told a 13th century man and arms to walk into a hole full of undead ready to eat their soul. Now figure that kind of thing has been happening for 100's of years. They don't just fight human to human battles for land, but fighting monsters is normal.

Would armor and weapons have stayed the same, I dunno, just sayin?

Yes.

Because the benefits and drawbacks of heavy armor remain constant despite the fantastic setting.

[Kileyan]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Ok, this is the 100th thread or so where people argue historical facts about why and how people wore armor, and use this weapon or that weapon.

Lets try a different take on this. Realism doesn't work there. What kind of armor would people have worn if you told a 13th century man and arms to walk into a hole full of undead ready to eat their soul. Now figure that kind of thing has been happening for 100's of years. They don't just fight human to human battles for land, but fighting monsters is normal.

Would armor and weapons have stayed the same, I dunno, just sayin?

Yes.

Because the benefits and drawbacks of heavy armor remain constant despite the fantastic setting.

I didn't mean to do it, but I ninja edited.

Magic does exist here, and is able to effect armor and weapons.

Ok move on now.........

[falconlord5]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I agree with the majority of your points but fighting effectively in heavy armor takes - from what I understand - a great deal of skill. Not so much finesse, but skill.

If you take a treck through history and track armies and the gear that they used, even looking into gladiators or fighters of any age or capacity. None of them wear big, heavy armor that gives the maximum protection.

The only people who ever wore armor that heavy with that much protection were nobles who did not fight. They wore it simply for protection as it's use highly limits killing power, exhausts the wearer and renders them helpless very quickly.

The most common use of heavy armors were in sports, not battles or any real fights, where the protection of the competing nobles was paramount to their ability to damage their opponent.

Spartans. The French Knights (especially later in the medieval period). The rest of the Greek City-States.

Many nations and cultures wore plate armour, and where highly skilled heavy infantrymen and calvary.

Admittedly, geniune plate and video game armour have nothing to do with each other.

As to Spartans. They carries heavy shields and armor into battle where they fought as units. Not individuals.

In addition, they did not wear plate armor, they actually wore an armor composed, not of metal, but of various other materials to maximize it's light weight, freedom of movement, and protection. They, nor did any other Greek nation, march into battle in heavy plate armor.

However, they did all carry heavy shields. But again, these only benefitted them due to the Greek phalanx, which cannot be executed outside of a well trained unit.

When fighting one on one, Greek warriors most often fought completely naked.

And the French Military has always been more showy than practical anyways. Also note that French Knights were most often nobility and thus did not actually participate in combat. Instances when they did were rare to say the least.

Okay, a little military history 101. First, most Greeks fought with either bronze plate or what's called the linothorax, a heavy cotton weave, based on what they could afford. This is true going back at least to the Mycenean's (1600-1200 BCE) and certainly true of the classical City-States. No Greek ever fought naked outside of the gymnasium, and thought that the few Celts who did so, were bat-**** crazy.

Second, aside from a few bumps in history (the invention of gunpowder, the phalanx, etc.) it was the nobles who fought, while the peasants either a) farmed, or got slaughtered by the nobles looking for booty. On occasion, they also served as mass infantry to back up the nobles.

Third, from the Middle Ages until the Franco-Prussian War in 11870, the French military was the best in the world from their legendary knights to the Musketeers to the fierce fighting infantry that nearly took over the whole damn world under Napoleon. It was only after the Second World War, under propagandist and revisionist history, that the French began to lose their reputation as The Fighting Nation of Europe.

[Jestina]

They wouldn't be going off to battle in modified bikini's.

[ShrinkingFish]

Kileyan wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Ok, this is the 100th thread or so where people argue historical facts about why and how people wore armor, and use this weapon or that weapon.

Lets try a different take on this. Realism doesn't work there. What kind of armor would people have worn if you told a 13th century man and arms to walk into a hole full of undead ready to eat their soul. Now figure that kind of thing has been happening for 100's of years. They don't just fight human to human battles for land, but fighting monsters is normal.

Would armor and weapons have stayed the same, I dunno, just sayin?

Yes.

Because the benefits and drawbacks of heavy armor remain constant despite the fantastic setting.

I didn't mean to do it, but I ninja edited.

Magic does exist here, and is able to effect armor and weapons.

Ok move on now.........

Well, realism is hardly my point.

My main point, that was mostly overlooked, is that it is unreasonable and sexist for people to complain about the revealing armor that female characters wear while ignoring even more revealing armor that males wear as well as ignoring how "unreal" heavy armor is.

Honestly. I don't mind. I think the big heavy plate armor looks badass.