934 réponses à ce sujet

[Matchy Pointy]

The whole thing with armour making you take less damage is somewhat unrealistic in itself (notice I said somewhat, not fully, and does work rather well in games with health, and for that matter, I'm pretty sure that Aveline will take less damage, and I dont think it have been confirmed the other way around anywhere.

[Aermas]

Bare flesh or a layer of steel? Yeah, it won't let you keep you arm attached...



Armor can & will stop a blow, & leave you none the worse for wear.

[Matchy Pointy]

That depends on the weapon actually, there are plenty of weapons designed specificly to be as effective agasint armour as without, but yes, armor does usually help when you get hit, it was msotly that the whole hitpoint system is unrealistic in itself, so we shold getrid of that one then as well, no?

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...

No, I'm saying letting Isabela take less damage from something than Armored Aveline is unrealistic!

But Aermas, what if Aveline suffered a much worse hit (taking the fact she is wearing armour into account)? Wouldn't she take more damage than Isabela in that case?

[Matchy Pointy]

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas wrote...

No, I'm saying letting Isabela take less damage from something than Armored Aveline is unrealistic!

But Aermas, what if Aveline suffered a much worse hit (taking the fact she is wearing armour into account)? Wouldn't she take more damage than Isabela in that case?

We would need a system that calculates what area of the body is covered in armor, and compare that to where the hit lands. And for calculating the force of the shockwaves inside the armor when someone wearing platemail is hit, those can be quite devastating for the human body.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

So long as the story is good, I can live with certain (lack of) armour styles. It's just graphics. Maybe we should go back to the days when your PC was symbolised by an ASCII character: @

[AlexXIV]

Well I am surprised that you are not argueing the whole concept of 'hitpoints'. I mean you can be run through with a sword and still be fine. Pop a health potion or whatever. The point was never if it makes sense that people go to war without armor even though they could wear armor (since they can afford it). The point is optics. Realism just doesn't beat good optics. I mean we are talking about computer games. Realism is all around you, just go out of the door and something. If you want realistic fights you can dress up in medivial armors and fight with other people who also like that. That's as realistic as it can get.

I mean in this game we are talking about people kill dragons with swords. How does that make sense? If dragons existed, would you of all weapons choose a sword to kill it? I certainly wouldn't. The question was never whether it is unrealistic. Questions are for once, do people even like games that are realistic? And how much realism do they need in a game? I personally don't care, since it is not real. It's supposed to be fun and even though I don't really need that in a game I am not going to protest if the girls look sexy either.

[Sir JK]

Matchy: Oh absolutely... not to mention that when you do fight against someone in armour you aim for the weak spots. Either where you can penetrate like the faceguard/visor or the joints or you aim at a place where a lack of penetration might still cause significant injury such as the head, the shoulder, the wrist, the shin, the foot, the hand or the hip (but you need a mace, a spike or something like that to be effective attacking those areas).

So a shallow and non-fatal cut across the chest for Isabela could in Aveline's case be a significant blow to the helmet. In such a case, Isabela might actually be the one better off. She might bleed yes, but at least she won't be suffering from a concussion (which severely limits your ability to move in a coordinated fashion).

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 décembre 2010 - 09:52 .

[AlexXIV]

Sir JK wrote...

Oh absolutely... not to mention that when you do fight against someone in armour you aim for the weak spots. Either where you can penetrate like the faceguard/visor or the joints or you aim at a place where a lack of penetration might still cause significant injury such as the head, the shoulder, the wrist, the shin, the foot, the hand or the hip (but you need a mace, a spike or something like that to be effective attacking those areas).

So a shallow and non-fatal cut across the chest for Isabela could in Aveline's case be a significant blow to the helmet. In such a case, Isabela might actually be the one better off. She might bleed yes, but at least she won't be suffering from a concussion.

If people use armor I'd expect them to know how to move to cover weak spots. It is still easier to watch out that the enemy doesn't hit your head than looking out he doesn't hit you anywhere since you have no armor at all. Anyway, it still doesn't matter since it is just a game.

[Sir JK]

AlexXIV wrote...
If people use armor I'd expect them to know how to move to cover weak spots. It is still easier to watch out that the enemy doesn't hit your head than looking out he doesn't hit you anywhere since you have no armor at all.

But people who doesn't have armour know how to cover their weak spots as well (if we assume they know how to fight). They might have more of them yes, but going for them without paying attention to what they are doing could still end with they being unharmed and you having their weapon planted between the eyes.
Armour is not the first and primary line of the defence. But the last out of six*. If you need your armour to protect you, then it means that the first 5 lines of defence failed. This is true for unarmoured fighting as well. They will also have those five lines, and they will utilise them. Do you have an advantage over them? Yes. But that advantage is more significant the more opponents you have (not at the same time), mano a mano it is much smaller than in a battle.

* them being: threat of your weapon(s), dodging, deflecting, parrying, blocking and last armour.

Anyway, it still doesn't matter since it is just a game.

I think you'll find that some of us disagree there . 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Anyway, it still doesn't matter since it is just a game.

I think you'll find that some of us disagree there .

Very much so.

[Kail Ashton]

Aermas wrote...

 As it stands only one of five companions have been said to actually where armor (Aveline, David Gaider let it slip). This concerns me as I like realistic simulation inside the game world. It hurts my brain to see someone in shorts & a tank top soak 5000 damage & not be phased.

I have worn armor myself, plate,chain & ridged leather, & have fought unarmored. I can tell you that armor can flat out stop most attacks from becoming injuries, & that only chain will effect your balance to any noticeable degree. I have seen a man do a backflip in plate, it's really not at all cumbersome. Another think is that leather is a great armor for those that don't want to wear plate. Ridged leather is as hard as wood & fits so comfortably that you can forget you are wearing it. I can tell that fighting unarmed is no different than fighting armored except you have the added protection.

Knowing all this it doesn't make sense that none of the companions seem to want to wear armor.

This thread is secretly about your desire to discuss your ren-fest addiction, isn't it? as for the sane majority of society not interested in playing medevil dress up or who aren't overly anal about how realisitc the wardrobe is in a fantasy video game....we couldn't care less

Oh and never play a JRPG, the outfits they wear would make your "brain" melt lol

[AlexXIV]

Sir JK wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
If people use armor I'd expect them to know how to move to cover weak spots. It is still easier to watch out that the enemy doesn't hit your head than looking out he doesn't hit you anywhere since you have no armor at all.

But people who doesn't have armour know how to cover their weak spots as well (if we assume they know how to fight). They might have more of them yes, but going for them without paying attention to what they are doing could still end with they being unharmed and you having their weapon planted between the eyes.
Armour is not the first and primary line of the defence. But the last out of six*. If you need your armour to protect you, then it means that the first 5 lines of defence failed. This is true for unarmoured fighting as well. They will also have those five lines, and they will utilise them. Do you have an advantage over them? Yes. But that advantage is more significant the more opponents you have (not at the same time), mano a mano it is much smaller than in a battle.

* them being: threat of your weapon(s), dodging, deflecting, parrying, blocking and last armour.

Anyway, it still doesn't matter since it is just a game.

I think you'll find that some of us disagree there . 

Well it would depend if you are for example an assassin who doesn't count on being hit at all since he acts 'from the darkness' so to speak or if you are a soldier in the middle of a battle. There is no way you can evade every arrow from every side and every sword hit. It would be chaotic and you could be happy that your armor at least protects you from the most collateral damage. I believe the point of heavy armor was never really meant for duels and such but rather to avoid random hits from nowhere.

I don't really know much about medivial warfare. The only thing I can compare it is helmets in the army. Soldiers wear them even though they are uncomfortable and they would not help you if you got shot straight to the head. The bullet would break through and probably cause even more harm than if you wore no helmet since it loses speed and then likely to bounce off and go through your head more than once. But they still wear it because for example if a granate explodes somewhere near you, there are a lot of things flying through the air which could hurt you. Stones, wood, whatever.

So I personally think armor was rather meant to protect from 'random things' hitting the bearer than actually being useful against a pike that is aimed at the bearer's heart. So basically it reduces the chance of being hurt, but of course doesn't protect from all kinds of damage. It still made sense to wear armor, especially by the nobility which could actually afford it. I don't think alot of people would go to war without the best armor available unless they can't afford it. But again, this is an 'medivial armor' discussion, not really much to do with DA2 since DA2 is just a game which has more important things to cover than being realistic to the bone.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 01 décembre 2010 - 10:33 .

[Matchy Pointy]

Armour is mostly designed to help in battle, and when it comesto combat man to man, it's notas important (though sure, it can give an edge, but man to man skill counts morethn armour, depending on what kind of combat it is). As does wearing less armour then the massive ones from DA (and for that matter, even cloth can be counted on to stop some if is layered). I'm mostly happy there isn't as much talk about the pants (or no pants) anymore

[Karlojey]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I am surprised that you are not argueing the whole concept of 'hitpoints'. I mean you can be run through with a sword and still be fine. Pop a health potion or whatever. The point was never if it makes sense that people go to war without armor even though they could wear armor (since they can afford it). The point is optics. Realism just doesn't beat good optics. I mean we are talking about computer games. Realism is all around you, just go out of the door and something. If you want realistic fights you can dress up in medivial armors and fight with other people who also like that. That's as realistic as it can get.

I mean in this game we are talking about people kill dragons with swords. How does that make sense? If dragons existed, would you of all weapons choose a sword to kill it? I certainly wouldn't. The question was never whether it is unrealistic. Questions are for once, do people even like games that are realistic? And how much realism do they need in a game? I personally don't care, since it is not real. It's supposed to be fun and even though I don't really need that in a game I am not going to protest if the girls look sexy either.

*Wears monocle*

I concur good sir. Your post is indubedebly true.

[Matchy Pointy]

Karlojey wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I am surprised that you are not argueing the whole concept of 'hitpoints'. I mean you can be run through with a sword and still be fine. Pop a health potion or whatever. The point was never if it makes sense that people go to war without armor even though they could wear armor (since they can afford it). The point is optics. Realism just doesn't beat good optics. I mean we are talking about computer games. Realism is all around you, just go out of the door and something. If you want realistic fights you can dress up in medivial armors and fight with other people who also like that. That's as realistic as it can get.

I mean in this game we are talking about people kill dragons with swords. How does that make sense? If dragons existed, would you of all weapons choose a sword to kill it? I certainly wouldn't. The question was never whether it is unrealistic. Questions are for once, do people even like games that are realistic? And how much realism do they need in a game? I personally don't care, since it is not real. It's supposed to be fun and even though I don't really need that in a game I am not going to protest if the girls look sexy either.

*Wears monocle*

I concur good sir. Your post is indubedebly true.

That's it, we need a companion with a monocle

[Sir JK]

That's basically correct Alex. The primary reason to wear armour is to protect from all those random little things that might hit you that you can't do squat against. The only real significant advantage of plate as opposed to mail for instance is that it's much more resistant to arrows and other piercing weapons. Which allows you to forgo the shield.

But there is also a secondary thing. Most armour provides a safety against glances and narrow hits, they are built so that poor hits slid off you withotu causing injury and that average hits might slid to a less sensitive area (if you suffer a good hit it's all over though). Metal armours, and to an extent ridged leather, will also prevent the most serious injury: amputation. It is virtually impossible to cut through metal. So if you suffer a hit that would sever your limbs without armour, in it the limb will just break. You'll still need to spend months in recovery, but you'll live.



So armour is definantely useful and the longer the fight and the more things to keep track of the more useful armour is. In a mano a mano duel to the death, the use of it is marginal. The only thing you and him/her need to keep track of is each others and the result will be death. Sure, wearing armour might make the fight a little longer, but not much more.

Assuming none of the combatants gets lucky and hits in th first strike of course.



But yes. You're right about only the nobility affording armour. They would also pay for their own contingent of troops: a french knight was responsible to provide his liege with 1 knight (not neccessarily himself), 12 pikemen/polearmsmen and 6 crossbowmen. They were to be trained, armored and armed by him as part of his duties as a nobleman.

But if you weren't noble, a noble retainer or rich, you wouldn't be wearing armour. Even if you would be dragged into combat.

And how it is relevant? It is relevant in the realism discussion we hold here I think. My position is after all that if we argue for realistic armour, then the protective aspects are not the only consideration. The cost, fit and rarity are also very important I think.

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

No, I'm saying letting Isabela take less damage from something than Armored Aveline is unrealistic!

Okay. And there's absolutely no reason to suspect this is the case.

[Matchy Pointy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

No, I'm saying letting Isabela take less damage from something than Armored Aveline is unrealistic!

Okay. And there's absolutely no reason to suspect this is the case.

A point I myself tried to make earlier.

[Heavenblade]

I think plate armor should give an ATTACK bonus in melee combat if there are more than a small handful of opponents involved. You can concentrate more on slaying the person in front of you and less time deflecting every single blow, because you know that if you invested in a solid well-crafted suit of plate armor, you could ignore glancing blows and weak slashes of the sword. You're real concern would be being knocked over so that your opponent could wrestle with you and stick a dagger in your neck/armpit/whatever. Or perhaps that guy with the heavy maul that could cave your armor in and make you suffocate.

[AlexXIV]

Sir JK wrote...

That's basically correct Alex. The primary reason to wear armour is to protect from all those random little things that might hit you that you can't do squat against. The only real significant advantage of plate as opposed to mail for instance is that it's much more resistant to arrows and other piercing weapons. Which allows you to forgo the shield.
But there is also a secondary thing. Most armour provides a safety against glances and narrow hits, they are built so that poor hits slid off you withotu causing injury and that average hits might slid to a less sensitive area (if you suffer a good hit it's all over though). Metal armours, and to an extent ridged leather, will also prevent the most serious injury: amputation. It is virtually impossible to cut through metal. So if you suffer a hit that would sever your limbs without armour, in it the limb will just break. You'll still need to spend months in recovery, but you'll live.

So armour is definantely useful and the longer the fight and the more things to keep track of the more useful armour is. In a mano a mano duel to the death, the use of it is marginal. The only thing you and him/her need to keep track of is each others and the result will be death. Sure, wearing armour might make the fight a little longer, but not much more.
Assuming none of the combatants gets lucky and hits in th first strike of course.

But yes. You're right about only the nobility affording armour. They would also pay for their own contingent of troops: a french knight was responsible to provide his liege with 1 knight (not neccessarily himself), 12 pikemen/polearmsmen and 6 crossbowmen. They were to be trained, armored and armed by him as part of his duties as a nobleman.
But if you weren't noble, a noble retainer or rich, you wouldn't be wearing armour. Even if you would be dragged into combat.
And how it is relevant? It is relevant in the realism discussion we hold here I think. My position is after all that if we argue for realistic armour, then the protective aspects are not the only consideration. The cost, fit and rarity are also very important I think.

If you look at it, none of the armor of the movie '300' was realistic. They went for what they thought the audience would prefer. That's basically what Bioware is doing as well. You can hate it, but it is their right to do what they think is best.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 01 décembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[Matchy Pointy]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

That's basically correct Alex. The primary reason to wear armour is to protect from all those random little things that might hit you that you can't do squat against. The only real significant advantage of plate as opposed to mail for instance is that it's much more resistant to arrows and other piercing weapons. Which allows you to forgo the shield.
But there is also a secondary thing. Most armour provides a safety against glances and narrow hits, they are built so that poor hits slid off you withotu causing injury and that average hits might slid to a less sensitive area (if you suffer a good hit it's all over though). Metal armours, and to an extent ridged leather, will also prevent the most serious injury: amputation. It is virtually impossible to cut through metal. So if you suffer a hit that would sever your limbs without armour, in it the limb will just break. You'll still need to spend months in recovery, but you'll live.

So armour is definantely useful and the longer the fight and the more things to keep track of the more useful armour is. In a mano a mano duel to the death, the use of it is marginal. The only thing you and him/her need to keep track of is each others and the result will be death. Sure, wearing armour might make the fight a little longer, but not much more.
Assuming none of the combatants gets lucky and hits in th first strike of course.

But yes. You're right about only the nobility affording armour. They would also pay for their own contingent of troops: a french knight was responsible to provide his liege with 1 knight (not neccessarily himself), 12 pikemen/polearmsmen and 6 crossbowmen. They were to be trained, armored and armed by him as part of his duties as a nobleman.
But if you weren't noble, a noble retainer or rich, you wouldn't be wearing armour. Even if you would be dragged into combat.
And how it is relevant? It is relevant in the realism discussion we hold here I think. My position is after all that if we argue for realistic armour, then the protective aspects are not the only consideration. The cost, fit and rarity are also very important I think.

If you look at it, none of the armor of the movie '300' was realistic. They went for what they though the audience would prefer. That's basically what Bioware is doing as well. You can hate it, but it is their right to do what they think is best.

What armour would that be? (Although they wear more then in the comic, there they are naked next to the cape, and in real life greek hoplites were very well armoured). The movies is awesome though in all it's unrealistioc splendor.

[AlexXIV]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

That's basically correct Alex. The primary reason to wear armour is to protect from all those random little things that might hit you that you can't do squat against. The only real significant advantage of plate as opposed to mail for instance is that it's much more resistant to arrows and other piercing weapons. Which allows you to forgo the shield.
But there is also a secondary thing. Most armour provides a safety against glances and narrow hits, they are built so that poor hits slid off you withotu causing injury and that average hits might slid to a less sensitive area (if you suffer a good hit it's all over though). Metal armours, and to an extent ridged leather, will also prevent the most serious injury: amputation. It is virtually impossible to cut through metal. So if you suffer a hit that would sever your limbs without armour, in it the limb will just break. You'll still need to spend months in recovery, but you'll live.

So armour is definantely useful and the longer the fight and the more things to keep track of the more useful armour is. In a mano a mano duel to the death, the use of it is marginal. The only thing you and him/her need to keep track of is each others and the result will be death. Sure, wearing armour might make the fight a little longer, but not much more.
Assuming none of the combatants gets lucky and hits in th first strike of course.

But yes. You're right about only the nobility affording armour. They would also pay for their own contingent of troops: a french knight was responsible to provide his liege with 1 knight (not neccessarily himself), 12 pikemen/polearmsmen and 6 crossbowmen. They were to be trained, armored and armed by him as part of his duties as a nobleman.
But if you weren't noble, a noble retainer or rich, you wouldn't be wearing armour. Even if you would be dragged into combat.
And how it is relevant? It is relevant in the realism discussion we hold here I think. My position is after all that if we argue for realistic armour, then the protective aspects are not the only consideration. The cost, fit and rarity are also very important I think.

If you look at it, none of the armor of the movie '300' was realistic. They went for what they though the audience would prefer. That's basically what Bioware is doing as well. You can hate it, but it is their right to do what they think is best.

What armour would that be? (Although they wear more then in the comic, there they are naked next to the cape, and in real life greek hoplites were very well armoured). The movies is awesome though in all it's unrealistioc splendor.

They wore helmets

[Sir JK]

Oh... 300... and I was having a good evening... Did you have to bring that movie up?



Seriously though, I don't hate it really. In fact I support the current outfits. I think it fits the little I've heard of the characters so far which makes me very happy. Some of the others are less keen on them than I am.

But this whole discussion is really about certain art preferences anyways. I hope it's at least somewhat useful to the developers, even if it's nothing that they see any pressing need to include any time soon. But all this boils down to preferences in art and opinions supported by realism claims (which leads us to discuss what realism entails). Feel free to disagree by all means but this discussion is hardly less useful than any other opinion topic (I hope).

[AlexXIV]

Sir JK wrote...

Oh... 300... and I was having a good evening... Did you have to bring that movie up?

Seriously though, I don't hate it really. In fact I support the current outfits. I think it fits the little I've heard of the characters so far which makes me very happy. Some of the others are less keen on them than I am.
But this whole discussion is really about certain art preferences anyways. I hope it's at least somewhat useful to the developers, even if it's nothing that they see any pressing need to include any time soon. But all this boils down to preferences in art and opinions supported by realism claims (which leads us to discuss what realism entails). Feel free to disagree by all means but this discussion is hardly less useful than any other opinion topic (I hope).

I think the devs know about everything posted in this thread. I have seen threads like this in forums of about every fantasy rpg I know. It's not breaking news, the devs have to decide between a realistic look or one that appeals to as many people as possible. Their choice is obvious, since ... well we know what they chose. But not due to lack of knowledge of the issues you are discussing here. People prefer wearing cool/sexy outfits to wearing realistic ones. You don't like the movie, I understand, but do you think 300 would have been as successful if they wore realistic armor and only showed realistic combat scenes? I don't.