934 réponses à ce sujet

[Talogrungi]

Yes, I'd definately prefer large, bulky and protective armour plating over skimpy outfits and large expanses of vulnerable, unprotected flesh. For combat, that is.

There is a caveat, though. If a character is able to avoid damage due to agility and swordsmanship .. parrying and dodging attacks rather than simply absorbing them at a cost of health .. then I'd be happy to have a combatant on the field without armour.

But 10 stabs to the heart with a greatsword? .. no amount of cleavage should protect against that.

Modifié par Talogrungi, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[Matchy Pointy]

The thing is, even bulky protective armour would have trouble sustaining 10 stabs to the heart, though they are way better agasint big weapons like that then more flashy rapiers. Personaly, in fantasy games like this, my favorite is a mix between practical and flashy/fantasy like armour/clothes.

[TG Unforgiven]

Personally, if they can pull off the character animations for armourless characters, such as Isabella, to show that they're actually DODGING attacks, rather than taking a hit and brushing it off, it'd be perfectly feasible for them to wear cloth, and be effective in battle.



That being said, I truly hope that if they take the ME2 path, and give each of the companions a static outfit, you'd have a bit more freedom with customisation. I mean, one outfit, with a different colour scheme really didn't cut it for me. If they're going to give only one or two alternate outfits for your companions, it'd be much better if they were actual different outfits, not the same thing but with a leopard skin print on it.

[Tinxa]

I think it's a little to soon to say than none of the companions wear armour. We haven't even seen most of them.

Cassandra wears armour and I'm sure other warrior NPCs will have armour outfits. They've confirmed that Aveline changes into armour later so I'm fine with the apron outfit when she's on the run and new to Kirkwall.

[Aermas]

Johnny Chaos wrote...

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.

it's fantasy?  people are making a big deal over this armor.  why would someone like Isabela wear armor when she fights with quickness and wit, and admits to taking down warriors.

if you want to be super, super realistic armor is expensive and handed down, so maybe someone doesnt have the money to afford armor.

You've never been in a sword fight have you? Wit will get you killed, & you can only dodge till you get worn out & then you get killed, plus when you have to dodge ALL the attacks, you loose a lot of ground.

[Aermas]

Talogrungi wrote...

Yes, I'd definately prefer large, bulky and protective armour plating over skimpy outfits and large expanses of vulnerable, unprotected flesh. For combat, that is.

There is a caveat, though. If a character is able to avoid damage due to agility and swordsmanship .. parrying and dodging attacks rather than simply absorbing them at a cost of health .. then I'd be happy to have a combatant on the field without armour.

But 10 stabs to the heart with a greatsword? .. no amount of cleavage should protect against that.

Armor does not have to be bulky.

[Il Divo]

Aermas wrote...

You've never been in a sword fight have you? Wit will get you killed, & you can only dodge till you get worn out & then you get killed, plus when you have to dodge ALL the attacks, you loose a lot of ground.

And yet, someone wearing full plate armor might not necessarily be able to keep up with someone like Isabella wearing light leather. Regardless, your point also doesn't take into account one important fact: Bioware party members are typically shown to be exceptional compared to all npcs. Even taking into account certain 'real world physics' like gravity, Bioware party members are shown to be capable of performing super human feats.

For example, Dual wielding has never had a big precedent historically, let alone using two long swords, yet in Dragon Age I can make it a viable fighting style for a warrior/rogue and take down waves of dark spawn. There are a million liberties which are taken with actual physical combat which we ignore because it "looks cool". Characters fighting without armor is simply another one. Is it unrealistic? Yes, but then we can assume that npc's like Isabella (as an exceptional Bioware npcs) will have the stamina necessary to continue fighting in this manner while never getting seriously injured.

[Leonia]

On the subject of avoiding damage, the way Isabela describes her fighting technique in Origins seems to imply that  she relies on dexterity and speed. If she's getting hit by attacks then she's messed up somehow. To move like that, one needs very flexible clothes/armour. I'm not sure how that justifies her lack of pants (still think she has a pants-phobia) but it does explain why she would wear light-to-no armour. She simply doesn't need it. I know, that's not "realistic" but there's a lot about the combat in Origins that wasn't realistic and I don't suspect DA 2 will be much different in that department.

Modifié par leonia42, 28 novembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[tmp7704]

Il Divo wrote...

And yet, someone wearing full plate armor might not necessarily be able to keep up with someone like Isabella wearing light leather.

But given the difference in protection they wouldn't need to -- it'd be Isabela who would have to do her darndest not only to keep up, but to stay ahead of the enemy's attacks all the time.

regarding being so much more awesome than regular NPCs -- dual-wielding is rather poor example of that considering in DA setting every single rogue either dual wields or uses the bow, in DA2 at least.

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 novembre 2010 - 03:07 .

[Maria Caliban]

If you want to apply video game logic, wearing heavier armor always attracts attention and hostility. If Isabela is with someone in armor then the enemies will ignore her.

[Il Divo]

tmp7704 wrote...

But given the difference in protection they wouldn't need to -- it'd be Isabela who would have to do her darndest not only to keep up, but to stay ahead of the enemy's attacks all the time.

But the point is that Isabella is not only keeping up but exceeding her opponent's speed, making her that much more effective in combat. Would someone wearing no armor actually be able to take down someone wearing full plate in reality? Probably not, but my point is that Isabella is demonstrated to have such skill that she is able to take on this super human feat. Most role-playing characters fall under this heading, even if we were to go back to traditional dnd. A monk wears little to no armor, yet would have an incredibly high armor class in spite of this. What I'm saying is that 'realism' is not a good defense of characters being required to wear armor. Not when someone can go down in combat upwards of five times, yet walk around without a scratch on them.   

regarding being so much more awesome than regular NPCs -- dual-wielding is rather poor example of that considering in DA setting every single rogue either dual wields or uses the bow, in DA2 at least.

How is it a poor example? To my knowledge, as history goes there has never been an effective fighting style which involved dual wielding two long swords, yet a warrior can manage that pretty well. Pointing out that every rogue does it is not a defense of its realism (although in their cases, they're at least using daggers). Likewise with the bow.
 
My point with this is that the Warden + party members perform super human feats all the time. Yes, any random npc is given the ability to dual wield, but rarely are npc's shown to be as effective as our party, even if given a theoretically superior position. That's simply party of playing an RPG; you're going to be better than most npcs whether it's "realistic" or not.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Qset]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want to apply video game logic, wearing heavier armor always attracts attention and hostility. If Isabela is with someone in armor then the enemies will ignore her.

With the gear Isabela is wearing, I think ignoring her will be very challenging, even the Darkspawn must have the hots for her surely?

[Wulfram]

If I was going to flip and twirl my way around the battlefield as it seems DA2 rogues are obliged to, I wouldn't wear any armour.



I would wear trousers though.

[Aermas]

Il Divo wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

But given the difference in protection they wouldn't need to -- it'd be Isabela who would have to do her darndest not only to keep up, but to stay ahead of the enemy's attacks all the time.

But the point is that Isabella is not only keeping up but exceeding her opponent's speed, making her that much more effective in combat. Would someone wearing no armor actually be able to take down someone wearing full plate in reality? Probably not, but my point is that Isabella is demonstrated to have such skill that she is able to take on this super human feat. Most role-playing characters fall under this heading, even if we were to go back to traditional dnd. A monk wears little to no armor, yet would have an incredibly high armor class in spite of this. What I'm saying is that 'realism' is not a good defense of characters being required to wear armor. Not when someone can go down in combat upwards of five times, yet walk around without a scratch on them.   

regarding being so much more awesome than regular NPCs -- dual-wielding is rather poor example of that considering in DA setting every single rogue either dual wields or uses the bow, in DA2 at least.

How is it a poor example? To my knowledge, as history goes there has never been an effective fighting style which involved dual wielding two long swords, yet a warrior can manage that pretty well. Pointing out that every rogue does it is not a defense of its realism (although in their cases, they're at least using daggers). Likewise with the bow.
 
My point with this is that the Warden + party members perform super human feats all the time. Yes, any random npc is given the ability to dual wield, but rarely are npc's shown to be as effective as our party, even if given a theoretically superior position. That's simply party of playing an RPG; you're going to be better than most npcs whether it's "realistic" or not.

Wrong on so many levels. If I have some plate, scale, or chain armor, I will just stand there while you hop around like a bunny trying to kill me with you little dagger, then when you're exhausted, kill you. "Heroic" dexerity won't save you when you tire yourself out running from the first enemy just to be fatigued on the next handful

[hexaligned]

*looks at the knife scar across his ribs that got through his body armor* Armor is overrated.

I agree Aveline should be wearing something other than that little red vest number though, I thought the idea behind limiting us in party member customization, was to give characters a "unique" look? She looks like any other random dirt farmer in the game.

Modifié par relhart, 28 novembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Why don't you just stop being ridiculous? Always the same BS from the same people. It is a game. You don't carry your stuff around in huge backpacks or caravans, if you are severely wounded it doesn't have any impact on your fighting or movement (actually not even the weight of the things you carry slow you down or anything and you can carry the same weight alone or together with 4 others), your companions can't die in battle unless you kill them, etc.

Really bringing in real life into a game as a measure of 'realism' just makes you look stupid. Nobody really cares. You wear armor in your sparetime? You like armor in general? Good for you, but Bioware isn't making games just for people like you, and the majority I am sure doesn't care that much. Get over it.

[Il Divo]

Aermas wrote...
Wrong on so many levels. If I have some plate, scale, or chain armor, I will just stand there while you hop around like a bunny trying to kill me with you little dagger, then when you're exhausted, kill you. "Heroic" dexerity won't save you when you tire yourself out running from the first enemy just to be fatigued on the next handful

Nice try. Again, ditch the arguments on realism. "I would do x,y, and z" against an opponent who is faster than me is irrelevant. The point is that Isabella is much faster than you, as a rogue she knows exactly where to strike you, and she is doing something which we know no ordinary human could, including exceptional stamina/dexterity. The point is she's not going to tire herself out because as a party member npc she is shown to be capable of things most others could not do . If you have a problem with super human feats, I recommend you stop playing RPGs.

Dual wielding is not realistic. Having enemies ignore your downed party members and focus on you is not realistic. Firing three nocked arrows at a time is not realistic. Fighting while encumbered is not realistic. The lack of battle scars is not realistic. The list goes on and on.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Fighting in armor isn't necessarily more difficult than fighting without it but *traveling* in armor *is*. You don't feel well-distributed weight as much for short bursts of intense activity, but you DO feel it over long periods of sustained activity. Not to mention that armor requires serious maintenance that you may not always be able to perform on the road. And it's expensive to get in the first place.



Since it appears that the characters are largely unarmored for the first portion of the game--when they're refugees traveling at high speed over dangerous territory--this seems fine. We haven't seen much aside from the very beginning of the game, remember. When they get to their base and things are more settled, THEN I'll expect to see the armor pulled out.



I find the "soaking damage" objection to be the most hilarious from a "realism" standpoint because the entire "damage" mechanic is abstract and non-realistic anyway.

[Annihilator27]

GodWood wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They don't want warriors dual-wielding because they think it would look silly to have then flipping about, and yet somehow fighting without armour doesn't look silly?

This is an excellent point.

Agreed.

[Johnny Chaos]

Aermas wrote...

Johnny Chaos wrote...

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.

it's fantasy?  people are making a big deal over this armor.  why would someone like Isabela wear armor when she fights with quickness and wit, and admits to taking down warriors.

if you want to be super, super realistic armor is expensive and handed down, so maybe someone doesnt have the money to afford armor.

You've never been in a sword fight have you? Wit will get you killed, & you can only dodge till you get worn out & then you get killed, plus when you have to dodge ALL the attacks, you loose a lot of ground.

again it's fantasy not a real sword fight, plus they are supposed to be refugees, what type of refugee wears chevalier armor.

[Iakus]

PsychoBlonde wrote...


Since it appears that the characters are largely unarmored for the first portion of the game--when they're refugees traveling at high speed over dangerous territory--this seems fine. We haven't seen much aside from the very beginning of the game, remember. When they get to their base and things are more settled, THEN I'll expect to see the armor pulled out.

This is what I'm hoping.

I'm not so much worried about what kind of armor people will be wearing as whether what they are wearing is appropriate for the situation. 

Refugees without armor and only scavenged weapons makes sense.  

Adventurers trying to go toe-to-toe with an ogre whille not wearing protective outfits, not so much.

[PsychoBlonde]

iakus wrote...

Adventurers trying to go toe-to-toe with an ogre whille not wearing protective outfits, not so much.

I don't mind if there are a *couple* of characters who follow the Standard Hawt Girl Fantasy Protocol where the less clothing they wear, the better protection it offers (Isabella, possibly), but I'd like the ones who aren't definitely there to be the Hawt Babe to have some rational-ish apparrel, yah.

I am not unreasonable.

[Piecake]

This topic reminds me of Bronn and Vardis' fight in ASOIAF.

Modifié par Piecake, 28 novembre 2010 - 06:56 .

[twjohnston]

Aermas wrote...
According to Clark's Third Law magic could exist in real life

 
I think you're misinterpreting this... I believe the law is "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Aside from that, Clark was a science fiction writer, not a physicist...

[Il Divo]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I don't mind if there are a *couple* of characters who follow the Standard Hawt Girl Fantasy Protocol where the less clothing they wear, the better protection it offers (Isabella, possibly), but I'd like the ones who aren't definitely there to be the Hawt Babe to have some rational-ish apparrel, yah.

I am not unreasonable.

I definitely think it should depend on the character. I'm personally not against the full plate armor look and enjoy it for aesthetic purposes, but I don't see why certain character types (especially rogues) shouldn't be able to make do without it to some degree. We had characters like Zevran who join the group wearing leather armor while others like Leliana/Morrigan come wearing basic cloth.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2010 - 07:05 .