934 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand_Commander13]

Oooooh, the "I can dance all day, I can dance all day! Try and hit me!" crowd is in full swing today.

Yep, armor is completely useless, that's why people spent so much time and money trying to get it.

Yep, the existence of magic and elves in Thedas completely nullifies the fact that metal and leather are harder than skin.

Yep, I'd pass on a layer of leather armor if I was quick—so what if the leather doesn't impede my movement at all, it doesn't come in blue and my DragonForce t-shirt does.

[mousestalker]

I'm absolutely cool with chainmail bikinis as long as the stats are good and the appearance does not change for each sex. I would be completely in favour of an in game skank armour set as long as it is worn primarily by the Qunari warriors.

[Grand_Commander13]

mousestalker wrote...

I'm absolutely cool with chainmail bikinis as long as the stats are good and the appearance does not change for each sex. I would be completely in favour of an in game skank armour set as long as it is worn primarily by the Qunari warriors.

*gets odd image of self on battlefield playing Heart of a Dragon to try to intimidate enemy qunari and then the qunari warriors step forward in bondage gear and play *censored* of a Dragon*

*shudder*

[Solidbebe]

There's a difference between realism and logic. It's just illogical that a person without armor could tank 5000 damage. Realism is something different. Someone with plate armor ALSO COULDN'T tank 5000 damage, but it does make sense.

[upsettingshorts]

It's not something that I care about to the extent that it hurts my suspension of disbelief like it does for the OP.

For example, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Miranda's skintight catsuit if every other camera angle didn't focus on her boobs or ass. There's only so much fanservice patronizing I can take before I sigh quietly to myself and think, "Come on, even thirteen year old Upsettingshorts would have been annoyed at this point." So as long as there aren't constant upskirt shots of Isabela... I'm not gonna have a problem.

[PsychoBlonde]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Oooooh, the "I can dance all day, I can dance all day! Try and hit me!" crowd is in full swing today.

*eyeroll* Nobody's saying this.  They're saying that appealing to realism is silly because the game is inherently non-realistic no matter what you do.  And most of the armor in Origins was horrible from a practicality standpoint no matter how good it looked--those enormous shoulder plates!  Might as well install handlebars on your shoulders, because they're mostly only good as a steering device.

You know what else is unrealistic?  Fighting with swords inside houses (or pretty much any building that's not a warehouse or a gymnasium).  I can't even stand still in high guard with my longsword inside the house without sticking the end of it in the ceiling.  FORGET about swinging that sucker.  (I'm 5'10, the sword's about 4' of blade, which means that when I'm holding it in high guard me + sword is about 9' tall, and the ceiling is 8' tall).  A lot of castles and similar buildings were designed with this problem in mind--it's why you have to duck to go through all the doors and squeeze through the passages.

I'd love to see a scene in the battle with the Qunari where there's a tower or some such holding out against them because they just can't get up the flipping stairs, so they wind up having to bomb the place or similar in order to deal with the problem.  (Which would also mean weakening the defenses when it's THEIR turn to hold them.)  That's the sort of nods to realism that I like to see in a game.  But people choosing to go with less armor is not a big deal because armor is NOT useful in EVERY situation.  I'd like those who are saying that armor is so easy to move around in try wearing it when they have to low-crawl under barbed wire, through sapping tunnels, while fording a stream, while trying to squeeze between iron bars, while climbing a ship's rigging, and while doing a cross-country race.  Sure, you can do a backflip in it.  Once.  Can you keep doing all those things in it for days on end?

There's a reason why there is a historical cycle between heavily armored troops and lightly armored troops.  (And it's not because the lightly-armored troops can or can't do backflips.)  Even the very best plate armor and shield won't protect you from a siege crossbow or a 50 cal sniper rifle.  Why do you think the U.S. military still uses trucks and humvees instead of having absolutely everyone driving around in the biggest tanks they can get?  Why do you think infantry troops can take out tanks?

Ultimately, it's much, much easier to hit people harder than any armor can stop than it is to design armor that can prevent everything or even enough of everything.  The days when heavily armored knights ruled the battlefield were very short and not even uncontested.  This is why they teach soldiers to do things like build fortifications and take cover and use stealth and tactics--even the ones that have full body armor. 

[Wulfram]

Do we know if the PC rogue will have a viable non-armour option?



What bugs me isn't so much realism as the inconsistency with the PC.

[Il Divo]

Wulfram wrote...

Do we know if the PC rogue will have a viable non-armour option?

What bugs me isn't so much realism as the inconsistency with the PC.

I think this is going to depend on the stats. Origins for example made the distinction between 'defense' and 'armor' ratings. Defense measures the ability to dodge while armor is straight damage reduction. I'm not sure if they're keeping all the same stats, but if they hold onto at least these two there's no reason why a PC/party member should be affected differently. There has to be some kind of option to increase our PC's dodging abilities I would assume.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[Grand_Commander13]

PsychoBlonDe: A wonderful post which completely evades the point. For one, I already answered the "Thedas is already so unrealistic" complaint, and yes people do seem to think it's a great idea to dance all day and not make any preparations for what happens if you get hit.

Let's see here... Yep, a bunch of complaining, bad argument. "Why save $1 million when we're still wasting $19 million?"

And even light infantry wore armor. And I wouldn't be comparing peasant levies' equipment to hardcore mercenaries anyway.

Modifié par Grand_Commander13, 28 novembre 2010 - 07:57 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

And even light infantry wore armor. And I wouldn't be comparing peasant levies' equipment to hardcore mercenaries anyway.

You're not infantry.  You're an adventurer.  You're not fighting in a big battle that everyone has known was coming for days.  You're spending upwards of 90% of your time walking around and getting surprise attacked *on occasion*.  You are an irregular.  A guerrilla.  And most of the people who join your party are irregulars and guerillas.  In those situations, wearing armor comes down to personal preference, just like everything else.  Some of your big, tough, strong people (like Sten/Oghren/Alistair) who have trained wearing armor and whose job is to fend off large numbers of foes with muscle-powered melee weapons are going to benefit from wearing heavy armor--and they wear it.  Your mage or archer whose job is not to get in melee at all, but to take down ranged threats and do crowd control, is not going to benefit particularly from wearing armor.

Fighting is not all about armies facing off in big open fields somewhere.

[druplesnubb]

Its not so much about dancing all day as it is about "you wear 100kgs of metal and I don't so I'll kill you before you can hit me". Rogues should only have light armour because that fis more to the combat style and mages aren't as physically fit as the other classes so it makes sense that they can't wear as heavy stuf as the others can.

Modifié par druplesnubb, 28 novembre 2010 - 08:17 .

[Grand_Commander13]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Fighting is not all about armies facing off in big open fields somewhere.

Are those straw training dummies you love so much really good for your verbal sparring?

Seriously, all I'm arguing is that Isabella would be just as good a dodger in leather armor, and would be far less likely to be killed by a lucky thrust to the torso besides.  Quit trying to make it sound like I want everybody to be facing off in columns of twelve sporting spears and heavy armor.

[tmp7704]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

I think this reasoning goes backward, in a way -- Isabela didn't actually demonstrate anything for us yet. Instead, we presume that her lack of protection is justified by extraordinary skill, because that's the only possible explanation which doesn't require conceding she may be simply a conceited fool.

It'll be interesting to see how well she actually performs on her own in a fight -- somehow i don't think she'll be game-breaking good at dodging enemy attacks when push comes to shove.

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. 

It's a poor example in the sense it doesn't show how Hawke/companions are special snowflakes of their world, but to the contrary -- it shows that what they do is par for the course. As such, it doesn't lend very well towards the idea that Isabela (and other companions) are sooo much better than everyone else, that they can dance circle around their heavier armour enemies, e.g.
 

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.

If i'm not mistaken the "lieutenant" yellow-con NPCs are supposed to be on par with companions/player (with the boss level NPCs intended to be on power level comparable to full party) This is of course completely ruined with the ability of the player/companions to self-heal while enemies are prevented from it. But if you put both sides in the same conditions (controlled only by the AI/tactics and no pots) it'd likely be roughly even match (granted, as long as the party wasn't constructed by a munchkin)

[In Exile]

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

Actually, my enchanted ring of armour+50 will make all your regular metal sword blows irrelevant, and my dagger of killling +20 will pierce through your metal armour so fast it will be like cutting through butter.

A setting that actually has a mechanism for BS reality breaking equipment (enchantment) cannot possibly be criticized for breaking relaity.

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
Yep, armor is completely useless, that's why people spent so much time and money trying to get it.
Yep, the existence of magic and elves in Thedas completely nullifies the fact that metal and leather are harder than skin.
Yep, I'd pass on a layer of leather armor if I was quick—so what if the leather doesn't impede my movement at all, it doesn't come in blue and my DragonForce t-shirt does.

Once again: it does not matter that armour is expensive and sought after. No one is making some general argument.

But since magic does exist, and since there actually exists magic that can make skin tougher than metal and leather, then the fact that some people fight in "clothes" does not mean they are not wearing equivalent protection to armour.

Yes, armour may be cheaper if it isn't enchanted. And most people might prefer that. But so long as Varric and Isabella don't, and they can get equilavent protection elsewhere, then not wearing armour is consistent in setting.

You can't appeal to realism becaue we all know a fantasy game isn't realistic, and you can't appeal to internal consistency because not wearing armour is internally consistent.

Hell, in DA:O you can make a mage in clothing have a better armour rating than a rogue in chainmail just using the rockskin spell, or whatever.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why do you think the U.S. military still uses trucks and humvees instead of having absolutely everyone driving around in the biggest tanks they can get?

Cynical as it may sound, it's more cost-effective. A single Abrams tank costs ~4.3 mil USD. The armoured version of Humvee is ~150 k USD and even that is actually prohibitively high price, when you consider there's over 10  thousand of such vehicles used in large scale military operations -- http://www.msnbc.msn...brave_new_world

[Grand_Commander13]

In Exile wrote...

Hell, in DA:O you can make a mage in clothing have a better armour rating than a rogue in chainmail just using the rockskin spell, or whatever.

1) Isabella is not a mage.  Warriors and rogues are, as a general rule, not mages.
2) Great job picking out the single most inadequate armor type.
3) A rogue in plain Drakeskin would have 15 armor, which is equal to a mage with 60 Magic (the max) running Rock Armor and wearing robes that grant a bit of armor.  Light armor can be enchanted for armor too, and rogues can wear the same armor-boosting accessories mages can.
4) Maker forbid you enchant your armor like a mage enchants his underpants.

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
1) Isabella is not a mage.  Warriors and rogues are, as a general rule, not mages.
2) Great job picking out the single most inadequate armor type.
3) A rogue in plain Drakeskin would have 15 armor, which is equal to a mage with 60 Magic (the max) running Rock Armor and wearing robes that grant a bit of armor.  Light armor can be enchanted for armor too, and rogues can wear the same armor-boosting accessories mages can.
4) Maker forbid you enchant your armor like a mage enchants his underpants.

This is not the main point of my argument; only a sidebar to counter your claim that in DA:O metal/leather > skin. This is not always true.

Let me try to break this argument down for you in the simplest possible terms.

Your claim is that any armour is always better than no armour. This is the thesis you need to defend. My claim is that there exists at least some piece of non-armour that can, through magic, be as effective as most kinds of armour.

It doesn't matter that you can get super plate of infinite invincible + 40 for 324 gold if you wanted that sort of armour. It matters that Isabella or Varric can get clothing that protects them as well or better than most of the armour that the average sort of soldier can wear. If they can do this, then your argument collapses.

All you can argue is that they might have even better armour, but that doesn't matter because they may very well not care past a threshold, or consider the cost of wearing armour (looking like you are prepared for battle and expecting it) to oughtweigh the benefit of secrecy from their clothing.

Not wearing armour but being protected from damage is consistent with the setting. You cannot appeal to realism or to the setting to justify your preference.

You, grandcommander_13, might always pick the best possible armour without regarding for anything else. Awesome for you. Other people might use other criteria and pick clothing that grants bonuses to armour comparable to the common sort of armour everyone can afford.

Modifié par In Exile, 28 novembre 2010 - 10:13 .

[Ulicus]

Besides, how do we know that Isabela's pretty necklace isn't enchanted?

I'm just' saying.

Hawke: Izzy, why don't you strap on some armour, already.
Isabela: Don't need it, kitten.
Hawke: Eh?
Isabela: *points to chest* Enchantment.
Hawke: Well, sure, I can see how they might distract your foes, but -
Isabela: *ahem* The necklace is enchanted. Heavily enchanted. Wards me from incoming blows better than any leathers. And it's pretty.

Modifié par Ulicus, 28 novembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[ENolan]

Ulicus wrote...

Besides, how do we know that Isabela's pretty necklace isn't enchanted?

I'm just' saying.

Hawke: Izzy, why don't you strap on some armour, already.
Isabela: Don't need it, kitten.
Hawke: Eh?
Isabela: *points to chest* Enchantment.
Hawke: Well, sure, I can see how they might distract your foes, but -
Isabela: *ahem* The necklace is enchanted. Heavily enchanted. Wards me from incoming blows better than any leathers. And it's pretty.

Following the logic of Isabela, Varric's forethought wasn't exactly a bad guess.

[Johnny Chaos]

remember the celts ran into battle naked and it was effective, so i wanna fight nekkid

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not something that I care about to the extent that it hurts my suspension of disbelief like it does for the OP.
For example, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Miranda's skintight catsuit if every other camera angle didn't focus on her boobs or ass. There's only so much fanservice patronizing I can take before I sigh quietly to myself and think, "Come on, even thirteen year old Upsettingshorts would have been annoyed at this point." So as long as there aren't constant upskirt shots of Isabela... I'm not gonna have a problem.

Yeah, this will ultimately be a big component concerning my overall approval.  Too often people seem to mistake "Mature" for "Grownup"

While Miranda and others not wearing protective gear was a definite annoyance for me, the larger annoyance was the oh-so-obvious fan service.  If DA2 could avoid this component,  and avoid close-up shots of people's rears, or have female characters spilling out of their blouses (except at appropriate parts of the story)  I could probably live with inapropriate armor being worn by characters.  It will still be a negative in my book. Just a smaller negative. 

I still think some sort of protective armor should be worn when characters are expecting to be in battle.  I mean, when your life is on the line. every little bit helps, right? 

[Ulicus]

iakus wrote...
Too often people seem to mistake "Mature" for "Grownup"

Dude, that isn't a mistake. It's just that a "mature rated" game isn't necessarily mature.

[mousestalker]

Johnny Chaos wrote...

remember the celts ran into battle naked and it was effective, so i wanna fight nekkid

1. The Greeks did it too.

2. The Romans used armour and completely pwned both the Greeks and the Gauls.

3. You can fight nekkid even in Origins.

4. Please do not post screen shots of your character if you decide to do #3.