934 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

[Sir JK]

I'd like to echo PsychoBlonde from last page, the party both comes from backgrounds where armour is unlikely and will spend the majority of the time travelling (and not fighting) which is a situation in which it is very unpractical. If the game had been one long war-simulation, then I'd too expect everyone to wear armour. But it is not. It is a game where you travel and on occasion gets caught in combat.
When you travel, wearing 40 kg of armour is going to be very noticeable very soon. By the time you stop you're going to be so exhausted that you can't move. The past is full of anecdotes of soldiers marching in armour because the commanders feared an ambush and when they stopped many soldiers just collapsed on the spot and fell asleep because they were so incredibly tired. That the cavalry, when ordered on scouting missions, removed every piece of armour they were wearing to prepare for the next 12-16 hours riding in broken terrain to spare themselves and their horses (yes, it was the cavalry that scouted). There's many journals from soldiers describing how hellishly exhausting it is to travel in armour.

A second point is that wearing armour is in itself a hostile act. You can be barred from entering homes, establishments, temples/churches or even cities while wearing it. Because it is a clear sign that you intend to fight. Everyone is nervous around armoured men (and women). Imagine it yourself, standing in a store and in comes a group of gruff men wearing kevlar-vests. The armour you're wearing could, in tense situations, ultimately be the catalyst that causes the fight and that if you hadn't been wearing it you wouldn't have needed it.

Bottomline is... armour is something you don when you prepare for battle (battles, not combat). It is not something one wears casually. It is made to be as non-bulky and smoothly to wear as possible, but it will still weigh you down a lot (but not so much it will in the short term affect your ability to fight). It will still take it's toll on the body.
A party that travels, features members who aren't soldiers by profession, who do not have landed nobles providing them with equipment and who will have their share of non-combat enounters have no real reason to be wearing it. Some companions might if they get a reason to or wish it, but it should't be demanded.

I say they should have armour if it fits their character first and combat-role second. That is ultimately more realistic than wearing it just because you might end up in combat.

Modifié par Sir JK, 29 novembre 2010 - 04:09 .

[Chuvvy]

Esbatty wrote...

I was promised nudity and violence. This thread better deliver.

Berserkers were Viking warriors that would get high on mushrooms strip naked and start killing everything in sight. Nudity and violence, delivered.

[Cyanide Disaster]

If you want realism. Larp. If you wanna have fun playing a game that isn't 'realistic' because it wasn't meant to be... play Dragon Age.

[Aermas]

Okay I say some points that need to be address for those who seem to know nothing of combat or armor. In a fight armor does not slow you down. If it is made improperly it can hinder your movements. If you have no armor you must compensate by moving away from EVERY blow, With armor you can just stand there, it's not exhausting to stand still. It is exhausting to move. Armor does NOT weight much when worn. No viable armor has ever weighed 100lbs. If you spend all your energy to dodge attacks then you have no energy or momentum to attack. Isabela uses "daggers" shirking the use for a shield (I have no clue why) So now she has no ward to any blow except to dodge & loose ground. While an armored or shielded foe does not need to dodge & looses no ground when attacked. Walking around in armor can be fatiguing because of the heat, but this is only metal or overly thick armors, ridged leather is not hard to wear. So they could wear a nice chain shirt or a jack of brigandine.



Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out.

[Atakuma]

Aermas wrote...

Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out.

Dragon age never played by those rules to begin with.

[Johnny Chaos]

Aermas wrote...

Okay I say some points that need to be address for those who seem to know nothing of combat or armor. In a fight armor does not slow you down. If it is made improperly it can hinder your movements. If you have no armor you must compensate by moving away from EVERY blow, With armor you can just stand there, it's not exhausting to stand still. It is exhausting to move. Armor does NOT weight much when worn. No viable armor has ever weighed 100lbs. If you spend all your energy to dodge attacks then you have no energy or momentum to attack. Isabela uses "daggers" shirking the use for a shield (I have no clue why) So now she has no ward to any blow except to dodge & loose ground. While an armored or shielded foe does not need to dodge & looses no ground when attacked. Walking around in armor can be fatiguing because of the heat, but this is only metal or overly thick armors, ridged leather is not hard to wear. So they could wear a nice chain shirt or a jack of brigandine.

Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out.

no offense but

what  are you talking about " Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out."  when have you seen the hero of any fantsy run around in armor? legend of the seeker, lotr, none of them wore armor.    you say DA2 has to be realistic or throw the rules out, but what is the armor going to do for you when you get a fireball tossed at you.  You need to remember DAO is fantasy or try playing WoW that game is extremley realistic.

[AlanC9]

 I'm with Atakuma. Play the realism card and you end up with everybody in plate mail, enemies targeting the unarmored PCs, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a realistic game, but if you think DAO was trying to be such a game and DA2 will be deviating from that, you are kidding yourself.

[Fortlowe]

Look the real issue at hand here isn't whether or not it's practical or realistic or even sensible to go into combat naked.....it's whether or not that naked combat will take place in a mudpit between dwarves and what exactly the pressence of nugs in the mudpit has to do with the wrestling matches objective.

I support the N.D.M.P.N.W.L. The Nude Dwarven Mud Pit Nug Wrestling League. Do you?

Modifié par Fortlowe, 29 novembre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Not...Mordin]

Lol speaking of fighting naked, I fought an Ogre in the undies(barehanded), Beowulf would be proud.

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...
... If you have no armor you must compensate by moving away from EVERY blow, With armor you can just stand there, it's not exhausting to stand still. It is exhausting to move...

Uh, Aermas... standing absolutely still in a fight is a bad idea period. Even in full armour you should always move away from every blow. The person fighting use is trying to kill you... and he or she is going to wield a weapon that can kill you regardless of what you wear. There is no armour in existance that make you invurnerable. What armour does is allow you to survive the occasional mistake or bad luck... but no more than that.

Armor does NOT weight much when worn. No viable armor has ever weighed 100lbs. If you spend all your energy to dodge attacks then you have no energy or momentum to attack.

I admit it's not completely the same, but I have backpacks designed to spread the weight out over the body. I usually carry 4-5 kg in them but thanks to it's design I barely notice. I can move without hinderance with it, climb trees, jump fences and hypothetically manage easier acrobatic manouvers. But after 6 hours of wearing it, my shoulders, my back and my hip hurts like there is no tomorrow. I feel physically exhausted due to having worn it.

Armour is the same. Half an hour... no problem. An hour.... No big deal. 8 hours... ugh. 12 hours ouch... More than that... you'll probably be sleeping with it on because you'll collapse the moment you stop moving...

Isabela uses "daggers" shirking the use for a shield (I have no clue why) So now she has no ward to any blow except to dodge & loose ground.

Actually, there are schools that teaches you to use the dagger "as you would a shield". You use it for your blocks, parries, deflections and feitns just like you would a shield (rather: a buckler). The Milanese school I think... possibly the Bologna school... I'll try to find which ones it was.

While an armored or shielded foe does not need to dodge & looses no ground when attacked.

Yep, standing still is to ask to be killed. Remember, your opponents are going to either use armour pierciong weapons (like the spikes on warhammers, maces, halberds and so on) or strike around the armour (face guards are notoriously poor protection and tend to bend inwards when hit... yes. Into your face!)

Walking around in armor can be fatiguing because of the heat, but this is only metal or overly thick armors, ridged leather is not hard to wear. So they could wear a nice chain shirt or a jack of brigandine.

You do know that a proper mediveal brigandine is about 20 kg of metal and layer and layers of linen, right? It's more cloth than a thick modern winterjacket. Gambesons are even more than that. Oh... and i invite you to try wearing that when it rains. It takes a few minutes but then they'll start absorbing water. So you'll be carrying that as well.
Heat is a factor yes. So is the weight, but as you say... proper armor is made not to inconvenience you in combat. As long as you haven't been wearing it for long it won't do that. But you will feel the weight... eventually.

Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out.

I too think that realism adds to fantasy. Fantasy should be like the real world ecept were stated otherwise (like with magic), because to me that makes it more enjoyable.

Modifié par Sir JK, 29 novembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[Kasces]

Is it just me or does anyone else think the OP's post answered itself?
 
If one character. a tank and warrior no less, we previously thought was going to stay in the same flimsy clothes for 10 years, or however long she'll be our companion, is apparently getting appropriate wear, why are we assuming everyone else will just stay in the garments they begin with? Since Bioware is by-large taking away our near unlimited freedom in dressing companions like Hawke based on the logic they are not our character, why are we assuming our companions by-large won't be dressing themselves?

[chunkyman]

I know that enchantments could be a reasonable explanation for a lack of armor. However, I still find it silly that Isabela wouldn't wear armor (or pants). Suspension of Disbelief only goes so far. Some people seem to be thinking that realistic and logical are the same thing. I don't want a game that follows the real world functionality and availability of real armor and weapons, but I do want the game and the characters in it to operate in a fairly believable way. If i were dropped into the Dragon Age universe, I wouldn't find it logical for women fighters (fighters who are of the female sex, not wife beaters!) to walk around looking like eye-candy. It just seems so corny to me, because it seems like sex appeal would be the last thing an experienced swashbuckler would consider in their clothing choice. In order to make a game practical from a developmental and fun point of view, it's made so the player has to suspend their disbelief for things like potion-chugging or not being permanently maimed after being hit with a maul. These kind of things are acceptable because our immersion into the game usually isn't broken. This is okay because the game wouldn't be fun without reasonable deviations from our reality. Some things (at least for me) break immersion because it's incompatible with what makes sense according to that universe. I think there is a distinction between creating different realities and creating illogical situations. Many great movies and books have unrealistic scenarios and premises, but they usually have internal consistency and verisimilitude that allows you to accept it as reasonable. A lot of you accept armor-less fighting as reasonable, but I find it to be overly absurd. I don't care that much about armor, and I know I'll love DA2, but I would prefer characters to wear a bit more armor so I don't have to ignore what I (and others) find to be a silly outfit. 

The silly outfits in some  games have always annoyed me.

Modifié par chunkyman, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Maria Caliban]

Isabela has liberated herself from the tyranny of pants. Trousers shall no longer oppress her strong, supple legs nor breeches bar her way.

[upsettingshorts]

Isabela is simply living the dream:

[Matchy Pointy]

And seeing at it historicly, wearing no pants was a big part of Roman and Greek socety, they would throw a party in honour of Isabela rebelling against the barbaric custom of pants wearing.

Modifié par Matchy Pointy, 29 novembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Ryzaki]

Honestly the whole thing reaks of JRPG to me.

...And I like JRPGs.

Though if I ever fight her I want my armored Warrior Hawke to kick her with his armored boot. Perferably in the shin.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 novembre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Kroaks]

Never worn armor but from my personal experience; both leather pants and football gear do hinder your movement somewhat.



Now obviously you can still get around, fight etc.....but its not like its a sense of total freedom if you were in a tank top and underwear.



Another thing to consider....Isabela isn't just fast but incredibly strong, the trailers have her doing attacks that can send very large qunari' individuals flying quite a few feet.



In DAO wasn't one of the rogue's abilities "flicker" which was basically moving so fast for brief periods of time that people could only percieve you as a flicker?



Might be misremembering but I want to say I saw Zevran block an arrow once by crossing his daggers during one of the fights in the game.



If she's got speed comparable to that; that means basically anyone not a rogue is meat for the beast far as she is concerned.



Now would armor hurt? Especially some kind of personal armor designed after her style of "speed and dexterity"? Pretty much no it wouldn't.

[Kroaks]

chunkyman wrote...

I know that enchantments could be a reasonable explanation for a lack of armor. However, I still find it silly that Isabela wouldn't wear armor (or pants). Suspension of Disbelief only goes so far. Some people seem to be thinking that realistic and logical are the same thing. I don't want a game that follows the real world functionality and availability of real armor and weapons, but I do want the game and the characters in it to operate in a fairly believable way. If i were dropped into the Dragon Age universe, I wouldn't find it illogical for women fighters (fighters who are of the female sex, not wife beaters!) to walk around looking like eye-candy. It just seems so corny to me, because it seems like sex appeal would be the last thing an experienced swashbuckler would consider in their clothing choice. In order to make a game practical from a developmental and fun point of view, it's made so the player has to suspend their disbelief for things like potion-chugging or not being permanently maimed after being hit with a maul. These kind of things are acceptable because our immersion into the game usually isn't broken. This is okay because the game wouldn't be fun without reasonable deviations from our reality. Some things (at least for me) break immersion because it's incompatible with what makes sense according to that universe. I think there is a distinction between creating different realities and creating illogical situations. Many great movies and books have unrealistic scenarios and premises, but they usually have internal consistency and verisimilitude that allows you to accept it as reasonable. A lot of you accept armor-less fighting as reasonable, but I find it to be overly absurd. I don't care that much about armor, and I know I'll love DA2, but I would prefer characters to wear a bit more armor so I don't have to ignore what I (and others) find to be a silly outfit. 

The silly outfits in some  games have always annoyed me.

Yeah but like you pointed out; she's a pirate and pirates never were big on wearing armor, even in the real world.

[Kroaks]

You know; Isabela isn't fighting totally sans armor.



Its limited but there, she does have some armor of her arm and that neck guard of hers.

[Johnny Chaos]

she's a duelist so she wouldnt want to wear p;ate or chain

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas wrote...
... If you have no armor you must compensate by moving away from EVERY blow, With armor you can just stand there, it's not exhausting to stand still. It is exhausting to move...

Uh, Aermas... standing absolutely still in a fight is a bad idea period. Even in full armour you should always move away from every blow. The person fighting use is trying to kill you... and he or she is going to wield a weapon that can kill you regardless of what you wear. There is no armour in existance that make you invurnerable. What armour does is allow you to survive the occasional mistake or bad luck... but no more than that.

Armor does NOT weight much when worn. No viable armor has ever weighed 100lbs. If you spend all your energy to dodge attacks then you have no energy or momentum to attack.

I admit it's not completely the same, but I have backpacks designed to spread the weight out over the body. I usually carry 4-5 kg in them but thanks to it's design I barely notice. I can move without hinderance with it, climb trees, jump fences and hypothetically manage easier acrobatic manouvers. But after 6 hours of wearing it, my shoulders, my back and my hip hurts like there is no tomorrow. I feel physically exhausted due to having worn it.

Armour is the same. Half an hour... no problem. An hour.... No big deal. 8 hours... ugh. 12 hours ouch... More than that... you'll probably be sleeping with it on because you'll collapse the moment you stop moving...

Isabela uses "daggers" shirking the use for a shield (I have no clue why) So now she has no ward to any blow except to dodge & loose ground.

Actually, there are schools that teaches you to use the dagger "as you would a shield". You use it for your blocks, parries, deflections and feitns just like you would a shield (rather: a buckler). The Milanese school I think... possibly the Bologna school... I'll try to find which ones it was.

While an armored or shielded foe does not need to dodge & looses no ground when attacked.

Yep, standing still is to ask to be killed. Remember, your opponents are going to either use armour pierciong weapons (like the spikes on warhammers, maces, halberds and so on) or strike around the armour (face guards are notoriously poor protection and tend to bend inwards when hit... yes. Into your face!)

Walking around in armor can be fatiguing because of the heat, but this is only metal or overly thick armors, ridged leather is not hard to wear. So they could wear a nice chain shirt or a jack of brigandine.

You do know that a proper mediveal brigandine is about 20 kg of metal and layer and layers of linen, right? It's more cloth than a thick modern winterjacket. Gambesons are even more than that. Oh... and i invite you to try wearing that when it rains. It takes a few minutes but then they'll start absorbing water. So you'll be carrying that as well.
Heat is a factor yes. So is the weight, but as you say... proper armor is made not to inconvenience you in combat. As long as you haven't been wearing it for long it won't do that. But you will feel the weight... eventually.

Realism MUST be in a game like Dragon Age or we might as well throw all the rules out.

I too think that realism adds to fantasy. Fantasy should be like the real world ecept were stated otherwise (like with magic), because to me that makes it more enjoyable.

A chain shirt can stop a katana from cutting you in two, you may be bruised from blunt force trauma. Leather will stop the same thing but leave you with cracked ribs. Plate makes it tickle. How you think armor is for small mistakes & minor scraps eludes me.

You should only move in combat to (A) gain ground or ( create distance. If you block & parry properly you do not need to move, nor should you. If your block is insufficient you may lift or move the limb but you never want to create distance unless you are going to a better tactically viable location. You should make the enemy move, make them tired. Hypothetically if want to attack my flank you must run around to my side, to protect myself from said attack I only have to shift my footing to face you.

Note on Brigandine, it's a little vague on what is brigandine & what is not, some are really coat-of-plates, some are Lamalar covered in felt. I was talking about a ridged leather armor with small plates riveted to the front, back & sides, covered in a layer of felt. This also has load bearing straps & would weight about 15lbs or less.

[Aermas]

 For the record, this is plate armor


See no ridiculous spaulders or pauldrons. & the legs on the last one would be kind of sexy on Aveline, Cassandra or FemHawke

[Sir JK]

Actually Aermas, maille and plate turns swords from cutting weapons to ineffetice clubs. But they're still more than capable of causing internal hemorraging (bleeding) and fractures. They can't cut through you however and a broken arm is certainly better than a severed one. But either way you won't be able to use it any more that fight.

While sensationalist tv and under optimal expermental conditions this youtube clip neatly demonstrates what I mean. Rest assured a sword can most certainly achieve the same thing. Maces, warhammers, pollaxes and similar are designed to cause just that as well.

That's why you keep moving. Never let the enemy fight on his terms or even hit you. Don't take any chances if you can. Regardless of what you're wearing.

As for moving: Constantly moving is key. Combat is always shifting and ther's no such thing as a better tactical location. You're going to constantly keep me from attacking, so I must move to make sure you don't know from where I'll attack. I must also keep moving to prevent you from seeing the weaknesses in my defence. Just like in modern boxing and martial arts... footwork is key.
If you're just standing there and waiting for me... that means I can get to attack you the way I want to. Not the way you want me to. Even if you have good defence, you want me to attack you in a manner you decide. Don't ever let me choose. A bit of bad luck and I'll have chosen something you didn't think of... and acted faster than you could adapt.

True. the Brigandine does vary a lot. The lightest are contemtory to plate (figures really, why try to do the same thing when plate does it better) the heaviest predates it. Still, it's not an insignificant weight to carry. It's not something you'll want to carry on the morning stroll exactly

EDIT: Nice pictures of harnesses by the way

Modifié par Sir JK, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[upsettingshorts]

As long as the outfit is fixed contextual incongruity is inevitable. If it's fixed to be plate armor and you're having a chat inside some tavern or going shopping, it looks silly. If it's fixed to be odd leather straps cunningly covering the nipples of your otherwise exposed breasts and you're in a spaceship exposed to vacuum, it looks silly.

Since fixed outfits are always going to be illogical at some point, I'd dismiss logic as a reasonable argument for one or the other (armor or nonarmor) entirely, and instead rely on the rule of cool. If armor is cooler for Aermas, that's his decision to make. If Isabela's thigh highs and skirt-thing are cooler for me, that's my decision to make. But logic left the building when the outfits became - more or less - fixed because no such outfit will make logical sense in all situations.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:08 .