1309 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Piecake wrote...

Was Kevlar even invented in 1970 or any other material that could sufficiently stop a bullet?  I dont remember the US army wearing any armor either

According to Wikipedia, Kevlar was invented in 1965.  I have no idea when the bulletproof qualities were first discovered or utilized--it was first used in RACING TIRES.  In the Vietnam era, "Armor" = a tank or similar.  It wasn't something you wore on your person.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, aside from the helmet.

[Ziggeh]

Welp, providing the qunari (was that Qunari? I've forgotten already) aren't packing M14s, we're probably alright.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 décembre 2010 - 09:07 .

[Sharn01]

They also lost roughly 100 VC soldiers for every American they killed. They won with a war of attrition, they could afford to have far more people killed then their enemy, so argueing that they had effective combat tactics in small scale battles is rediculous to begin with no matter what point you are trying to make.

[crimzontearz]

wants to add a drop of my own wisdom to this.....



you know when and how we will know isabela is (parphrasing PB here) is not a **** put there by bioware for sole sexual titillation?



when her "romance" plotline is revealed to be more than just **** buddies and is given some depth making it worth being pursued

[upsettingshorts]

crimzontearz wrote...

when her "romance" plotline is revealed to be more than just **** buddies and is given some depth making it worth being pursued

...those two things are mutually exclusive? 

[Piecake]

crimzontearz wrote...

wants to add a drop of my own wisdom to this.....

you know when and how we will know isabela is (parphrasing PB here) is not a **** put there by bioware for sole sexual titillation?

when her "romance" plotline is revealed to be more than just **** buddies and is given some depth making it worth being pursued

or uses her sexual prowess to manipulate and backstab you (I'm actually kind of hoping for this one).

[Ziggeh]

crimzontearz wrote...

you know when and how we will know isabela is (parphrasing PB here) is not a **** put there by bioware for sole sexual titillation?

I imagine when we start seeing her as a character rather than an image and a couple of flirty lines it'll have that effect.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sharn01 wrote...

They also lost roughly 100 VC soldiers for every American they killed. They won with a war of attrition, they could afford to have far more people killed then their enemy, so argueing that they had effective combat tactics in small scale battles is rediculous to begin with no matter what point you are trying to make.

They're arguing that armor isn't the be-all, end-all of combat, that's all.  And they didn't win a war of "attrition", they won a war of the will.  (Well, unless you count will as something that can be worn down, which I suppose is true.)  Thomas Sowell talks a bit about this in his book Intellectuals and Society, how the VC eventually wound up basically neutering themselves so that they could make a big push (a VC official actually confirmed this later) and attempt to convince the Americans that they had way more determination and ability to persevere than they actually did--if the Americans hadn't pulled out when they did, they could have mopped up the VC easily and the war would have been over right then.

Perception can be a lot in war as well.

[ladydesire]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

 Armor is heavy and tiring and often not worthwhile in long campaigns where the main method of transit is your own two feet.  This is why there's a historical cycle between people going into battle armored or not armored.  You'll have periods where heavy armor = battlefield superiority, and periods where sneaky bollocks with nasty long-ranged weapons = battlefield superiority, and all sorts of complex combinations of the two.

So what you're saying is that we should stop metagaming (using our external knowledge of what is coming) and let Isabela be herself, even if we feel the outfit is rediculous?

[AlanC9]

If you're really metagaming you won't want to put Isabela in heavy armor anyway. Given that the whole DA2 design is about keeping light-armored characters competitive on the front lines, the DA universe itself will intervene to make certain that she isn't being penalized by dressing the way she does.

Edit: well, that'll be the design intent, anyway. Sometimes Bio doesn't get things the way they planned.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 décembre 2010 - 10:20 .

[PsychoBlonde]

AlanC9 wrote...

If you're really metagaming you won't want to put Isabela in heavy armor anyway. Given that the whole DA2 design is about keeping light-armored characters competitive on the front lines, the DA universe itself will intervene to make certain that she isn't being penalized by dressing the way she does.

Edit: well, that'll be the design intent, anyway. Sometimes Bio doesn't get things the way they planned.

Yes, the Equipment Gods will no doubt extend their hands to make sure that she gets plenty of magical armor upgrades even if these make no sense for that getup whatsoever.  It's magic.  A wizard did it.

[PsychoBlonde]

ladydesire wrote...

So what you're saying is that we should stop metagaming (using our external knowledge of what is coming) and let Isabela be herself, even if we feel the outfit is rediculous?

Not exactly--I'm saying that you're not doing yourself any favors by working yourself into a frenzy of hate over a couple outfits so no matter what you get from the rest of the game, you still won't be able to enjoy it.

I hate playing male characters, but I'm sure glad I didn't miss out on Planescape and Gothic--but I wouldn't have been able to enjoy either of those if I'd been on the forums months beforehand screaming about how RIDICULOUS the leads looked and OMG I HOPE WE CAN CHANGE THEIR APPEARANCE BECAUSE THIS IS INSANE!!!

Note the 2nd person plural again, I ain't razzing you specificially, just this attitude in general.  Chill people, you really can deal with a couple of ugly suits of clothes.

[Xewaka]

Pseudocognition wrote...
So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

Again. The problem is not the sexy clothes per se. The problem is wearing sexy – and impractical – clothes into battle. Because the average perception seems to be that sexy and practical are incompatible – a perception I disagree with.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
I think Ryzaki was just advocating practical outfits over stylized ones.

If I had to guess, I'd say Ryzaki woulda been cool with the Mass Effect 2 setup if the companions had the same casual/in the field dynamic that Shepard did.  
And personally, I think that would have been much better too.

Yes, a Shepard-style casual/in field dynamic for all companions would have been most welcome in ME 2 and
would be great in DA2. We'd get best of both worlds, with Isabela (to keep with the most debated case) wearing her sexy stuff when in the city and something more practical when dungeoneering.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Note the 2nd person plural again, I ain't razzing you specificially, just this attitude in general.  Chill people, you really can deal with a couple of ugly suits of clothes.

I know. My method of dealing with it includes not using said party members. ME 2 for me had Garrus, Tali, Mordin, Grunt and Legion as possible companions.

Modifié par Xewaka, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[crimzontearz]

Xewaka wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

Again. The problem is not the sexy clothes per se. The problem is wearing sexy – and impractical – clothes into battle. Because the average perception seems to be that sexy and practical are incompatible – a perception I disagree with.

you disagree with it and rightfully so. BUT I think the problem here is not with people thinking that sexy + practical = impossible but with people looking back at what Bioware did recently and dreading history repeating itself.
Think about the outfits we have been shown for instance in ME2....Jack, Miranda, Morinth/Samara, Thane (aside for his DLC outfit that covers his chest with armor) and whatnot, they are the proof that Bioware apprently handwaved what practical + sexy is supposed to look like (or perhaps handwaves that that particular attire would be ungodly imprac tical and even dangerous) and just went for fetish-sexy for the hell of it. DA2 seems to be heading in a better direction given wha we saw with Aveline but  the issue seems to remain.

I have absolutely nothing against Isabela looking sexy and flaunting what the maker gave her (and god help me I am still praying her romance will be a meaningful one  dwelving into her past, her mentality, her issues and how to work through them until she will become MY Isabela and not just Isabela...I know I'm a sap and this is for another discussion) but I still think a tight set of studded leathers could still have been sexy and more practical than what she is wearing now

[Maria Caliban]

Piecake wrote...

She could be a flirt and wear revealing outfits because she enjoys manipulating men and the power it gives her over weak-minded, horny men.  I would imagine that kind of power and having everyone's eye on you be confidence boosting and ego stroking as well.  I wouldnt call that type of character a ****, more like a manipulative tease

Except, you know, she's not Morrigan. She probably flirts because she enjoys flirting. That's what she did in DA:O.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

you know when and how we will know isabela is (parphrasing PB here) is not a **** put there by bioware for sole sexual titillation?

I imagine when we start seeing her as a character rather than an image and a couple of flirty lines it'll have that effect.

I imagine I've already made that mental leap. I cannot think of a single BioWare female that came off as nothing but T&A. In fact, I find the women in BioWare games to be some of the best written in the gaming industry.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[In Exile]

ladydesire wrote...

So what you're saying is that we should stop metagaming (using our external knowledge of what is coming) and let Isabela be herself, even if we feel the outfit is rediculous?

But if you're meta-gaming, why wouldn't you account for things like in setting BS (i.e. magic and enchanment) that can make cloth equally proctective compared to, for example, plate?

I would understand objecting to a character dressed like Isabella if the setting had clothes and materials and reality that worked like our own, but it doesn't. In ME2, you're sort of left asking what sort of magic keeps characters alive when their in-setting BS, the kinetic shield, fails. In DA2 you always have your answer: magic. Quite literally, when you allow magic into the setting you can't appeal to reality for justification.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Again. The problem is not the sexy clothes per se. The problem is wearing sexy – and impractical – clothes into battle. Because the average perception seems to be that sexy and practical are incompatible – a perception I disagree with.

But, magic. She could go into battle naked with a necklace and have better armour than a knight in plate with the way the setting works. Just a bit of ''Enchanment!!' and her necklace of armour +30 outpaces Mithril Plate.

I get why ME2 would be an issue (the aforementioned shields) but we quite literally have an in-setting explanation for this right now in DA2.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:54 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Getting hung up on practicality sounds like a recipe for dull, in my opinion.

Like writing, character design is storytelling. What she has on says volumes about her that wouldn't be said if she was in whatever armor you looted off some mooks. For example: dressing like that she's obviously confident in her dueling skills, perhaps prefers to engage opponents only when she has to and generally uses other means (distraction, sleight of hand) to get what she wants. As mentioned when a few were analyzing her boots, they do have some qualities of sexy-sexy thigh high boots, but with a practical footprint and made of rugged materials. She at least knows she will be out and about, but as for fighting? Maybe. Her leisure might be more important to her. But if she was wearing something objectively practical... she'd be... dressed to fight? As a character she doesn't seem like the type to wake up in the morning and put combat on her to-do list. She might not be protecting anything or anyone else and is capable of protecting herself with all manner of tricks. Sure, gameplay may put her in the way of an ax swing, but that's gameplay, which compared to this world is already as unrealistic as... going into battle in a shirt. An ax swing isn't going to kill anyone in Thedas, even if they are wearing a shirt.

And at that point, when you've got combat mechanics that allow you to survive just about everything but a direct clawing from a dragon, I think the designers are free to put anyone in whatever makes sense to their character. Dragon Age is not trying to be realistic, it's trying to tell a story, and outfits though impractical do a damn good job of that.

Maybe I'm the only one here who felt this way but having a team in mook armor, talking to individual companions in their mook armor... huge, HUGE rift between my perception of them and their appearance. What if Leliana had been wearing a heavy dress with maybe a leather vest over it? Something a little more decorated than necessary, maybe. That would make more sense to her character and look more right to me than the splintmail I wind up sticking her in.

I respect that people would rather have one over the other but there is merit in the impracticality.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[Maria Caliban]

Pseudocognition wrote...

What if Leliana had been wearing a heavy dress with maybe a leather vest over it? Something a little more decorated than necessary, maybe. That would make more sense to her character and look more right to me than the splintmail I wind up sticking her in.

Some of the first mods that came out where face alterations to Morrigan, Leliana, and Sten, and giving Leliana her Sacred Ashes armor.

The PC and the companions are not mooks. They should not be dressed as mooks.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

But, magic. She could go into battle naked with a necklace and have better armour than a knight in plate with the way the setting works. Just a bit of ''Enchanment!!' and her necklace of armour +30 outpaces Mithril Plate.

I get why ME2 would be an issue (the aforementioned shields) but we quite literally have an in-setting explanation for this right now in DA2.

Allow me to counterpoint with a precedent: Enchanted robes of defense are less effective than armor and shield in Dragon Age: Origins. Yes, spells might be more powerful, but they are a constant drain in the mage and can only protect him/her. Enchanted items require lyrium to enhance their capabilities. So, while enchantment is an option, it seems an upgraded mundane solution is more cost-effective. Yes, it is better to be naked with a ring of protection than be naked, but it is better to wear armor than being naked with a ring of protection. At least with our actual knowledge of the setting, this is the stablished fact.
Unless magic got even more out of hand between Origins and 2, your argument of "magic!" is countered by how the magic has been stablished to work in the setting.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Some of the first mods that came out where face alterations to Morrigan, Leliana, and Sten, and giving Leliana her Sacred Ashes armor.

The PC and the companions are not mooks. They should not be dressed as mooks.

To be honest her SA outfit doesn't really match my perception of her either. I do mental acrobatics to figure out what would say "Leliana" to me. Strange stuff. But yeah, my point exactly.

[Xewaka]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Getting hung up on practicality sounds like a recipe for dull, in my opinion.
*sinp*
I respect that people would rather have one over the other but there is merit in the impracticality.

That is only because you believe practical must be dull. It doesn't have to.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC and the companions are not mooks. They should not be dressed as mooks.

The PC and the companions are part of the game world, They should not be the only ones in the world dressed different from everyone else. Especially when they aren't in social position which would maybe allow such a feat.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Xewaka wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Getting hung up on practicality sounds like a recipe for dull, in my opinion.
*sinp*
I respect that people would rather have one over the other but there is merit in the impracticality.

That is only because you believe practical must be dull. It doesn't have to.

Sorry, I meant if practicality was the rule across all media. Then, eventually, you'd run out of unique ways for someone to look practical and still stand out on a shelf in a Gamestop.

But we're already in a fantasy world. What is practical attire for taking a dragon claw to the face? What is practical attire for having your body lit on fire? Why, if the PC is running into grunts around every corner, do the people milling about town not wear armor and brace for combat on a daily basis too? I can't help but think realism and practically don't matter too much in a world that is explicitly unreal.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:20 .