244 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saibh wrote...
First, I wasn't the one who pulled up that image--Lotion Soronnar was, but he apparently isn't good at judging length by the naked eye, so I made a helpful comparison picture.

Second, he also provided a link, to this site. And they seem to know what they're talking about--further more, they pull a page from a known book about swords to prove their point.

"Although large, measuring 60-70in overall, it was not as hefty as it looked, weighing something of the order of 5 lbs".

That's a sword that's 5'10". Close to six feet in length--that sounds pretty in-proportion if you ask me. Yeah, it appears to be a bit bigger but not wildly Final Fantasy, like people here are claiming. The hilt does seem to be very large, but I think they're accomodating for the hilts of other two-handed weapons, like axes and hammers. I'm not trying to say they made an accurate likeness of a two-handed greatsword. I'm just saying it's not gargantuan.

As I cited earlier, this is coming from how people have never seen greatswords, and assumed that they were extremely heavy. They were not, as the quote tells you. People assume the same about armor, and I have to correct them at that. I know you know this, but I keep seeing people say it over and over and over again.

Aye....if you read the specific link at the bottom about weight of sword (in general) you will see how the sword crossection (width, breadth) has a MASSIVE impact on sword weight and balance.

DA2 greatswords have roughly the right length (the image you prefered if the extreeme of length..I'm not even sure that sword is not a ceremonial blade that was never meant for combat), but you will notice even it is a LOT thinner than what ladyHawke is using.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

Int the Dragon Age settign swords are bigger and can be twirled around easily despite their weight. Why? Because it looks cool. No rationals. No need to have them. 'Tis Fantasy.

Fantasy has to be grounded in reality in order to be truly believable.

"It's fantasy" or "It's magic" it's not a proper excuse unless it necessary.

And while this specific issue does not bother you (while your'e not familiar wiht hte subject matter), a similar one might.
Say if humans ate trough their ass...or 1+1 was 3. You would be going "WTF???" and would hardly be satisfied with "it's fantasy".

[ManiacalEvil]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

Int the Dragon Age settign swords are bigger and can be twirled around easily despite their weight. Why? Because it looks cool. No rationals. No need to have them. 'Tis Fantasy.

Fantasy has to be grounded in reality in order to be truly believable.

"It's fantasy" or "It's magic" it's not a proper excuse unless it necessary.

And while this specific issue does not bother you (while your'e not familiar wiht hte subject matter), a similar one might.
Say if humans ate trough their ass...or 1+1 was 3. You would be going "WTF???" and would hardly be satisfied with "it's fantasy".

I might not appreciate that specific aspect of the setting, but not because it was not based on reality. I don't go nuts everytime a dragon expels fire from it's mouth and doesn't get burnt. I also didn't go nuts with Ezio's jumping from a high tower into a small stack of hay and not getting hurt, despite that game being set in th e real world. Those are specificities of the setting, and no, they don't have to be based on reality. That's why there are different kinds of fantasy, some much more realistic and some out there, and there are tastes for both approaches.

[FiveThreeTen]

Just posting to show slightly shorter Two-handed swords .

Greatswords_Decreased Mod

By WezEllison on Nexus

Ageless Before



Ageless After



The size of two-handed swords didn't bothered me in DAO and won't bother me in DA2 for males characters.

I think it was more of an issue when you were playing a HF, an elve or a dwarf in Dao.

As for DA2, maybe there will be better looking models for FemHawke, who knows.

[Gabriel S.]

FiveThreeTen wrote...

Just posting to show slightly shorter Two-handed swords .
Greatswords_Decreased Mod
By WezEllison on Nexus
Ageless Before
*snip*
Ageless After
*snip*
The size of two-handed swords didn't bothered me in DAO and won't bother me in DA2 for males characters.
I think it was more of an issue when you were playing a HF, an elve or a dwarf in Dao.
As for DA2, maybe there will be better looking models for FemHawke, who knows.

Actually that's a good example of how exaggerated it looks. Two-handers and claymores were long but slim. Then I look at a sword like Ageless and see the length is roughly the same but it's thick as hell.

That's why personally I hated the look of greatswords in Origins. This is probably the first thing I'd 'correct' if the devs manage to release a ToolSet (or an update) for DA2.

My solution would be to either make them slimmer or make them shorter.

Modifié par Gabriel Stelinski, 11 février 2011 - 03:37 .

[FiveThreeTen]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...


Actually that's a good example of how exaggerated it looks. Two-handers and claymores were long but slim. Then I look at a sword like Ageless and see the length is roughly the same but it's thick as hell.

Don't get me wrong I prefered the decreased version and I found the big ass swords slightly over the top even for Human Males. Mods allow you to tweak it accordingly to you tastes. Sadly, it's not certain we will be able to mod it in DA2 and even if there was a toolset at launch, such mods would take some time to be released.

[Gabriel S.]

FiveThreeTen wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...


Actually that's a good example of how exaggerated it looks. Two-handers and claymores were long but slim. Then I look at a sword like Ageless and see the length is roughly the same but it's thick as hell.

Don't get me wrong I prefered the decreased version and I found the big ass swords slightly over the top even for Human Males. Mods allow you to tweak it accordingly to you tastes. Sadly, it's not certain we will be able to mod it in DA2 and even if there was a toolset at launch, such mods would take some time to be released.

Oh, BTW, the "Ageless After" picture is exactly how I'd want it to be.

[Jaduggar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No.
The core mechanics of a gun is to laucnch projectiles. Make a gun that is highly impractical and more likely to hurt the user than the intended target, and I WILL laugh at it and at the stupidity of the entire universe. Because humanity isn't that stupid to use ineffective things.

Swords depends on weight, balance (dimensions) and efficiency...not to mention practicality.

You keep brining in amazing super-light materials, but that doesn't really solve the iusse. For one, we have known materials in DA (like Iron or steel), and for another, materials and their properties are linked together. Swords and armros have differetn requirements and the same material doesn't always work.
Sometimes you want mass and density. Other times you don't.

And the bigger the weapon, the harder it is to carry, store and weild in combat. There is a point of diminishing returns and simplified "bigger is better" doesn't work.

Impractical/improbable weapons do not only hurt the physcis/sience aspect of hte setting - they hurt the character/psychological aspect. A world in whihc everyone act like a moron is not a word for serious drama and mature content.
That's for comedy and brainless fun.

 
Again, straw men and red herrings. Some bad logic.
You cannot constitute your attack on the gun as a logical refute against the sword in question.
 
---And yes, a gun is meant to launch projectiles. Consequentially, it’s also meant to not harm the user. Besides, there is no specific list “core” mechanics to a gun—just logical common properties. This argument is rather useless.---
 
I have never mentioned anything about super-light materials. I have no idea where you’re getting this from. In fact, I don’t quite understand your entire rebuttal in connection to my own—what about the exaggerated combat of Dragon Age 2? The backflips as a useful battle technique and DA2s factoring of weight—you do not attack these arguments and their conclusions. You’re only submitting a secondary argument that is exactly what my previous one only made an attempt to refute.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 11 février 2011 - 04:10 .

[lovecraftiangod]

yes the size is a bit off but so what this is a game where you can run and fight for hours in massive armor that had to weigh close to a hundred pounds. i don't mind the size of the swords. i also would love to see a cloud size sword it would be funny

[Yrkoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

Int the Dragon Age settign swords are bigger and can be twirled around easily despite their weight. Why? Because it looks cool. No rationals. No need to have them. 'Tis Fantasy.

Fantasy has to be grounded in reality in order to be truly believable.

What? 

Since when is Fantasy supposed to be believable?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 février 2011 - 04:32 .

[Jaduggar]

Since the ending of LotR got everybody's knickers in a twist.

[Saibh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Aye....if you read the specific link at the bottom about weight of sword (in general) you will see how the sword crossection (width, breadth) has a MASSIVE impact on sword weight and balance.

DA2 greatswords have roughly the right length (the image you prefered if the extreeme of length..I'm not even sure that sword is not a ceremonial blade that was never meant for combat), but you will notice even it is a LOT thinner than what ladyHawke is using.

Wow, you didn't even bother to read the quote did you? Nope, the sword is an accurate length. And, guess what, you provided that image! And that link! So own up to it.

In any case, so what if it's broad? You tried to argue that they're too long, and I proved you wrong, and now you're switching goal posts.

[Gabriel S.]

Saibh wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Aye....if you read the specific link at the bottom about weight of sword (in general) you will see how the sword crossection (width, breadth) has a MASSIVE impact on sword weight and balance.

DA2 greatswords have roughly the right length (the image you prefered if the extreeme of length..I'm not even sure that sword is not a ceremonial blade that was never meant for combat), but you will notice even it is a LOT thinner than what ladyHawke is using.

Wow, you didn't even bother to read the quote did you? Nope, the sword is an accurate length. And, guess what, you provided that image! And that link! So own up to it.

In any case, so what if it's broad? You tried to argue that they're too long, and I proved you wrong, and now you're switching goal posts.

Well if the sword is broad and long, then it's too big. Just my opinion, but it's rooted in physics.

Hm, here's an idea for a greatsword name: Wrist Breaker.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ManiacalEvil wrote...
I might not appreciate that specific aspect of the setting, but not because it was not based on reality. I don't go nuts everytime a dragon expels fire from it's mouth and doesn't get burnt. I also didn't go nuts with Ezio's jumping from a high tower into a small stack of hay and not getting hurt, despite that game being set in th e real world. Those are specificities of the setting, and no, they don't have to be based on reality. That's why there are different kinds of fantasy, some much more realistic and some out there, and there are tastes for both approaches.

There are two types of people playing RPGS..
Those who just want the fantastical and those who want to immerse themselves.

To those that want the fantastical, things like size of the sword are not important. Huge sword, large sword - it won't affect their game experience.
To the other group, who likes immersion, prefers tehir fantasy to be grounded in reality. Things liek this affect their game experience.

Therefore, if oyu have a group of people that are satsfied with A and B, and a group that is satisfied only with B, doesn't it make mroe sense to go with B?


And also, Dragons are a differnt thing.
There are things that are CRITICAL to the setting and that I must accept for hte setting to work. Things that usually have no real-life parallel..
Then there are things that aren't critical and removing them won't change much.

Every good setting needs to be consistent and have things explained. Adding gigantic swrods jsut raises severl quastions that need to be answered, and it's unlikely the explanation will be satisfactory.
Which is why such things are beast avoided.
You don't want to add any more mystical explanations to your setting than necessary.

[nightcobra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...
I might not appreciate that specific aspect of the setting, but not because it was not based on reality. I don't go nuts everytime a dragon expels fire from it's mouth and doesn't get burnt. I also didn't go nuts with Ezio's jumping from a high tower into a small stack of hay and not getting hurt, despite that game being set in th e real world. Those are specificities of the setting, and no, they don't have to be based on reality. That's why there are different kinds of fantasy, some much more realistic and some out there, and there are tastes for both approaches.

There are two types of people playing RPGS..
Those who just want the fantastical and those who want to immerse themselves.

To those that want the fantastical, things like size of the sword are not important. Huge sword, large sword - it won't affect their game experience.
To the other group, who likes immersion, prefers tehir fantasy to be grounded in reality. Things liek this affect their game experience.

Therefore, if oyu have a group of people that are satsfied with A and B, and a group that is satisfied only with B, doesn't it make mroe sense to go with B?


And also, Dragons are a differnt thing.
There are things that are CRITICAL to the setting and that I must accept for hte setting to work. Things that usually have no real-life parallel..
Then there are things that aren't critical and removing them won't change much.

Every good setting needs to be consistent and have things explained. Adding gigantic swrods jsut raises severl quastions that need to be answered, and it's unlikely the explanation will be satisfactory.
Which is why such things are beast avoided.
You don't want to add any more mystical explanations to your setting than necessary.

you say it like it is impossible to be immersed in the fantastical.

i can, it's not that hard really.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Jaduggar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No.
The core mechanics of a gun is to laucnch projectiles. Make a gun that is highly impractical and more likely to hurt the user than the intended target, and I WILL laugh at it and at the stupidity of the entire universe. Because humanity isn't that stupid to use ineffective things.

Swords depends on weight, balance (dimensions) and efficiency...not to mention practicality.

You keep brining in amazing super-light materials, but that doesn't really solve the iusse. For one, we have known materials in DA (like Iron or steel), and for another, materials and their properties are linked together. Swords and armros have differetn requirements and the same material doesn't always work.
Sometimes you want mass and density. Other times you don't.

And the bigger the weapon, the harder it is to carry, store and weild in combat. There is a point of diminishing returns and simplified "bigger is better" doesn't work.

Impractical/improbable weapons do not only hurt the physcis/sience aspect of hte setting - they hurt the character/psychological aspect. A world in whihc everyone act like a moron is not a word for serious drama and mature content.
That's for comedy and brainless fun.

 
Again, straw men and red herrings. Some bad logic.
You cannot constitute your attack on the gun as a logical refute against the sword in question.
 
---And yes, a gun is meant to launch projectiles. Consequentially, it’s also meant to not harm the user. Besides, there is no specific list “core” mechanics to a gun—just logical common properties. This argument is rather useless.---
 
I have never mentioned anything about super-light materials. I have no idea where you’re getting this from. In fact, I don’t quite understand your entire rebuttal in connection to my own—what about the exaggerated combat of Dragon Age 2? The backflips as a useful battle technique and DA2s factoring of weight—you do not attack these arguments and their conclusions. You’re only submitting a secondary argument that is exactly what my previous one only made an attempt to refute.

I can and I do. No bad logic. No red herrings.
The sword is alos meant not to harm the user..and if oyu get a herian or impale yourself on a redicolously hsaped crossguard, then it fails.

And B.t.w - I do not like DA2 over-the-top combat either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saibh wrote...
Wow, you didn't even bother to read the quote did you? Nope, the sword is an accurate length. And, guess what, you provided that image! And that link! So own up to it.

In any case, so what if it's broad? You tried to argue that they're too long, and I proved you wrong, and now you're switching goal posts.

No, you didn't bother to read.

1) I provided a link and several images. You picked one  - which could be a ceremonial sword, and if so, it's not aplicalbe in battle. I didn't check really, but they did go over ceremonial swords in that article too.

2) I argued SCALE. Scale has 3 dimensions. If I say a sword is too big, it doesn't mean too long. It means too big.

[Lotion Soronarr]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
you say it like it is impossible to be immersed in the fantastical.

i can, it's not that hard really.

Not impossible, but harder.

And fantasticly fantastical setting jsut seem simpler and ahllower to me. Less thought is put into htem.

What? 

Since when is Fantasy supposed to be believable?

Sicne always.
Grounded in reality. There has to be some common elements with the real world.
For example, people eat, sleep, gravity and weight exist, basic mathematics and some other things - like friction.

Every time you needlesly break this, you have to explain it how and why.

[transcendent12]

Indeed, toilet scenes and the blisters characters get from realistic friction coefficients in their shoes is what really makes a great fantasy and the no.1 criteria any discerning critic should look for.

Modifié par transcendent12, 14 février 2011 - 12:12 .

[Xebioz]

transcendent12 wrote...

Indeed, toilet scenes and the blisters characters get from realistic friction coefficients in their shoes is what really makes a great fantasy and the no.1 criteria any discerning critic should look for.

Now you are just being difficult...

[Oloos]

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

[Kerethos]

The way I see it, it's a question of form before function - since the art design would suffer if it where the opposite. We'd have all plain weapons, all simple but functional armor, and not one intricately designed bigger-than-needed sword or any fancy details on armor. Me, I'd take that huge sword and some gold handled daggers and so on over perfect realism any day.

Yes, they might look like they're ceremonial armor or weapons, but apparently in Thedas the crafters - or at least some of them - do enjoy making equipment not just functional, but spend time designing weapons and armor with pride, making a little master piece, and not just craft “Two-handed sword number 5 of 35 to this weeks order”.

[Gabriel S.]

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

Yeah, but the magically altered swords are specified. And none of those spcifics state something like 'magic makes this one lighter'. Or if it does state it was done to make it easier to handle in a fight, then it would simply be easier to handle; lighter and not bigger.

If it stated that magic made it light so it would be possible to make it bigger for the same weight as a regular one (to do higher damage or strike in a wider arc or whatnot), then obviously the only difference would be the size of the sword.

[ALVIG824]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

Yeah, but the magically altered swords are specified. And none of those spcifics state something like 'magic makes this one lighter'. Or if it does state it was done to make it easier to handle in a fight, then it would simply be easier to handle; lighter and not bigger.

If it stated that magic made it light so it would be possible to make it bigger for the same weight as a regular one (to do higher damage or strike in a wider arc or whatnot), then obviously the only difference would be the size of the sword.

are we really arguing about magic?
you realize how dumb that is, yes?

[Lotion Soronarr]

transcendent12 wrote...

Indeed, toilet scenes and the blisters characters get from realistic friction coefficients in their shoes is what really makes a great fantasy and the no.1 criteria any discerning critic should look for.

It doesn't have to be explicitly show, it just doesn't have to be explicitly broken either.
For example, ME doesnt give you a "go to bathroom" mechanic, but it doesn't have to. Humans in ME are clearly human, and their digestive needs are showin trough the enviroment and dialogue - from the bathrooms to talking about food.The starting baseline assumptions are re-inforced by the game.