513 réponses à ce sujet

[Squire]

Qistina wrote...

(pics)

The top one isn't very realistic...left handed knights in the crusader period?? Everyone was required to fight right-handed then...there's a reason why the Latin word for left - 'sinister' - came to mean what it means today; left handers are evil!!   (j/k )

Actually, heavy plate armors wearer no need wielding a shield, because
they already have enough protection. The ones who need to wear a shield
are the one who wear light armors, because protection come from the
shield, their armor is just a back up

Yup. By the time plate armour was in full use, shields were on the way out, for that reason...that, and people started using two-handed weapons more. Yet every fantasy RPG I play, the staple armament for the average tank is "full plate, single handed sword and shield". This is generally due to RPGs' handling of plate armour, where it tends to be only a bit better than mail. In addition, armour and shields tend to offer no drawbacks (aside from penalties to skills you aren't likely to use anyway), meaning the ideal method (and indeed, the only way to survive) is to rack up as much AC as possible. Which usually involves wearing plate and using a shield.

Skyrim also had "iron armor" and swords, known in the real world as
something which is impossible. Iron in metalalurgy is either very low or
very high in carbon content (cast iron), and thus is either too soft or
too brittle to be used as a weapon or in armor.

Armour, yes, but not swords. I'm pretty sure they had weapons made from iron before steel was invented. This is probably why swords were created using a variety of complicated pattern welding techniques - techniques that not only pre-date, but also surpass, that of the fabled katana (which Hollywood would have us believe is the best sword ever made and can cut through 4 feet of titanium without even dulling the edge...so realistic!)

Why European swords are pointed end? Because of thrusting, everyone wear
plate mail that cover most part, but certain part is still weak, the
pointed end of the sword is used to thrust on that part...so when two
warriors fighting with two handed weapon, they don't swing a lot, but
thrusting and penetrating each other

Again, true. This is why later medieval swords have a different blade shape, and are more tapered than older ones (early medieval swords had parallel edges). As armour got better, weapons to break through it also got better, and they found that thrusting was a better way to punch through mail. That's why the longsword was developed.

However, it wasn't the best weapon to use against guys in full plate, because plate armour was very difficult to punch through. Armoured knights generally fought each other with pollaxes and beaked hammers. If that didn't work, they'd either hit him with something heavy and blunt, or bear him to the ground and stab through the visor slit with a thin bladed dagger.

When used against armoured foes, the longsword was best used in the half-sword style.

[billy the squid]

ismoketoomuch wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You are so far off course with your assessment, that your going into straight up ancient aliens level of retarded ridiculousness.

Okay, first off, do you have any idea how hard it was to get metals needed for armor back in the time of the roman empire? Any idea at all? It was very hard, since most mining techniques hadn't been invented to properly gather said materials. Than there is the traditional and cultural element to their armor. People who were either mostly naked or wore robes as their primary clothing weren't likely to invent armored pants anytime soon. A armored skirt or studded one was likely all you'd find.

A people using sheilds have nothing to do with the amount of armor they wore, as is exemplified throughout the dark ages as knights, who come from cultures who do practice wearing pants, began to claim the scraps left behind by the ever collapsing roman empire. Armor had to do primarily with the culture to influence design, and resources available to them in making their armor and weapons. Cultures devoid of lots of metals wore less armor, and usually tended to use spears over swords. Cultures with abundances of metal or similar materials wore more armor, and gravitated towards swords and polearms. Arrows or thrown weapons were almost unanimously used because of how little was needed to make them. Swords on the other hand require a lot of labor and material compared to even a spear or other polearm, which only needed to pole it was attached to, and not an entire shaft of metal.

Your nonsense is ridiculous. BTW pointed weapons remained in fashion due to the invention of chain-mail, as stabbing was better to pierce these defenses than slicing or slashing was. But even than, plate armor made much more sense when faced with enemies using arrows than swords, along with, of course, the shield. It was only when knights began to be phased out of combat, along with their heavy armor, with the invention of firearms and a trained malitia, did the rapier begin to find prominence, as did the curved saber. No armor tends to result in weapons that didn't need to carry a lot of kinetic force behind them like the longsword did.

I agree with almost all of your points. However, Quistina is probably correct on the point that the European swords was most useful as a thrusting, penetrating weapon against any kind of armour as opposed to be used for slashing. Check out this comparison between a Katana and a European longsword:
 
6:14 on for a comparison of use against plate armor. Although the katana, with its layered composition, curved form and differential tempering is a superior weapon in all regards, the longsword is not able to penetrate the armor except via thrusting.

Thrusting penetrating.

That comparison is amaturish and unfortunately doesn't accurately represent the strength of plate armour. The best was fully capable of deflecting bodkin arrows, designed to piece plate armour, traveling at over 140 mph, even at 20 meters they couldn't fully penetrate it. Neither would a Katana, it simply wasn't designed to take on that kind of armour.

This chap has done several docmentaries where it's been tested that the Plate mail was extremly effective, in deflecting most weapons, even those designed to penetrate the armour. 

http://youtu.be/pqoh0okQ6Ho?t=29m34s

The Katana wouldn't effectively damage a well designed and manufactured plate mail, that's were the advantage of the Longsword and Claymore is, and what it was designed for. To deliver damage via kinetic force ie: blunt trauma breaking or fracturing bones, not to actually cut or pierce a breast plate, which it was unlikely to do. Although it was still quite possible to pierce a joint etc. A sword was going to be far more effective vs chainmail, ie: the rank and file infantry than another knight.

There seems to be some mysticism around the Katana, it's not a magic weapon which can cut through anything, it's a beautifully designed weapon and brilliantly crafted, but it's not going to be effective against something it was never designed to combat.

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 octobre 2013 - 10:05 .

[Boycott Bioware]

The Arabs have bad infantry, they rely on cavalry, fighting on camels and horses, it is because they live in desert, even walking is hard. They fighting using sword, spear and bow on camel/horse back. That is why their sword is single edged and curved, their armor is mostly light, curved sword is fast to chop on camel/horse back. Arab combat tactic is hit and run, hit and run.....they take advantage on their landscape

While Europeans land is not hard to walk on, and Europeans is popular with organized infantry since Greek, and then Rome. The reason why Romans never go extended into Arab peninsular is not only because the Arabs are worthless to be conquered at that time but because the land is not suitable for Roman army to march in. Roman have weak cavalry and rely on strong infantry, that tradition carry over to medieval Europe until Crusades

While Japanese only adversary are Korean and China, both share similar culture, not the same but similar, they are the same stock of people. But Japanese seeking perfection in everything, and so their sword is designed in that sort of perfection. To chop fast. An enemy likely can't read where the sword will land because a Kendo master don't move much and cover all his movement, only the sword is moving. Samurai armor is designed to deflect chopping power and arrow hit. It evolved when fire arm got into Japan, they start to adopt Portuguese armor and mix with their traditional armor. The armor now designed to absorb bullets, legends say one of the samurai didn't even realized being shot until he took off his armor and bullets fall from it.

Most of us today got exposed to movies that have fancy combat and not showing the real fight, the thing goes into games

Modifié par Qistina, 08 octobre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Dermain]

billy the squid wrote...
There seems to be some mysticism around the Katana, it's not a magic weapon which can cut through anything, it's a beautifully designed weapon and brilliantly crafted, but it's not going to be effective against something it was never designed to combat.

The iron that was/is present in Japan is of really poor quality, which of course led to the blacksmiths having to constantly reheat the iron in order to make sure that all impurities were actually gone. In no point of Japanese history did the katana ever come into contact with plate mail. 

The only reason we see "katanas" cutting through plate mail is because the sword is made from MODERN steel making techniques, which would make any type of weapon far superior.

[Boycott Bioware]

Squire wrote...
The top one isn't very realistic...left handed knights in the crusader period?? Everyone was required to fight right-handed then...there's a reason why the Latin word for left - 'sinister' - came to mean what it means today; left handers are evil!!   (j/k )

I mean the armor design, not the artist left and right mistake lol

Squire wrote...
However, it wasn't the best weapon to use against guys in full plate, because plate armour was very difficult to punch through. Armoured knights generally fought each other with pollaxes and beaked hammers. If that didn't work, they'd either hit him with something heavy and blunt, or bear him to the ground and stab through the visor slit with a thin bladed dagger.

When used against armoured foes, the longsword was best used in the half-sword style.

Guys in full plate are usually nobles, they are rich bastards, they can afford to buy finest armors, and they fear death because they are rich. They are fully protected because they are land lords and sons of land lords. They are not likely to fight on foot, they just hang out on their horses and let the lackeys do their job, it is unlikely to see guys in full plate armor fighting...unless it is a sport

Modifié par Qistina, 08 octobre 2013 - 10:25 .

[Deflagratio]

Squire wrote...


Again, true. This is why later medieval swords have a different blade shape, and are more tapered than older ones (early medieval swords had parallel edges). As armour got better, weapons to break through it also got better, and they found that thrusting was a better way to punch through mail. That's why the longsword was developed.

However, it wasn't the best weapon to use against guys in full plate, because plate armour was very difficult to punch through. Armoured knights generally fought each other with pollaxes and beaked hammers. If that didn't work, they'd either hit him with something heavy and blunt, or bear him to the ground and stab through the visor slit with a thin bladed dagger.

When used against armoured foes, the longsword was best used in the half-sword style.

Even after all that, the Crossbow allowed a peasant farmer to put down a knight in plate with sufficient marksmanship. Black powder finally ended the use of armor outside of LARP or really eccentric weddings. Part of the reason why I never want DA:I or ES to go industrial.

[Bfler]

Qistina wrote...

Roman have weak cavalry and rely on strong infantry, that tradition carry over to medieval Europe until Crusades

The Frankish armored riders were elite cavalry long before the crusades. They e.g.put a stop to the plaque of the Vikings, defeated the Magyars (e.g. Battle of Lechfeld)

And the Romans also had strong cavalry, which had to protect the flanks of the army. The Romans would have lost many battles like e.g. Chaeronea in 86 BC without their cavalry.

[Vilegrim]

Bfler wrote...

Qistina wrote...

Roman have weak cavalry and rely on strong infantry, that tradition carry over to medieval Europe until Crusades

The Frankish armored riders were elite cavalry long before the crusades. They e.g.put a stop to the plaque of the Vikings, defeated the Magyars (e.g. Battle of Lechfeld)

And the Romans also had strong cavalry, which had to protect the flanks of the army. The Romans would have lost many battles like e.g. Chaeronea in 86 BC without their cavalry.

Exactly, 'roman cavalry' (as in cavalry from Italy) may not have been much to write home about, but the Auxularies would eat you alive. Always remember that when speaking about roman armies..they where not all that roman, especially later.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Very rarely and usually not without becoming deaf,scarred,blind or paralyzed in some form from it and most who do survive aren't stupid enough to stand in a storm covered head to toe in something that will ATTRACT Lightning to them.

Doesn't matter. People survived. One guy surivived 6 lighting stikes. The 7th hit his grave.

Obviously, people can survive lightning. And in a party-based RPG, given that characters are more resilient than normal, it stands to reason that they can survive.
Also, magic lightning - we dont' know how strong it is, and in fact, I'd guess it to be far weaker than real one (partialyl because real lightning is generated by the entire atmosphere)

Yeah one shield will block several arrows from several archers positioned in different directions and angles everytime:innocent:and that doesn't apply to two hander using/dual wielding Warriors,Rogues and Mages.

So implement positional deflection. Not that hard.

[Boycott Bioware]

Bfler wrote...
The Frankish armored riders were elite cavalry long before the crusades. They e.g.put a stop to the plaque of the Vikings, defeated the Magyars (e.g. Battle of Lechfeld)

And the Romans also had strong cavalry, which had to protect the flanks of the army. The Romans would have lost many battles like e.g. Chaeronea in 86 BC without their cavalry.

Franks are mix of barbarians stock come from the east if I'm not wrong, the Goth, Visigoth, Sacae, and all those barbarians roaming Europe come from the east, living inside Roman protectorates and the Romans can't do anything about it. They are exist in pre-Christian era, then they become the Europeans today. At that time you mentioned, Mongol tribes already messing the west, so Romans especially Byzantium already advanced and adopting cavalry from those barbarian stock

Originally, Romans, the original Romans who fought the Gaul and Germanic tribes rely on their legionaries, not cavalry, the cavalry is just for pursuing running enemies and flank, not as main troop to deploy right into the battle from the start.

Cavalry charging into battle is eastern way of fighting, not European until Crusade era after they adopt eastern way of battle. The reason why Greek have so many spear men is because they are fighting the Persian and Middle Eastern in a very long history, Persians and Middle Eastern rely on cavalry charge for hit and run attacks

Romans use chariot after they land on Egypt in Cleopatra time, and Scipio Africanus adopting chariots in fighting the Cartage in Africa, that is how Africa got it's name. But chariots never become main troop in Roman army anywhere else.

Good horses breed for battle come from the east, they are fast and strong, while European horses are big, slow and for casual use. That is why in movies when there is Arabs, there will be a scene about horses such as in 13th Warrior the Norsemen say "only an Arab will bring a dog to war" then the Arab show his "dog" can jump the Norse say "the dog can jump", in kingdom of Heaven, there is a scene about fighting over a horse, at first the Arab say "this is a very good horse" later in the end saying "this is not a very good horse, i don't want to keep it"

Modifié par Qistina, 08 octobre 2013 - 04:20 .

[Heimdall]

Qistina wrote...
Franks are mix of barbarians stock come from the east if I'm not wrong, the Goth, Visigoth, Sacae, and all those barbarians roaming Europe come from the east, living inside Roman protectorates and the Romans can't do anything about it. They are exist in pre-Christian era, then they become the Europeans today. At that time you mentioned, Mongol tribes already messing the west, so Romans especially Byzantium already advanced and adopting cavalry from those barbarian stock

Franks were their own tribe, the Goths (Visigoths, Ostrogoths ect.), and Vandals were different groups.  All were Germanic tribes that moved into Western Europe from Eastern Europe.  In the case of the Saxons, they already lived in Germany and only moved out to go to (Most famously)England or when Charlemagne ethnically cleansed Saxony when they refuse conversion.

Cavalry charging into battle is eastern way of fighting, not European until Crusade era after they adopt eastern way of battle. The reason why Greek have so many spear men is because they are fighting the Persian and Middle Eastern in a very long history, Persians and Middle Eastern rely on cavalry charge for hit and run attacks

I wouldn't call it uniquely Eastern, Alexander the Great used cavalry maneuvers as the lynchpin of his strategies and that was before Rome.

I'd also question the use of movie references to prove your points.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 08 octobre 2013 - 04:48 .

[Shadow Fox]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Very rarely and usually not without becoming deaf,scarred,blind or paralyzed in some form from it and most who do survive aren't stupid enough to stand in a storm covered head to toe in something that will ATTRACT Lightning to them.

Doesn't matter. People survived. One guy surivived 6 lighting stikes. The 7th hit his grave.

Obviously, people can survive lightning. And in a party-based RPG, given that characters are more resilient than normal, it stands to reason that they can survive.
Also, magic lightning - we dont' know how strong it is, and in fact, I'd guess it to be far weaker than real one (partialyl because real lightning is generated by the entire atmosphere)

Yeah one shield will block several arrows from several archers positioned in different directions and angles everytime:innocent:and that doesn't apply to two hander using/dual wielding Warriors,Rogues and Mages.

So implement positional deflection. Not that hard.

It does because they didn't come out of it unscathed and like I said in that case it doesn't matter if you're wearing fullplate,Champion armor or a chainmail bikini since the characters are already unnaturally resilient armor only comes down to aesthetics and stats.

Considering mages can conjure infernos and blizzards I doubt it.

So basically make the character both psychic and have unnatural reflexes.

[Heimdall]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

It does because they didn't come out of it unscathed and like I said in that case it doesn't matter if you're wearing fullplate,Champion armor or a chainmail bikini since the characters are already unnaturally resilient armor only comes down to aesthetics and stats.

Considering mages can conjure infernos and blizzards I doubt it.

So basically make the character both psychic and have unnatural reflexes.

Lets just call them Jedi and be done with it. 

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 08 octobre 2013 - 04:50 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I wouldn't call it uniquely Eastern, Alexander the Great used cavalry maneuvers as the lynchpin of his strategies and that was before Rome.

I'd also question the use of movie references to prove your points.

Where did Alexander learn about cavalry maneuver? Alexander live long after Leonidas who fought the Persian. Alexander also adopt so many Persian cultures and that rise tension in his own land and later lead to his death

The Egyptian Pharaohs after him are Greeks, his generals who don't want to go back and stay as Pharaohs. Alexander mixing Greek and eastern culture  to create his new race....

His remaining generals who establish the Seleucid empire, the Greek-Persian empire befor they were defeated by the Romans

Edit : i use the movie quote to show that it is a common knowledge that good horse breed for war come from the east, western horses not fit for long in battle

Modifié par Qistina, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:05 .

[Han Shot First]

Bfler wrote...

The Frankish armored riders were elite cavalry long before the crusades. They e.g.put a stop to the plaque of the Vikings, defeated the Magyars (e.g. Battle of Lechfeld)

And the Romans also had strong cavalry, which had to protect the flanks of the army. The Romans would have lost many battles like e.g. Chaeronea in 86 BC without their cavalry.

Agreed.
 
It is a bit of a modern myth that the Romans did not have good horses and did not field decent cavalry. At the battle of Heraclea for example we see Roman equites getting the better of Thessalian cavalry that had been regarded as the region's best horsemen. Later during the Gallic Wars Julius Caesar equipped his Germanic auxiliaries with Roman horses, as the native German horses were small and deemed inferior.

The problem with the Romans is that they did not have enough native cavalrymen. During the 2nd Punic War against Carthage the Roman cavalry was repeatedly bested by Hannibal's horsemen, but the Carthaginians also had a significant numerical advantage in cavalry. The Romans weren't necessarily inferior qualitatively, they were just heavily outnumbered. Towards the end of the 2nd Punic War the Romans started recruiting allied (foreign) cavalry to supplement their own native cavalry, and to replace the losses amongst the equites.

It was the changing nature of Roman warfare and the territorial expansion of the Republic's empire that finally brought an end to a native cavalry arm, not any lack of quality. Rome had traditionally fielded militia armies much like the Greek city-states. Its infantrymen were recruited from yeoman farmers and the cavalry from equites (gentry) who would supply their own equipment, largely be trained by their fathers, and fight in a single campaign before returning home to their farms. This became impractical as Rome expanded beyond Italy and fought extended campaigns in foreign territories that might last years, and would required a lengthy military occupation of captured territories. Years away from home would ruin the average yeoman farmer or an equite with mercantile interests, so Rome gradually transitions away from a militia army recruited from men of property who supplied their own equipment to a professional standing army recruited from the poor that were armed and trained by the state. After the Marian reforms most of Rome's cavalry arm was recruited from conquered peoples or foreign allies with a reputation for good horsemenship, because it was cheaper and more pragmatic than training and equipping men of the poorer classes to be cavalrymen.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:16 .

[Squire]

Uh...how did we get to horses? Weren't we talking about armour? xD

Then again, just about everything has been said on this matter...but to summarise, I want a look and feeling of traditional Tolkienesque style dark fantasy, rather than anime inspired WoW type fantasy.

Also, something just occurred to me: going back to the thing about flexible armour, the pauldrons seemed to move as separate entities, behaving more or less as a pauldron would, so how likely is it that the rest of the armour could be done the same way? (This could have only been the case in certain cut scenes, so it might be unique to those few characters)

[Vilegrim]

Squire wrote...

Uh...how did we get to horses? Weren't we talking about armour? xD

Then again, just about everything has been said on this matter...but to summarise, I want a look and feeling of traditional Tolkienesque style dark fantasy, rather than anime inspired WoW type fantasy.

Also, something just occurred to me: going back to the thing about flexible armour, the pauldrons seemed to move as separate entities, behaving more or less as a pauldron would, so how likely is it that the rest of the armour could be done the same way? (This could have only been the case in certain cut scenes, so it might be unique to those few characters)

I imagine they are fairly simple by comparison, as they effectively 'float' on the upper arm.

[Heimdall]

Qistina wrote...
Where did Alexander learn about cavalry maneuver? Alexander live long after Leonidas who fought the Persian. Alexander also adopt so many Persian cultures and that rise tension in his own land and later lead to his death

Fever killed Alexander, not domestic tension.  At any rate, he learned cavalry tactics from his Macedonian tutors.  The Macedonians used cavalry long before his invasion into Persia.

Edit : i use the movie quote to show that it is a common knowledge that good horse breed for war come from the east, western horses not fit for long in battle

Probably because much of Europe was ill suited to mass cavalry tactics, especially when it was heavily forested unlike today.  Some Norsemen ate horses, finding them rather useless otherwise.

[Han Shot First]

Back to armor...

For someone who generally prefers armor concepts that have realistic designs as a base, I might be in the minority in not having a problem with "boob armor." I just chalk it up to being the female equivalent of the muscled cuirass that was sometimes worn by soldiers in Hellenistic armies or by Roman officers.




Because there are examples in history of a muscled cuirass for men, I'm able to suspend disbelief on armor designs crafted to display feminine features. I see them as being in the same broad category of armor. Also I understand that for the devs it can be difficult to differentiate female characters wearing plate from male ones so that they don't just look like women wearing male clothing, without adding some feminine features to the armor.

So for female armor in DA:I I guess I would support a range of designs for female armor, with some having feminine features and others being completely identical to the male versions. I'm all for allowing the player to decide whether they want their FemWarrior to have feminine features, or whether they prefer to look like Joan of Arc or Brienne of Tarth.

The only thing I'm absolutely against regarding female armor is the ridiculous designs where the female character has more exposed skin than armor. The infamous plate or chain mail bikinis do not allow for the suspension of disbelief, are way over-sexualized, and don't belong in the game IMO.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:54 .

[Hellion Rex]

Han Shot First wrote...

Back to armor...

For someone who generally prefers armor concepts that have realistic designs as a base, I might be in the minority in not having a problem with "boob armor." I just chalk it up to being the female equivalent of the muscled cuirass that was sometimes worn by soldiers in Hellenistic armies or by Roman officers.




Because there are examples in history of a muscled cuirass for men, I'm able to suspend disbelief on armor designs crafted to display feminine features. I see them as being in the same broad category of armor. Also I understand that for the devs it can be difficult to differentiate female characters wearing plate from male ones so that they don't just look like women wearing male clothing, without adding some feminine features to the armor.

So for female armor in DA:I I guess I would support a range of designs for female armor, with some having feminine features and others being completely identical to the male versions. I'm all for allowing the player to decide whether they want their FemWarrior to have feminine features, or whether they prefer to look like Joan of Arc or Brienne of Tarth.

The only thing I'm absolutely against regarding female armor is the ridiculous designs where the female character has more exposed skin than armor. The infamous plate or chain mail bikinis do not allow for the suspension of disbelief, are way over-sexualized, and don't belong in the game IMO.

I really agree with this. I just want my Inquisitor to have armor that shows off his muscles. And hopefully we can get a scene with our potential love interest checking us out in our armor. Kinda like Kaidan's scene in ME3.

Modifié par eluvianix, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:58 .

[Vilegrim]

Han Shot First wrote...

Back to armor...

For someone who generally prefers armor concepts that have realistic designs as a base, I might be in the minority in not having a problem with "boob armor." I just chalk it up to being the female equivalent of the muscled cuirass that was sometimes worn by soldiers in Hellenistic armies or by Roman officers.




Because there are examples in history of a muscled cuirass for men, I'm able to suspend disbelief on armor designs crafted to display feminine features. I see them as being in the same broad category of armor. Also I understand that for the devs it can be difficult to differentiate female characters wearing plate from male ones so that they don't just look like women wearing male clothing, without adding some feminine features to the armor.

So for female armor in DA:I I guess I would support a range of designs for female armor, with some having feminine features and others being completely identical to the male versions. I'm all for allowing the player to decide whether they want their FemWarrior to have feminine features, or whether they prefer to look like Joan of Arc or Brienne of Tarth.

The only thing I'm absolutely against regarding female armor is the ridiculous designs where the female character has more exposed skin than armor. The infamous plate or chain mail bikinis do not allow for the suspension of disbelief, are way over-sexualized, and don't belong in the game IMO.

Yea, boob on breastplates is a non-issue for me. 

[Squire]

I don't mind it either, as long as it's just a small extrusion that allows a woman to wear it, and not a ridiculously big cleavage-on-display type affair. XD

[Vilegrim]

Squire wrote...

I don't mind it either, as long as it's just a small extrusion that allows a woman to wear it, and not a ridiculously big cleavage-on-display type affair. XD

that is what I meant, sorry for not being clear.

[Giant ambush beetle]

eluvianix wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Back to armor...

For someone who generally prefers armor concepts that have realistic designs as a base, I might be in the minority in not having a problem with "boob armor." I just chalk it up to being the female equivalent of the muscled cuirass that was sometimes worn by soldiers in Hellenistic armies or by Roman officers.




Because there are examples in history of a muscled cuirass for men, I'm able to suspend disbelief on armor designs crafted to display feminine features. I see them as being in the same broad category of armor. Also I understand that for the devs it can be difficult to differentiate female characters wearing plate from male ones so that they don't just look like women wearing male clothing, without adding some feminine features to the armor.

So for female armor in DA:I I guess I would support a range of designs for female armor, with some having feminine features and others being completely identical to the male versions. I'm all for allowing the player to decide whether they want their FemWarrior to have feminine features, or whether they prefer to look like Joan of Arc or Brienne of Tarth.

The only thing I'm absolutely against regarding female armor is the ridiculous designs where the female character has more exposed skin than armor. The infamous plate or chain mail bikinis do not allow for the suspension of disbelief, are way over-sexualized, and don't belong in the game IMO.

I really agree with this. I just want my Inquisitor to have armor that shows off his muscles. And hopefully we can get a scene with our potential love interest checking us out in our armor. Kinda like Kaidan's scene in ME3.

Apples to oranges comparison, if female armor has extra space to show off their ''glands'' male armor should have cod pieces.



Are you ok with that? No? Well maybe its because showing off your boobs and balls and d1ck while wearing armor in a battle is just plain stupid and unpractical?

Modifié par The Woldan , 08 octobre 2013 - 07:20 .

[The_11thDoctor]

JCAP wrote...

One of the things I really didn't like about DA2 was the anime style fight.

I hate when ignorant people compare anything they despise to anime when they have no idea what anime is...

DA2 had nothing in it comparable to anime in any way. Quick action is what Im guessing you think is equalivant to anime? Anime has thousands of styles upon styles, speeds in action and styled movement along with thousands of styled artwork, themes, tone, color use, detail, etc. Just as there are thousands of different styled western art and animation. Just like Marvel comics has hundreds od styles that doesnt look like, Sonic, Dark Horse, DC, Archie, or how they dont look like Johnny Bravo, Scooby, Sponge bob, TMNT, Mighty Max, Heman, Thundercats, Star Wars, etc. Dont call out anime with no clue. I could post thousands of anime with thousands of themes, tone, style, animation, but it looks like anime? Please... If it did, it would have been far more amazing if it looked like some of the studios I know of.

BOS: Over the top is realitive, but I do prefer stylized combat over dull realism. How do you do realism with magic and fake races anyways? Its all realitive.