513 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

draken-heart wrote...

I have no problem believing those armors would exist in a setting where mages can control you by slitting their wrist, or where demons can manifest and turn mages to monsters.

You're missing the point, it's not about it being plausible in the gameworld, it's about how aesthetically unpleasing they usually are.

[draken-heart]

AresKeith wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Over-the-top=people hate them. Dwarven massive armor in origins? That is not what plate armor looks like. The points on some plate armor shoulders? no plate armor in the real world has those. The armors of DA2?Same problem.

I have no problem believing those armors would exist in a setting where mages can control you by slitting their wrist, or where demons can manifest and turn mages to monsters.

Lathrim wrote...

The difference is that, in regards to weapons and armour, we have a template. They existed and are thus often compared to their visual representation in videogames.

Magic, on the other hand, is an entirely alien concept. We have nothing in our world to base it on, so it is easier to retain some sense of believability regardless of how it's done.

and comparisons are dumb when all you have to ask is "does this kind of armor fit the setting?"

Believable is not a word in my book when it comes ot armor in games about a world not at all like our own. Games that are based on real world, that is where armor should be believable.

Modifié par draken-heart, 04 octobre 2013 - 02:40 .

[Mr.House]

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

[draken-heart]

Mr.House wrote...

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

never said that. People think that things they do not like are ugly. I have no opnion on th armor, other than some seemed too fancy to be effective.

[draken-heart]

Zjarcal wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I have no problem believing those armors would exist in a setting where mages can control you by slitting their wrist, or where demons can manifest and turn mages to monsters.

You're missing the point, it's not about it being plausible in the gameworld, it's about how aesthetically unpleasing they usually are.

And I find armor to be so low on the totem pole of thing to worry about in a game...

Modifié par draken-heart, 04 octobre 2013 - 02:48 .

[Zjarcal]

draken-heart wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I have no problem believing those armors would exist in a setting where mages can control you by slitting their wrist, or where demons can manifest and turn mages to monsters.

You're missing the point, it's not about it being plausible in the gameworld, it's about how aesthetically unpleasing they usually are.

And I find armor to be so low on the totem pole of thing to worry about in a game...

Lolwut, your first reply before the edit was better.

[draken-heart]

Zjarcal wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I have no problem believing those armors would exist in a setting where mages can control you by slitting their wrist, or where demons can manifest and turn mages to monsters.

You're missing the point, it's not about it being plausible in the gameworld, it's about how aesthetically unpleasing they usually are.

And I find armor to be so low on the totem pole of thing to worry about in a game...

Lolwut, your first reply before the edit was better.

I do not remember from before the edit. In the end, there are more important things to worry about than what a specific suit of armor looks like.

[n7stormrunner]

Mr.House wrote...

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

you played da: o right?

[draken-heart]

n7stormrunner wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

you played da: o right?

I just thougt he/she was making a joke

[n7stormrunner]

draken-heart wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

you played da: o right?

I just thougt he/she was making a joke

I do to but I'm bored

[draken-heart]

n7stormrunner wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

So ugliness is the DA setting. Got it.

you played da: o right?

I just thougt he/she was making a joke

I do to but I'm bored

Armor appearance is a personal taste. I have none for armor so that is not a problem. Many want "realistic" or "believable" armors because "They want to look real."

Don't be bored, just not caring.

[iOnlySignIn]

Snowflake_in_Hel wrote...

There does seem to be a trend in modern games to make armor and weapons completely unrealistic, perhaps that is because the modern gamer needs to feel "invincible"? Is that true for you?  Do you need an axe that is three times too large to feel "cool"?  Do you need a two handed sword that is taller than you are to feel "tough"?  Is it more important for you to have armor that is totally over the top, or are you the kind that has a little respect for realism? 

[casts Firestorm and reduces an entire village into smoldering ashes]

You were saying?

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 04 octobre 2013 - 03:48 .

[draken-heart]

Snowflake_in_Hel wrote...

There does seem to be a trend in modern games to make armor and weapons completely unrealistic, perhaps that is because the modern gamer needs to feel "invincible"? Is that true for you?  Do you need an axe that is three times too large to feel "cool"?  Do you need a two handed sword that is taller than you are to feel "tough"?  Is it more important for you to have armor that is totally over the top, or are you the kind that has a little respect for realism? 

I decided to finally respond to this post.

For me, personally, Armor looks is not that important at all, at least compared to the other departments, like story and character development.

[Shadow Fox]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Snowflake_in_Hel wrote...

There does seem to be a trend in modern games to make armor and weapons completely unrealistic, perhaps that is because the modern gamer needs to feel "invincible"? Is that true for you?  Do you need an axe that is three times too large to feel "cool"?  Do you need a two handed sword that is taller than you are to feel "tough"?  Is it more important for you to have armor that is totally over the top, or are you the kind that has a little respect for realism? 

[casts Firestorm and reduces an entire village into smoldering ashes]

You were saying?

*Highfives*

[Johnny_TYS38]

For me, I think that both armor and weapon dont have to look realistic. As long as it fits with the world of DA and look really nice, I am fine with it. IMO, both games have problems when it comes to Armour and weapon.

In DA:O, I find that anything other than the massive armor look boring and some of the unique weapon are generic weapon with better stats. Even though I like Massive armor, most of the unique sets are just the regular massive armor with little change.

In DA2, when I was using two-handed weapon, the attack felt like they were made of paper, how can someone swing a long and huge so fast? Some of the 2 handed sword look good but there are others like the The Hawke's Key where the handle seems to be longer than the blade. The massive armor in the game does not felt massive enough, I felt like it should have bigger plates and Pauldrons.

[Squire]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

And to end this argument I qoute Taco Girl:

"Why can't we have both?"

I don't see how that would work. Sure, you could only use the harnesses that look more realistic (even if they are mechanically inferior to all others and will pretty much mean you don't stand a chance at higher levels), but other characters would still have the silly ones with huge pauldrons and ridiculously wide vambraces.

[casts Firestorm and reduces an entire village into smoldering ashes]

You were saying?

*sigh* This argument again? Does the inclusion of magic always have to mean ALL laws of physics must be broken, and armour and weapons must all be ridiculously big to the point where even Games Workshop would find them unbelievable?

...(lack of variety)...

There is plenty in the real world! Not every harness looks the same. For a start, you've got the German and Italian styles. Then you've got armour from gothic and renaissance periods. Then there are loads of different options: bascinet, sallet, or armet? Beaked visor, or flat, or bellows shape? That's assuming you even use a late medieval visored helmet - no reason why, in a fantasy game, you can't wear a bucket helm, or even a nordic or conical helm with your harness if you so desire (and even then: with or without nose guard? Eye guards? Aventail? Square or rounded?). Even the gloves...lobstered fingers or mitts? Butterfly joints? Fluted spaulders? Loads of variety! And that's just plate armour. You can simply wear mail. Then you've got hauberk or shirt with leggings? riveted or butted mail? small or large rings? single or double thickness? Gloves? Coif? Helmet? You can wear brigandine over it. You can even wear a half-harness, or just a cuirass, over the mail.  If you want to bring eastern armour into the mix, you can have lamellar or laminar (aka "scale mail" or "banded mail" as they are known in D&D - even though I don't like those terms), or the armour that samurai wore. Or if you want light: leather or padded? Jerkin or jack or doublet? Long or short? Arms? Legs? Vambraces? Gauntlets? Could even wear a mail shirt or a breastplate over it, or even both...LOADS of options!

And this is all from real life history...no reason whatsoever why, in fantasy, these can't be mixed/matched, adapted, varied slightly. All I ask is that they're believable.

[Shadow Fox]

Ignore it like you ignore magic? I'll have my beautiful glass green Sylvanite armor you'll have your King Richard.
Uh yes because why can mages be allowed to break the laws of physics but not warriors?

[Boycott Bioware]

I see many peoples saying "this is fantasy!" and so armors must look ridiculous...if want 100% fantasy, there shouldn't be human in it, human is from real world...or maybe human must have 3 hands, 4 legs, two heads..."this is fantasy!", what human is that?

Similar with armors and weapons, they should be armors and weapons, like human be human in fantasy setting. Human cannot fly, look at superman, he's not human, he's alien, he can fly because he's an alien. X-Men are mutans, they are not human. Although they all look like human, they are not human

So armors and weapons must look like armors and weapons, or else it is no longer armors and weapons. They become something else.

Is something can considered as an armor if it can't function as armor? Is something can be considered a weapon if it can't function as weapon? "Fantasy" doesn't mean everythig is possible, fantasy have it's own rule. Just because of Gandalf a great wizard, he still can't destroy the ring as soon as he know about it. That is the rule in fantasy.

We cannot have a flying tank that function as fighter jet, that tank must have a jet engine and some wings at least in the fantasy. Look at science fictions, such as Back to the Future, it is a fantasy, no one can time travel, but the movie is believable. They are using the modified D'lorean with some bull**** that make time traveling is possible. The story just could make it they time traveling by using magic. isn't it? But the story have it's own rule, they must have a car, that car is scientifically modified, must reach 88 mph, powered by nuclear reactor, must have 1.12 Jigawatt of electric, have the flux capasitor the thing that make time travel possible...

So fantasy is not an excuse

Modifié par Qistina, 04 octobre 2013 - 10:13 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ignore it like you ignore magic? I'll have my beautiful glass green Sylvanite armor you'll have your King Richard.
Uh yes because why can mages be allowed to break the laws of physics but not warriors?

Because they are mages. They break the laws of physics by definition. Warriors don't.

You answered your own question.

[Squire]

Qistina wrote...

I see many peoples saying "this is fantasy!" and so armors must look ridiculous...if want 100% fantasy, there shouldn't be human in it, human is from real world...or maybe human must have 3 hands, 4 legs, two heads..."this is fantasy!", what human is that?

 Love it!!

But...yeah, this is a very common argument used in such situations. It may be fantasy, but for me, there still needs to be a level of believability. The Lord of the Rings films didn't have big pauldrons or oversized weapons (other than the Witch King's flail!!).

As for wizards...they're supposed to be a special group of a few individuals who have The Powah, and spend their whole lives learning to use it in order to break the laws of physics. If everybody can break the laws of physics, what's the point? Only wizards should be able to break the laws of physics, while fighters should work within the boundaries of the laws of physics to do awesome things.

I'll have my beautiful glass green Sylvanite armor you'll have your King Richard.

Armour can still be beautiful. It just has to LOOK believable - as in "like it functions as armour should". I think the DA world already has special metals, so why can't we simply have armour made from those, coloured glass-green and stylised in a sylvanite fashion, but still cover most of the body and have reasonably sized pauldrons and vambraces? I don't think anybody's challenging special materials, colours of patterns. Only the look of certain harnesses, which either look way too bulky to move in, or don't cover enough of the body to give adequate protection.

Modifié par Squire, 04 octobre 2013 - 01:58 .

[Shadow Fox]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ignore it like you ignore magic? I'll have my beautiful glass green Sylvanite armor you'll have your King Richard.
Uh yes because why can mages be allowed to break the laws of physics but not warriors?

Because they are mages. They break the laws of physics by definition. Warriors don't.

You answered your own question.

So "It's magic!" is an acceptable excuse only when it comes to mages huh?<_

[Xilizhra]

I have no real stake in this, because I don't play warriors to begin with. However, despite that, it's rather hilarious to hear certain members of this debate be all but outright saying "stop liking what I don't like!"

[Shadow Fox]

Squire wrote...

Qistina wrote...

I see many peoples saying "this is fantasy!" and so armors must look ridiculous...if want 100% fantasy, there shouldn't be human in it, human is from real world...or maybe human must have 3 hands, 4 legs, two heads..."this is fantasy!", what human is that?

 Love it!!

But...yeah, this is a very common argument used in such situations. It may be fantasy, but for me, there still needs to be a level of believability. The Lord of the Rings films didn't have big pauldrons or oversized weapons (other than the Witch King's flail!!).

As for wizards...they're supposed to be a special group of a few individuals who have The Powah, and spend their whole lives learning to use it in order to break the laws of physics. If everybody can break the laws of physics, what's the point? Only wizards should be able to break the laws of physics, while fighters should work within the boundaries of the laws of physics to do awesome things.

I'll have my beautiful glass green Sylvanite armor you'll have your King Richard.

Armour can still be beautiful. It just has to LOOK believable - as in "like it functions as armour should". I think the DA world already has special metals, so why can't we simply have armour made from those, coloured glass-green and stylised in a sylvanite fashion, but still cover most of the body and have reasonably sized pauldrons and vambraces? I don't think anybody's challenging special materials, colours of patterns. Only the look of certain harnesses, which either look way too bulky to move in, or don't cover enough of the body to give adequate protection.

Frankly to me for fantasy to be realistic magic ethier can't exist,be useable by mortals or must be incredibly difficult to use/learn thus limting it's practicers to a very small percent of the populous and rare to the point were common people doubt it's existance.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 04 octobre 2013 - 02:10 .

[Vilegrim]

draken-heart wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

I didn't say realistic, believable and realistic are not the same thing

They could be based on the real life ones but altered 

Based on/looks like, Same thing.

This is what I consider believable

As long as the armor fits the setting, why should it be believable?

because it has to function as armour, you can have strange materials and odd shapings, but armour has a job, and that job requires certain things of it.