9318 réponses à ce sujet

[Puppy Love]

There should be two versions of light armor

 

There should be the leathers, padded, ect

 

Then there should be the clothing armor, maybe add to whatever the dodge stat was called, because frankly, full armor was not actually the norm in most cultures throughout the world.  Yes boob windows, ect is unrealistic, but so is everyone fighting being covered head to toe in armor, is simply not reality.  Most people relied on dodging and deflecting blows far more than armor.  Most people couldn't even afford armor.

 

Isabella's armor was fine, since she was a duellist and most of her abilities were focused on making her harder to hit in the first place making her better at dodging / deflecting blows, rather than relying on her armor in the first place.

 

Mages should have options between next to nothing (Not asking for myself, I prefer a pretty dress over skimp wear, blech) to fully robed covering everything and bulky.

 

Rogues should have options between regular clothes, maybe even a skirt, or something sexy like Isabella, to head to toe in leathers, and padded armor.  Why?  Because rogue types are everything from conmen, to pickpockets, to ninja assassin types, they cover a large gamut of archetypes far beyond the I wear full armor and fight things.  Lots of roguish activities run counter to wearing lots of armor.  Rogues rely on evasion, quick thinking, trickery, tools ect, armor is a bonus some take advantage of.  Having bracers, or minor armor bits is completely reasonable for a rogue to have.  It's not their job to wear armor and take a beating.  If a rogue needs to rely on his armor to survive, he's not a very good rogue.

 

Warriors should wear armor, not really arguing that too much, but even here there's variance.  No one will argue berserkers weren't vicious warriors, or the celts, or many of the many lightly armored warrior cultures that existed.  Being a warrior in the real world once again did not necessarily mean COVERED HEAD TO TOE in armor.

 

So really I wish the "realistic" armor thing could be dropped, because frankly head to toe in armor is no more realistic than not wearing a full suit of armor.  Full armor suits were never really the norm in combat. 

[Puppy Love]

Double post

[HuldraDancer]

Oh speaking of clothes and customization options does anyone know if we'll get to wear and customize no combat clothes? Like how DAO had noble and commoner clothes? I really hope so I got at least one Cadash that will be walking around in only the finest of gowns when she is not in combat

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I still think Cassandra's Dawn of the Seeker armors are some of the best designs of the DA franchise.

They were both functionally and visually appeasing. 

 

Spoiler

[aTigerslunch]

You know what would solve this problem? Body sliders.

Who knows, with DA4 most likely solely being on the XB1, PS4, and higher end PCs it may have it. 

I agree with body sliders. 
 

 

for the current subject:

 

I find that the female inquisitors are very sexy as they are, also the outfits are terrific. If I was their opponent, I would consider them a threat. Isabela? No. Sorry, I wouldnt of taken her seriously in a fight but I wouldnt at the same time underestimate her. Just saying, I dont take her seriously. She looks eye candy more than anything, which was her personality, she wants that, to disarm men. I just find it easier to kill her than Aveline, cause of the many openings. I like Isabela, I find her attractive, and like her personality, she isnt my type though, Merrill is. Armorers actually agree and laugh about female sexualized armor as well. I know one, he said, "Those armors are just for sex appeal, not practicality, any person in a fight with that stuff would get killed quicker than those fully armored. Cause you dont have just the immediate threat of hand to hand (sword to sword), there are archers in the background there are those that have ranged weapons to protect against as well."

 

Now, those games that are sexualized females for appearances, I barely play those, rarely in fact. I know a few of my friends that would prefer women clothed properly as well. Cause they dont want to worry about if she is going to get scathed by a stray arrow. We think on terms of outside the circle of sword reach. Though me and my friends do love looking at sexualized women, we wouldnt want to play a sexualized woman. Cause we dont take them seriously. I know they dont either, cause they laugh and make fun of particular characters. These are my experiences and words from actual men's views that are around me. Not all are like this of course, but those that I know personally, are this way. My groups dont find attractiveness just in size of breasts either, noticed, but not sole purpose, can either be flat, small, medium, or big, doesnt really matter, she is a she, not a he and will look at her for her, not what she has on her chest. 

 

Sorry, I may not be wording myself properly here. Trying but not always good with words.

 

Nefla's post was very good and would loved to liked more than once.

 

Huldra, I agree, I love to see the female dwarves again. That one looks awesome.

[Puppy Love]

I wouldn't call Fenris armor all the great for a male frontline fighter, but that's just me.  If you're gonna call out Isabella, let's not forget all the skin Fenrish showed in his "heavy" armor.

 

The celts were a warrior people that fought in war almost as a way of life.  They aren't the only warrior people who did so either.  Lots of people fought regularily without wearing all that much armor.  Also most armor does diddly squat against actual arrows.  Even in cultures where heavy armor existed, most did not wear full armor in battle.

 

Can we please stop promoting this bogus and faulty version of the world history it's armor, and what people actually wore.

 

This everyone covered head to toe in armor is not and has never been reality. 

 

By the standards you people apply to armor on here, 90% of all participants in most battles throughout all history would be considered to be naked and doomed to automatic death upon the moment combat started.

 

Yes our characters see, and survive rediculous amounts of combat.  Wearing rediculous amounts of armor does not make that any more believable.

 

Edit: Also if you think putting Isabella in full leather armor would make her surviving arrows any more realistic, you don't know much about arrows and how effectively they tear through most armors.  The leather armor would be about as effective as what she's already wearing.  Meaning of course: "not at all."

[aTigerslunch]

Arrows can pierce armor, but also do get deflected. I didnt say historically about armor being used or unused, thats been hashed out. Yes, armor was not worn by some, and worn by others. The armor can deflect glancing blows, any weapon base that is less directed at that person. 

 

I am more in the lines that her breasts should be tied down a bit, they would hurt her the way they are now instead. But I will still not take her seriously over Aveline cause of what she wears. None of my friends do, the guys think she is nice to look at and isnt worth anything else in consideration.

 

This is why I want full armor to be proper fitted than others cause females dont get taken seriously as much, now if the male and female specifics matched. that is something else. If the male and female qunari are the exact same styles, both would get taken seriously then, when its just the female and not  the male, it isnt taken seriously. This is me, and my guy friends. Our own thoughts on that subject.

 

I am not against you having the options as long as it matches male to female and visa versa on that type of armor.  Which Bioware already does good at, so I have no qualms.  Conversation about that is moot to be honest. But cant stop my thinking of Isabela not being taken seriously due to her clothing. Males armors are usually less brought on how skimpy they are versus the females. Usual thought would be, he is bad *** for that style, my friends think this, I dont. It was a problem due to sexualization of female's. To help get away from that thought process, proper covering helps turn that image back to a positive.

[tmp7704]

The celts were a warrior people that fought in war almost as a way of life.  They aren't the only warrior people who did so either.  Lots of people fought regularily without wearing all that much armor.  Also most armor does diddly squat against actual arrows.  Even in cultures where heavy armor existed, most did not wear full armor in battle.

While lots of people fought without armour, hardly any of them did it regularly as individuals. Simply because doing that led to very short career. And then you had to be replaced by another unprotected fool, one still equipped with two working arms and legs. That wasn't a problem when lives were valued much less than good, manually made equipment.

Relatively few people wore full armour in battle, this is true. That wasn't by choice though, but because it's something only the very wealthy could afford. Having actual choice between wearing armour or not, you can bet most people would choose the former.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Everyone should wear armour, even mages.

[Puppy Love]

No I want the clothes to represent the character, same as any npcs clothing does.  NPCs can get away with wearing whatever as long as it represents their personality, the player, however, is doomed to wearing more armor than most of the real world ever has.

 

I'm not looking for anything silly like boob windows in actual armor, I'm asking to be able to wear a realistic amount of armor by real world standards, and not be shoe horned into the completely armored archetype that was never the norm in the real world. 

 

It's not a matter of being suicidal.  Wearing full armor is taxing, putting it on and taking it off is tedious, maintaining it is difficult.  It is uncomfortable and it is expensive.  Most people, unless specialized units, did not wear full armor because against arrows and such it really didn't do anything.  What armor most people typically did wear was for the purposes of helping to deflect a blow, or cushion a glancing blow so it was less likely to be lethal.

 

Against arrows you used a shield, not armor.  Not everyone used a shield.  Is why you had regiments of troops, the first few lines were dedicated to withstanding a charge, and surviving the onslaught of arrows.  Go shield wall.

 

Of course in Fereldan we just send dogs to get shot by arrows and get impailed on pikes instead, because in Fereldan we pretend we like our dogs, but really we just want the enemy to use them as pinquishions.

 

My point is asking for less armor is not being suicidal, or making unrealistic demands or being an idiot.  It's asking to be able to represent more than one type of warrior as befits the real world.

 

Is also asking to not be held to a double standard.  Like in 2, where everyone else could get away with anything that fit their personality and how they desired to look but Hawke was forced to be ultraconservative.  I do not like being forced to wear more armor / conservative clothing than the rest of my party sans Aveline.  I would like to define whether my character is ultraconservative, or chooses to wear what's practical.

 

Yes, I said it, full armor is not practical, the only time you wear it is going to war or in a sporting event like a joust, not if you're travelling about the country side on foot.  There's more to consider then just combat.  You can have all the armor in the world, but if you're dying of heat exhaustion, and are moving slowly because wearing that armor all day has exhausted you, you're a dead man.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Take it off while traveling and put it on before combat.

 

Isabella's armor was fine, since she was a duellist and most of her abilities were focused on making her harder to hit in the first place making her better at dodging / deflecting blows, rather than relying on her armor in the first place.

Pretty sure everyone would be trying their best not to get hit, but you can't always get what you want. Even a graze could be lethal for Ms shows a lot.

[tmp7704]

No I want the clothes to represent the character, same as any npcs clothing does.  NPCs can get away with wearing whatever as long as it represents their personality, the player, however, is doomed to wearing more armor than most of the real world ever has.
 
I'm not looking for anything silly like boob windows in actual armor, I'm asking to be able to wear a realistic amount of armor by real world standards, and not be shoe horned into the completely armored archetype that was never the norm in the real world.

The thing is, the player isn't some incarnation of "average level of armour in society". They aren't "the norm". Instead, they tend to be one of the priviledged few who can afford to wear more armour than most of the world ever has, fictional or not. Especially in DA:I by the looks of it.

You didn't find it strange for example that both Cailan and Loghain wore full heavy plate in DA, did you? It's the same deal. Important, wealthy people get to wear stuff that is likely to give them decent protection against anything but maybe getting crushed by an ogre. Everyone else gets to wear what they can afford (or what their masters are willing to spend on them) which usually amounts to little. And this disparity is realistic.

[Puppy Love]

Except that wearing full armor is not realistic while walking all over town, and traipsing around the countryside for miles on foot.  I accepted Cailin because he was wearing ceremonial armor as a show for his troops as king.  Plus going to war, and in a position to take it on and off, probably has servents to help him do so.  As for Alistair I accepted it for the same reason I accept isabella, realistic or not it was representative of the character and the ideal they represented.

 

This being said, fine I accept warriors wearing full armor, like Alistair it can be argued to be representative of the warrior ideal.

 

I argue, however, that wearing full armor does not represent the rogue ideal.  If warriors HAVE to wear full armor because like Alistair it represents the warrior ideal, then rogues should be barely wearing armor and should be more clothes/casual centric, with bracers and the like being common, with actual full armor being quite rare.  Should be more stylish and less gritty than the warrior because that is closer to the rogue ideal and the archetypes it represents.

[tmp7704]

I argue, however, that wearing full armor does not represent the rogue ideal.  If warriors HAVE to wear full armor because like Alistair it represents the warrior ideal, then rogues should be barely wearing armor and should be more clothes/casual centric, with bracers and the like being common, with actual full armor being quite rare.  Should be more stylish and less gritty than the warrior because that is closer to the rogue ideal and the archetypes it represents.

That's fair enough, but if I remember right (and what cursory youtube search seems to confirm) the rogue inquisitor shown in gameplay demonstrations wasn't wearing full plate armour but something that looked like dark clothes and long coat with some small armour pieces here and there. I.e. not far from what you are asking for..?

edit: this is rogue inquisitor on the official page:



really doesn't look like much of armour there, to me.

[aTigerslunch]

Yes, shields are for arrows, but some arrows can still hit armor, generally they do go through, but if it is a glancing blow, armor could deflect it. Just as much as a bullet can be deflected off a car cause of the angle it hit the car. Glancing blow, which was what I was writing. As I said, I cant make my words come out right the first time and get others confused to what I am trying to say.

 

And your answer of having different type of armors, should be happening. They did in DA:O where Dalish had bellies showing. I suspect we can see a few different models of armor. We only seen Inquisitor's full armor. Which I dont mind, I like it, it doesnt look heavy either in several cases.  Options is always good to have regardless for everyone as long as it matches male/female and not sexualize females.

 

The NPC's clothes did match who they was in their personality. That was fine for each of them in that aspect.

[Puppy Love]

Let's look at some rogue specializations, and you tell my honestly, if when you see these names written, you picture a character that's covered head to toe in conservative armor for all of them.

 

Bard, Duellist, Assassin, Ranger, Legionaire Scout, Shadow 

 

For me, two of them sound like someone I can picture wearing full armor.  I can see full leather on the ranger, and maybe some metal armor in addition on the legionair scout.

 

Bard: I picture more casual and attractive, someone who you'd let into your confidence without realizing how deadly they really are.  Walking around head to toe in armor kind of takes away from your ability to do that.  Full armor plus a weapon sais I'm a deadly menace or am prepared to be any second.  Especially drab boring armor.  We're looking for an entertainer who moonlights as an assassin here.

 

Duellist: Duellists typically use light weapons, and are all about parry parry thrust thrust.  I picture more someone like a swashbuckler or the three musketeers.  Vibrant clothes, maybe a fancy hat, definately got kind of a noble theme here.  Certainly not wearing drab armor head to toe.

 

Assassin: You have two goals, blend in with the general populace and use poisons, cheat and kill your opponent before they get a chance to strike, if you need armor, technically you're a really crappy assassin.

 

Ranger: Ok I can see full leather here.  I'm picturing a guy with a hawk on one arm, a bow on his back, and a wolf at his side in full leathers.  I did say rogue armor should run the gambit.

 

Legionaire Scout: Honestly no experience with this or what it represents, no image in my mind

 

Shadow: Your whole purpose is to never be a target in the first place and kill from the shadows, once again, where's the full armor fit in here?

[Puppy Love]

As for sexualising females.

 

Say I'm playing a bard as a male or female.  You know what on that case I'd very much like to be sexualized as both genders thank you.  Gladly showing my chest hair as the sexiest not officially a bard, bard, dwarf, Varric, thank you very much.

 

Sometimes sexy IS in character and not being treated wrongly at all.  My point is we should have enough choices to decide who our character is and how to represent them.

 

If Bard is a specialization option, and I want to be a sexy bard, then I should be able to be one.

[Nefla]

I wouldn't call Fenris armor all the great for a male frontline fighter, but that's just me.  If you're gonna call out Isabella, let's not forget all the skin Fenrish showed in his "heavy" armor.

 

The celts were a warrior people that fought in war almost as a way of life.  They aren't the only warrior people who did so either.  Lots of people fought regularily without wearing all that much armor.  Also most armor does diddly squat against actual arrows.  Even in cultures where heavy armor existed, most did not wear full armor in battle.

 

Can we please stop promoting this bogus and faulty version of the world history it's armor, and what people actually wore.

 

This everyone covered head to toe in armor is not and has never been reality. 

 

By the standards you people apply to armor on here, 90% of all participants in most battles throughout all history would be considered to be naked and doomed to automatic death upon the moment combat started.

 

Yes our characters see, and survive rediculous amounts of combat.  Wearing rediculous amounts of armor does not make that any more believable.

 

Edit: Also if you think putting Isabella in full leather armor would make her surviving arrows any more realistic, you don't know much about arrows and how effectively they tear through most armors.  The leather armor would be about as effective as what she's already wearing.  Meaning of course: "not at all."

Uh Fenris isn't wearing heavy armor (heavy armor is plate like Aveline's), he's wearing medium/light armor, most of his body is covered by leather which would have some defensive properties as well as metal armored parts on his hands/forearms and his chest. His getup isn't very good but it's worlds better than Isabella's who only wears armor on one arm. Plus showing that much cleavage her breasts WOULD fall out. Speaking from experience, when you have large breasts and show a good amount of cleavage, even a mild jog will make them start popping out and need to be readjusted. Being in combat, running (doing cartwheels and backflips too...) they would be completely exposed in minutes. She has so much exposed skin there is just too much to guard. If it was just the cleavage (assuming we are ignoring reality and they would just be glued in place) and she had leather pants and both arms as well as her boots armored she could still look sexy but still look decently prepared for battle.   

 

As for people fighting in little to no armor, that's true but it was true of poor peasants/military conscripts not rich, important people like the PC. And naked barbarian tribes fought other naked barbarian tribes. When they encountered armored opponents with archers they died fast. Also if you're too poor to be able to afford a set of life saving armor, you're going to be too poor to afford fancy beautiful clothing (and you wouldn't be a professional warrior in such a case). This is a pretty good indication of what your character would look like if they were a lowly peasant going to battle

Enjoy your "historical accuracy"

 

As many have said, I'm sure mage robes will look like dresses as they did in DA2 but be more fashionable like Vivienne's. As many others have said, we in this thread are not the ones designing the armor and have no say in what it looks like so I don't know who you're trying to convince.

[Nefla]

Let's look at some rogue specializations, and you tell my honestly, if when you see these names written, you picture a character that's covered head to toe in conservative armor for all of them.

 

Bard, Duellist, Assassin, Ranger, Legionaire Scout, Shadow 

 

For me, two of them sound like someone I can picture wearing full armor.  I can see full leather on the ranger, and maybe some metal armor in addition on the legionair scout.

 

Where are you getting this from? When have rogues ever worn full armor? In DA:O it was a bunch of Xena warrior princess-esque skirts, in DA2 it was clothing with little armor bits (often weirdly designed with useless buckles and straps but that's a separate issue)

[HuldraDancer]

All this talk is really making me wonder if we'll get any non combat clothes. DAO had them but as far as I can remember aside from Hawke's finery in the mansion there wasn't any non combat clothes in DA2 I wonder if they'll make a combat for DAI?

[Nefla]

All this talk is really making me wonder if we'll get any non combat clothes. DAO had them but as far as I can remember aside from Hawke's finery in the mansion there wasn't any non combat clothes in DA2 I wonder if they'll make a combat for DAI?

I hope so! I'm really hoping the inquisitor gets to go to a fancy Orlesian ball all dressed up or impersonates a noble for an espionage type mission, that would be awesome and no more female PC getting a slightly altered version of the male PC's clothing that was clearly designed for a male body (DA2 )

[Puppy Love]

That's fair enough, but if I remember right (and what cursory youtube search seems to confirm) the rogue inquisitor shown in gameplay demonstrations wasn't wearing full plate armour but something that looked like dark clothes and long coat with some small armour pieces here and there. I.e. not far from what you are asking for..?

edit: this is rogue inquisitor on the official page:



really doesn't look like much of armour there, to me.

 

Let me ask, with that helm and those armor bits, does that say suave, quick witted opportunist, that uses cleverness and guile to you?  Or does that just say, lightly armored warrior?  Cause that's what I see is lightly armored warrior with light weapons.

 

If I wanna play a warrior, I play a warrior.  I want something else in my rogues.  If a rogue is going to be styalized as nothing more than a warrior that wears slighly less bulky armor, I'd rather they not do the divide at all.  Just have warriors and mages.

 

A male rogue should look cool, suave, badass in a charismatic fashion, using style, wit and cunning to get by.  Not like some dude in a dorky helmet with metal knee and elbow pads.  Think more Varric, less this dude...

[Seraphim24]

What's wrong with some kind of combination between realism and fantasy? Dragon Age at this point seems pretty infamous for some horrible styling like those "helms" in Origins. 

 

Everytime I see that Inquisitor with his derp helmet in the trailer I just want to vomit, if you camoflauge his face and emotions in the interests of 'realism' than your sacrificing the interest of fantasy. Furthermore, whatever outfits DA conjures up are invariably pretty lame.. Sera's is all right I guess. I vaguely remember some plate armor in Origins and Awakening (Caelans or something?) being sort of.. cool. 

 

I don't see any reason there can't be some awesome outfits like from the Zelda picture a million years ago. Or like Lucina from FE.