429 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I dont care for functionality and i really dont care about reality, what i do care about is my play through of the game and how i feel about the game, if that means putting my character in armor that is both non functional and non realistic but pleasing to me so be it thats what i will do.

 

Everyone has different likes/dislikes, tastes etc what i find fitting for my character in a roleplaying game the person next to me might not, that is the brilliance of the genre that is what draws me in an keeps me playing game after game day after day, sit 2 ppl down at the same rpg game with the same character but allowed to play the game separate and it can astound you the total difference in experience they have.

 

Whats wrong for one persons play through can an prob will be right for the next, it the same with armor, what i find wrong/ugly/ridiculous is another persons perfect, functionality for me is another persons non functional, realistic to me is another persons non realistic, difference dont denote wrong

Hopefully with armor customization everyone or at least as many as possible can get what they want.

[TripleThreeTwo]

I think it should be a balanced. Its a fantasy game anyways. Well that's my two cents. 

 

 

 

   

Spoiler

 

 

[ladyoflate]

I'd love realistic armors. There's not a lot of obvious silhouette variation in real-life plate armors, but it is there. What I don't get is why we can't have the beautiful engraving or acid-etching of real armors. I remember going to the armory section of the Chicago art museum when I was on vacation, and most of them were quite breathtaking and also (duh) realistic. I'm a bit sick of 'realistic but cool' meaning 'cover everything, but let's stick on spikes or hard edges or something'. Like, real armor is all rounded and crap for a reason.

 

I'd love something like from Elizabeth the Golden Age, this is lovely:

 

[Brass_Buckles]

I prefer realistic armor.  I prefer the aesthetics of it, and I prefer it because it doesn't look like my character's going to freeze to death or get her leg/head cut off or be stabbed through the heart while she wears it.  Or break her collarbone because she chose to wear boob plate.

 

In practice, most medieval armor was worn with a tabard over it, in part to protect the armor and in part to display the person's heraldtry.  So, I wouldn't have any issue at all with having tabards over the armor.

 

It's also true that any engraving, wires, etc. on the armor (anything at all raised, basically) could cause a sword, spear, or other weapon to "catch" on the armor, which is very dangerous.  It's pretty, but that kind of armor was mostly used in tournaments or parades--not for actual combat.  And yet, I am more okay with that kind of armor than any kind of armor that reveals flesh on my character, unless we're talking Roman-style armor, which would still have my avatar wearing greaves.

 

I don't mind if the choice exists for someone else to put their character in gear that exposes them to grave injury, but only if I can still have armor that looks like it would be protective to my character.

 

"Pretty" armor that reveals legs/cleavage/midriff/has boob plate etc. is usually found on female characters, while their male counterparts get full coverage (and its beauty is subjective, because I thought that pic of a real-world lady in full plate on the first page of this thread looked totally awesome--simple and effective) and a reasonable design.  That's not realistic even if you think magic could account for the protective quality of that armor--because why does it work for women that way but not for men?

 

Armor that leaves big gaps for the midriff/cleavage/legs/etc. is not much more effective than the battle bikini that you say you aren't a fan of, OP.  And I repeat, there's generally no equivalent for men--which, if there were, would make it a bit more okay in my book.

 

So again, I'm okay with the option existing, but give me full coverage anyday over being fabulous and dead.

 

That said, I would not mind at all if there were "casual" outfits we could collect like there were in DA:O, with the Wedding Clothes/Dress, Noble Clothing, etc.  I think that, or mage/rogue gear, would be a better place for pretty.  And I also think what I've seen of the DA:I armor and gear thus far looks visually appealing to me anyway, without being revealing or risky (except for that long flowing fabric that someone could grab and knock the Inquisitor down with).

 

The day Bioware forces me to put my character in cleavage windows and midriff armor and thigh-highs is the day I stop buying Bioware games.  And yes, I know they likely did so in the past with their older games, but we've moved forward.  Let's not go skipping merrily back into the days of yore unless it's optional to do so and those of us who think that kind of gear is ridiculous can keep wearing our practical gear (which should always be of an equivalent or better rating to the skin-showing gear).

[ladyoflate]

Yeah, tournament armor is what I mean, but that also falls into 'acceptable breaks of total practicality' for me, when it comes to games.

[St. Victorious]

No one's posted Game of Thrones armor pictures yet? Absurd.

[Inprea]

I prefer realistic armor.  I prefer the aesthetics of it, and I prefer it because it doesn't look like my character's going to freeze to death or get her leg/head cut off or be stabbed through the heart while she wears it.  Or break her collarbone because she chose to wear boob plate.

 

In practice, most medieval armor was worn with a tabard over it, in part to protect the armor and in part to display the person's heraldtry.  So, I wouldn't have any issue at all with having tabards over the armor.

 

It's also true that any engraving, wires, etc. on the armor (anything at all raised, basically) could cause a sword, spear, or other weapon to "catch" on the armor, which is very dangerous.  It's pretty, but that kind of armor was mostly used in tournaments or parades--not for actual combat.  And yet, I am more okay with that kind of armor than any kind of armor that reveals flesh on my character, unless we're talking Roman-style armor, which would still have my avatar wearing greaves.

 

I don't mind if the choice exists for someone else to put their character in gear that exposes them to grave injury, but only if I can still have armor that looks like it would be protective to my character.

 

"Pretty" armor that reveals legs/cleavage/midriff/has boob plate etc. is usually found on female characters, while their male counterparts get full coverage (and its beauty is subjective, because I thought that pic of a real-world lady in full plate on the first page of this thread looked totally awesome--simple and effective) and a reasonable design.  That's not realistic even if you think magic could account for the protective quality of that armor--because why does it work for women that way but not for men?

 

Armor that leaves big gaps for the midriff/cleavage/legs/etc. is not much more effective than the battle bikini that you say you aren't a fan of, OP.  And I repeat, there's generally no equivalent for men--which, if there were, would make it a bit more okay in my book.

 

So again, I'm okay with the option existing, but give me full coverage anyday over being fabulous and dead.

 

That said, I would not mind at all if there were "casual" outfits we could collect like there were in DA:O, with the Wedding Clothes/Dress, Noble Clothing, etc.  I think that, or mage/rogue gear, would be a better place for pretty.  And I also think what I've seen of the DA:I armor and gear thus far looks visually appealing to me anyway, without being revealing or risky (except for that long flowing fabric that someone could grab and knock the Inquisitor down with).

 

The day Bioware forces me to put my character in cleavage windows and midriff armor and thigh-highs is the day I stop buying Bioware games.  And yes, I know they likely did so in the past with their older games, but we've moved forward.  Let's not go skipping merrily back into the days of yore unless it's optional to do so and those of us who think that kind of gear is ridiculous can keep wearing our practical gear (which should always be of an equivalent or better rating to the skin-showing gear).

You clearly aren't considering male barbarian armor whenever you claim men always enjoy full coverage.

 

As for your bold question. Who says it doesn't work for the male characters as well? The bulk of their protection could be coming from the armors enchantment. Especially when we're talking about armor that can endure being smashed by a 4 meter tall ogre that weights who knows how much.

[St. Victorious]

Now its an armor thread.

[Thumb Fu]

No one's posted Game of Thrones armor pictures yet? Absurd.

 

 

 lmfao, golden.

[Dutchess]

I don't find this very pleasing to my eyes, so I'd rather have them go for realism.

 

 

Unfortunately it seems too late for that.

[Giant ambush beetle]

No one's posted Game of Thrones armor pictures yet? Absurd.

 

 

[JJDXB]

I don't find this very pleasing to my eyes, so I'd rather have them go for realism.

 

 

 

Unfortunately it seems too late for that.

 

It's rather ornate, but the basic idea behind it is sound - in fact, the only thing I'm drawn to as far as unrealism goes are those feathery pauldrons.  Though, given that that set is likely Orlesian, I'm not surprised it's that complex.

 

I don't think people have mentioned that on this thread, actually: Orlesian and Ferelden armour should be visually distinct, at least for the characters who can afford to be distinct.  Orlesian armours should encompass the more fantastical and (in some people's opinion) excessive examples of protective wear, while Ferelden and other designs ought to be more muted.

[In Exile]

It's rather ornate, but the basic idea behind it is sound - in fact, the only thing I'm drawn to as far as unrealism goes are those feathery pauldrons.  Though, given that that set is likely Orlesian, I'm not surprised it's that complex.

 

I don't think people have mentioned that on this thread, actually: Orlesian and Ferelden armour should be visually distinct, at least for the characters who can afford to be distinct.  Orlesian armours should encompass the more fantastical and (in some people's opinion) excessive examples of protective wear, while Ferelden and other designs ought to be more muted.

 

The DA:I concept art showed that Bioware is finally going to settle on distinct visual identities for the different parts of Thedas. 

[SurelyForth]

How about a mixture of both, with "pleasing to the eye" armor coming with penalties equivalent to the liberties taken with their design. For example- armor with heels has a penalty to movement speed and dexterity while revealing armor has a percentage chance of the character being one-shot in battle that corresponds directly with the amount of skin being exposed or covered only in thin cloth/spandex/diaphanous lace. 

[ladyoflate]

The DA:I concept art showed that Bioware is finally going to settle on distinct visual identities for the different parts of Thedas. 

 

-hallelujah chorus-

[SurelyForth]

No-one should be penalized for having a different "taste" in armor

 

Why not? I like medium armor in DAO, so I stick my warrior in it despite it not being optimal for her role in battle. 

 

Why shouldn't there be a similar trade off for armor that's designed to objectify rather than protect?

[mikeymoonshine]

I'd love realistic armors. There's not a lot of obvious silhouette variation in real-life plate armors, but it is there. What I don't get is why we can't have the beautiful engraving or acid-etching of real armors. I remember going to the armory section of the Chicago art museum when I was on vacation, and most of them were quite breathtaking and also (duh) realistic. I'm a bit sick of 'realistic but cool' meaning 'cover everything, but let's stick on spikes or hard edges or something'. Like, real armor is all rounded and crap for a reason.

 

I'd love something like from Elizabeth the Golden Age, this is lovely:

 

 

OOh, I am basing my human Warrior Femquizzy's look on her for my second playthrough. 

 

[Stiler]

1. Plate armor wasn't THAT heavy. In fact chainmail was more cumbersome to wear then plate, as the weight of chain rests mostly on your shoulders whereas with plate armor the weight is more evenly distributed over your entire body. A good suit of plate armor could weigh just 50'ish pounds or so. To give you an idea about that, the average fireman usually carries MORE then that weight, with a great deal of it on their back with their tanks and things.

 

2. The idea of plate armor all being "dull/grey" is not realistic at all. Plate armour could come in a variety of colours straight from the smite, from grey, to blue, to black, etc. That was merely the base material. Then you could have paint applied over the plate armour (there are some surviving examples of this, search for the "Black sallet" to see some). You also could have etchings on the armour, gilding, embossing, and lastly you could have a cloth covering over the armour with decoration.

 

 

The problem is that many things, movies, games, even books, do not really delve that much into this area and they just go with the popular notion of all plate armour being "grey" (just like the idea of all castles being bare stone/grey, when many castles were actually WHITE).

 

For me realistic armours are highly preferred over fantasy ones.

[ladyoflate]

OOh, I am basing my human Warrior Femquizzy's look on her for my second playthrough. 

 

 

That gif just makes me realize that all games need more hairstyles with braids.

[ladyoflate]

1. Plate armor wasn't THAT heavy. In fact chainmail was more cumbersome to wear then plate, as the weight of chain rests mostly on your shoulders whereas with plate armor the weight is more evenly distributed over your entire body. A good suit of plate armor could weigh just 50'ish pounds or so. To give you an idea about that, the average fireman usually carries MORE then that weight, with a great deal of it on their back with their tanks and things.

 

2. The idea of plate armor all being "dull/grey" is not realistic at all. Plate armour could come in a variety of colours straight from the smite, from grey, to blue, to black, etc. That was merely the base material. Then you could have paint applied over the plate armour (there are some surviving examples of this, search for the "Black sallet" to see some). You also could have etchings on the armour, gilding, embossing, and lastly you could have a cloth covering over the armour with decoration.

 

 

The problem is that many things, movies, games, even books, do not really delve that much into this area and they just go with the popular notion of all plate armour being "grey" (just like the idea of all castles being bare stone/grey, when many castles were actually WHITE).

 

For me realistic armours are highly preferred over fantasy ones.

 

You've reminded me of The Squire's Tale series, wherein one of the book (Savage Damsel and the Dwarf, I think) has a set of brothers each with different-colored armor, and the red one ends up being quite pink with sun fading the enamel/paint.

 

With the patina effects and such they've mentioned, I would be DELIGHTED if that were an option.

 

Really, the option to dye/paint non-unique crap would go a long way towards satisfying people's need for variety.

[n7stormrunner]

one thing then I'll go... please no literally skin tight leather armours, that was more annoying the the skimpy ones. other that as long as there not armors from wow I don't care.