Ce sujet est fermé
*remembers playing as warriors in med,, rogues in light and mages in robes in DA: O* I don't think that right...
I had my warrior (Cousland) in DA:O wear medium armor. The heavy and massive armors looked kind of silly on anyone that wasn't dwarvish or Qunari. They were way oversized.
I don't even know what Kefka is trying to argue
or half the stuff he types up because it doesn't make a lick of sense. Feminism is like puritan England what. Most people have said that all they want is a choice. Most people that said they didn't like impractical sexy armor just said they wanted the choice not to wear it.
Exactly.
You can wear whatever you'd like. That doesn't change the fact that heavy armor is for warriors, medium armor is for rogues, and light armor is for mages. That has always been the case for every Dragon Age game. With that understood, you are more than within your right to craft and build whatever type of hybrid you'd like. I'm just asserting that heavy armor by definition is a tank gear set. You don't have to necessarily be a tank to wear it.
For me, part of the problem is how some of the armour is categorised. Mail, particularly a full suit, should be heavy armour. It was the type of armour worn by front line combatants for most of the medieval era (on which DA is based) as well as other times, (including the Romans for all the republican and a fair part of the imperal eras). And yet, in DA2, there's no mail for warriors (about the only armour which isn't full plate is the starter set), and while in DA:O there was "chainmail"*, it was medium armour, and the "heavy chainmail" was actually primarily plate armour with a bit of mail on top.
I have no problem with making warriors use heavy armour. I have a problem with heavy armour being almost exclusively plate, and full plate at that.
*Random pet hate: putting "chain" in the name is redundant. Mail is armour made from small interlocking rings.
Lets just clear up a couple of things....
This guy is wearing armor: http://upload.wikime...er_-_Louvre.jpg
This guy is not wearing armor: http://www.fancydres...-suit-25603.jpg
I know, its easy to confuse the two 
To simplify: mage robes are not armor. Clothes, even if they are unhardened leather fancied by fantasy rogues, are not armor. Armor is either hardened and/or heavily padded to resist damage.
Lets just clear up a couple of things....
This guy is wearing armor: http://upload.wikime...er_-_Louvre.jpg
This guy is not wearing armor: http://www.fancydres...-suit-25603.jpg
I know, its easy to confuse the two
That first one is another example of the kind of variety we should get for heavy armour. Instead of the tedious "everyone in full plate".
I don't even know what Kefka is trying to argue
or half the stuff he types up because it doesn't make a lick of sense. Feminism is like puritan England what. Most people have said that all they want is a choice. Most people that said they didn't like impractical sexy armor just said they wanted the choice not to wear it.
You don't know because what most people want is not choice, Most want only armour they like: "Sexy armour offensive to women and looks ugly." And want armour like this not be in game.
The first one is a cuirass which was used by cuirassiers since XVI century with the advent of guns. There is no limb armour in your picture. It would be an anachronism to use it in a mostly medieval Thedas.Lets just clear up a couple of things....
This guy is wearing armor: http://upload.wikime...er_-_Louvre.jpg
This guy is not wearing armor: http://www.fancydres...-suit-25603.jpg
I know, its easy to confuse the two
The first one is a cuirass which was used by cuirassiers since XVI century with the advent of guns. There is no limb armour on your picture It would be an anachronism to use it in a mostly medieval Thedas.
The ridulous over-proliferation of full plate is pretty out of place on a setting based on medieval Europe...
You don't know because what most people want is not choice, Most want only armour they like: "Sexy armour offensive to women and looks ugly." And want armour like this not be in game.
SpoilerDragon age have great choice in armour but for some reason a lot off people have problem with armour they don't like. Like famous Dalish armour set I forget count how many post i read how horrible it is and shouldn't be in game.
The problem with "choice", as I've pointed out before, is that it doesn't just affect your character. Armour is worn by a huge range of NPCs in game. And if I see females dressed up in stuff that makes them look like a stripper, or men with plate armour with such riduculous pauldron that they can't even turn their head, then it really hurts the believability and immersion of the world.
I wouldn't having some such armours in the game mind if they are limited to the PC and (optionally) their companions. But I do not want to see them in the rest of the world.
The ridulous over-proliferation of full plate is pretty out of place on a setting based on medieval Europe...
The problem with "choice", as I've pointed out before, is that it doesn't just affect your character. Armour is worn by a huge range of NPCs in game. And if I see females dressed up in stuff that makes them look like a stripper, or men with plate armour with such riduculous pauldron that they can't even turn their head, then it really hurts the believability and immersion of the world.
I wouldn't having some such armours in the game mind if they are limited to the PC and (optionally) their companions. But I do not want to see them in the rest of the world.
Exactly my point. Most people don't want "choice" or "diversity" mostly want "perfect" according to his own image.
Dragon will notes you from far away with armour like this. What you planing to attack dragon up front? 
This is how you kill dragons. Elder one won't see me coming.
Exactly my point. Most people don't want "choice" or "diversity" mostly want "perfect" according to his own image.
Yeah, true. Thing is, if you try to satisfy both sides, you end up with an inconsistent and thus unbeliveable and unimersive world. If armour works like in reality, in that actual protection is required, you can't justify "sexy" armour. If armour works by "magic" in the sense that leaving gaping holes or obvious weakspots doesn't impact on its performance, there's no need to wear massive encumbering suits of armour for protection and people would wear lighter, more comfortable gear (that's not to say everyone would wear stripperific armour, just that taking on the extra weight of fully protective armour is a waste of energy given that it's clearly unnecessary for protection).
To be honest, as much as I dislike revealing armour, I would prefer a world where everyone wore it, than one with "choice" and "variety". At least then it would be internally consistent.
Feminism isn't about telling women what to do. It's about telling women they can do anything.
Why do they need to be told anything? I'm sure the majority of women already know they can do anything, you are breaking into their house, interrupting their conversation, and going "oh, you can do anything!" Um thanks weird guy, already knew that. The mistaken assumption feminists make that many women are in their place because no one told them they couldn't is a projection by feminists onto independent women. Also, telling them they can do anything is at least implying they shouldn't do this one thing. Women (not necessarily the activist or ascerbic cerebral type) have been and always will be the original feminists, as well as their own voice in that respect.
Anyway, it's true a lot of people are saying choice is good, but we all know that's a boring cop out to hide a lack of confidence. You have one last armor set to make, only the resources for one, is it going to be hot or not? "Both functional and hot" or whatever is a boring cop out also. That's the interesting question here. One is genuinely saucy and looks good, one is DA bland and Matlock tame.
You can wear whatever you'd like. That doesn't change the fact that heavy armor is for warriors, medium armor is for rogues, and light armor is for mages. That has always been the case for every Dragon Age game. With that understood, you are more than within your right to craft and build whatever type of hybrid you'd like. I'm just asserting that heavy armor by definition is a tank gear set. You don't have to necessarily be a tank to wear it.
Anyone can wear plate in this game. Or heavy armor, whatever you want to call it.
And yeah, as you can imagine, Warriors are not the sole tanks in this game.
I'll give you that all Warrior specs can tank however, while Mages need to go for KE.
By the way, we know that Warriors can go all Conan if they want, run around in furs and whatever. You can use schematics anyway. They said this one year ago, along with classes having more crossovers than before. It's a good thing imo.
Tanking can work in a lot of ways. There is block and mitigation tanking, evasion or avoidance tanking, magic mitigation through shields barriers and protections tanking, etc.
On topic now, sexy armor doesn't work obviously, but in a fantasy game? Yeah do whatever you want. Just don't restrict people into using only sexy armor for females f.e.
2/10 would not bang.
Funny how I'm a troll for actually driving at a hopeful answer to the original question whereas everyone else is lost in bang or would not bang pictures.
1) Long hair, doesn't fit in helm.
2) Where is her helm?!
3) Fake brows.
4) Huge forehead.
5) Too much makeup.
2/10 still would not bang.
Funny how I'm a troll for actually driving at a hopeful answer to the original question whereas everyone else is lost in bang or would not bang pictures.
I wouldn't call you a troll. You actually seem serious. Which is far worse.
This "bang or not bang", on the other hand, is just a bit of lightheated fun.
Yeah a bunch of greasy pasty men leering over photos of women online, yeah that's a bit of lighthearted fun if I ever saw some.
If your idea of fun wasn't so close to perverted and disgusting then I might actually care. Besides, there are plenty of lighthearted and fun threads elsewhere, I'm just curious if anyone has anything else to say on the matter.
Although I guess at this point the answer is no.
Yeah a bunch of greasy pasty men leering over photos of women online, yeah that's a bit of lighthearted fun if I ever saw some.
If your idea of fun wasn't so close to perverted and disgusting then I might actually care. Besides, there are plenty of lighthearted and fun threads elsewhere, I'm just curious if anyone has anything else to say on the matter.
Although I guess at this point the answer is no.
So wait.
Not liking chainmail bikinis makes us ''neo-puritans'' who would drop dead from fright if they ever saw skin.
Looking at picture of women in plate armor makes us leering perverts?
I'd say you were this forum's biggest hypocrite (high praise indeed) if I wasn't convinved you're trolling at this point.
Yeah a bunch of greasy pasty men leering over photos of women online, yeah that's a bit of lighthearted fun if I ever saw some.
If your idea of fun wasn't so close to perverted and disgusting then I might actually care. Besides, there are plenty of lighthearted and fun threads elsewhere, I'm just curious if anyone has anything else to say on the matter.
Although I guess at this point the answer is no.
Yet another strong independent feminist standing up to a bunch of "greasy pasty" sexists in the name of political correctness!
So wait.
Not liking chainmail bikinis makes us ''neo-puritans'' who would drop dead from fright if they ever saw skin.
Looking at picture of women in plate armor makes us leering perverts?
I'd say you were this forum's biggest hypocrite (high praise indeed) if I wasn't convinved you're trolling at this point.
I think it was serious.
Retour en haut
