2576 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

As for this amusing perception that nudity in battle is "unrealistic", one may remind you about ancients and warmer climates.

 

The Greek Phalanx, for instance, went into battle dressed only in helmet, shield and some plates protecting lower legs, shoulder and an arm. And it was extremely effective. Extremely!  Athenians, Spartans and Thebeians  routinely obliterated many times larger forces, virtually without own losses. Again and again.

 

The problem with using Hellenic fighting styles as an example of a lack of armour being practical, is the way they fought was completely unlike the way characters fight in RPGs. They didn't need significant body armour because they fought using large shields and weapons that didn't require moving the shield away to strike (spears held overarm), and, far more importantly, they fought in formation. Any part of a man's torso not covered by his shield was covered by the shield of the men next to him. Essentially, the front of a phalanx was a solid wall of metal. Under those circumstances, using relatively light torso armour is reasonably practical. (going without armour completely isn't, and it was rare even in the classical Hellenic period). Given that combat in RPGs like DA is inevitably individual, as opposed to formation based, the lack of protection wouldn't make that much sense.

[9TailsFox]

I said I loathed what DA2 did to Isabela.  In fact I loathed everything what DA2 did to DA.

 

For a reminder, this was Isabela. The real Isabela.

 

This is photo of random unimportant NPC you meet in bar.

So according to you this is real Merrill

[bEVEsthda]

Well, my RPG combat in BG, IWD, DA:O, is certainly aiming at being formation based. Just saying.

[Mirdarion]

The problem with using Hellenic fighting styles as an example of a lack of armour being practical, is the way they fought was completely unlike the way characters fight in RPGs. They didn't need significant body armour because they fought using large shields and weapons that didn't require moving the shield away to strike (spears held overarm), and, far more importantly, they fought in formation. Any part of a man's torso not covered by his shield was covered by the shield of the men next to him. Essentially, the front of a phalanx was a solid wall of metal. Under those circumstances, using relatively light torso armour is reasonably practical. (going without armour completely isn't, and it was rare even in the classical Hellenic period). Given that combat in RPGs like DA is inevitably individual, as opposed to formation based, the lack of protection wouldn't make that much sense.

 
 
You also have to consider, that making armour during that time was much harder than the "comparable time" most RPGs are set in. Armour was even more for the rich back then, especially before the iron revolution came to the Greeks. 
Considering that most RPGs are comparable in time to ca. 1100 AD, a Hellenic armour simple doesn't make any sense...

 

Well, my RPG combat in BG, IWD, DA:O, is certainly aiming at being formation based. Just saying.

There is a difference between a formation of four people, and a phalanx based formation. You're not marching slowly towards your enemy etc., you follow typical RPG rules (tank, DD, ranged...).

[The Elder King]

I assumed nothing about you. Just like you, I commented upon the possible choices of the developers.
You post was hardly an argument. It's just a comment. Because you can hardly believe that I will change opinion because you suggest something may be canon?
I extended the exchange with another comment. I can't see how you perceive that I assumed anything about you?

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post. I apologize.
The point of DAI not seeming to be a bigger/better DA2 still stands.
As for the Isabela thing, I know I can't change your opinion. Still, DAO Isabela isn't the 'real' Isabela.

[dirk5027]

come on don't be so self centered, all the people on console can't mod their games, so you don't like heavy armor on your warrior, to bad it's this or nothing, that's just not right.....if many folks out there don't like the sexy choice simply don't wear it, but there should be options for all, the more options the more games sold

Replaying da2 (again) this time on pc, fenris has on champion armor and a much better face, merrill is just gorgeous, male hawk is a half naked bad *ss supermodel and a smart &ss, and having a blast

point being console players shouldn't be left out of options (always played on console, new to pc)

[bEVEsthda]

This is photo of random unimportant NPC you meet in bar.

So according to you this is real Merrill

 

< deleted image >

 

I see your point. You suggest the more extensive fleshing out of personalities in DA2, makes them more "real"?

Well, isn't that very unfortunate then? Given DA2's reception?

I do see your point though. But it just boils down to a quarrel about the word "real", and what is most important for that. An originating appearance and original but sketchy version in a very popular and acclaimed volume, or a changed but more extensively defined character in a followup disaster for the franchise?

 

I'm not going to debate that. But I know what I would choose. I wouldn't have any reappearance. Period.

If I had to, it would have to honor both, in some ways. Pick the most relevant pieces.

[bEVEsthda]

The point of DAI not seeming to be a bigger/better DA2 still stands.

 

If I truly believed that, I wouldn't be here.

[The Elder King]

If I truly believed that, I wouldn't be here.

Fair enough.

[bEVEsthda]

The problem with using Hellenic fighting styles as an example of a lack of armour being practical, is the way they fought was completely unlike the way characters fight in RPGs. They didn't need significant body armour because they fought using large shields and weapons that didn't require moving the shield away to strike (spears held overarm), and, far more importantly, they fought in formation. Any part of a man's torso not covered by his shield was covered by the shield of the men next to him. Essentially, the front of a phalanx was a solid wall of metal. Under those circumstances, using relatively light torso armour is reasonably practical. (going without armour completely isn't, and it was rare even in the classical Hellenic period). Given that combat in RPGs like DA is inevitably individual, as opposed to formation based, the lack of protection wouldn't make that much sense.

 

And the reverse is equally true, DA is a poor example for proving that nude'ish armor is impractical. Which was my  point (I had already stated that sexy armor does not fit into the DA universe. But I can't reasonably expect you to keep track of all my posts). Though, perhaps, my point was, more explicitly, that generalized reasoning that sexy armor is always impractical, is patently false.

 

The overwhelming majority of all warriors who have ever fought in human history, have done so in rather limited armor cover, or none at all.

[Star fury]

Ask and ye shall receive:

 

You lot complain about sexualization of actresses but then act like you don't notice actors in shirtless scenes. Chris Evans aka Captain America was forced to have shirtless scenes by his directors and agent when he was younger.

 

[Medhia_Nox]

@beVETHsda:  Yes, but even though the soldiers of today don't fight in body armor (at least body armor like plate mail) they're not running around scantily clad - and shocking as it is for some people (not you), the reason is not because they're prudes.  It's because it's idiotically impractical nowadays for small groups of soldiers to not be festooned with all the basic essentials they won't have access to for days/months at a time.

 

Let's not forget that those scantily clad Greeks likely would have had camp followers carrying all their crap back in those days.  

 

The concept of the adventurer certainly existed - but it was Achillies and a huge group of dudes - or Odysseus and a huge group of dudes.  Not five plucky outcasts pulled from a high school roster of cliches to show their "deep individuality" who set out of fight creatures that would be the equivalent of our dinosaurs.  

 

Then, let's discuss the climate.  Forgetting there are no seasons in Thedas - some idiot climbing up a mounting scantily clad deserves the frostbite they're going to get.  There is obsessive realism - and then there's telling stories to children who don't think of the simple, most basic concepts.  Ferelden, the Frostback Mountains and Orlais are not notoriously tropical.  (note: I know you already stated it has no particular place in DA - but this is the DA forum.)

 

@nobody in general

 

If people would just call cheap fetishistic titilation what it is - I'd actually have less of a problem with it.  I enjoy plenty of it myself.  I don't force other people to have to endure it for my enjoyment - which is what requesting it in a video game is doing - but given the utter powerlessness of the BSN (especially at this stage) - the discussion of "want" would hardly have drawn my notice if it weren't for the backward bigotry used so that people who feel ostracized can fire back at those they perceive as their attackers. 

[Star fury]

This is photo of random unimportant NPC you meet in bar.

So according to you this is real Merrill

 

Spot on. Bioware also replaced Mika Simmons who was Isabela's voicover in DA:O because she voiced Anora too.

 

 

 

I see your point. You suggest the more extensive fleshing out of personalities in DA2, makes them more "real"?

Well, isn't that very unfortunate then? Given DA2's reception?

I do see your point though. But it just boils down to a quarrel about the word "real", and what is most important for that. An originating appearance and original but sketchy version in a very popular and acclaimed volume, or a changed but more extensively defined character in a followup disaster for the franchise?

 

I'm not going to debate that. But I know what I would choose. I wouldn't have any reappearance. Period.

If I had to, it would have to honor both, in some ways. Pick the most relevant pieces.

I want to burn DA2 at stake but it's characters were not one of it's many problems, actually Bioware's strength is not a story but their characters.

[Eudaemonium]

I want to burn DA2 at stake but it's characters were not one of it's many problems, actually Bioware's strength is not a story but their characters.

 

This is generally true. BioWare stories tend to be fairly predictable, run-of-the-mill affairs with the odd interesting plot twist (KotOR, for example). They tend to create charming, relatable characters, though. I won't even say the characters are especially deep, because they often aren't. What they are is very charming, and they win you over by being eminently likeable more than anything else.

[PinkysPain]

Actually, that's a fairly typical example of breastplate shape (which really does not need to change if the person wearing the suit of armour is female).

 

It's common, not typical ... but as I said, that kinda armour with a clear uniboob would work for everyone.  I don't think male players would be enthused about wearing it though, I certainly don't see many re-enactment armours of similar design.

 

BTW, can someone explain to me why a big deal is made about force directing creases in breast-armour but this kind of historical male armour with an incredibly sharp horizontal crease between the chest and the hoop at the hip gets a free pass? According to the exagerations of the breast-armour disparagers a mittelhau would bisect you with that kind of structural weakness.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

If people would just call cheap fetishistic titilation what it is - I'd actually have less of a problem with it.  I enjoy plenty of it myself.  I don't force other people to have to endure it for my enjoyment - which is what requesting it in a video game is doing - but given the utter powerlessness of the BSN (especially at this stage) - the discussion of "want" would hardly have drawn my notice if it weren't for the backward bigotry used so that people who feel ostracized can fire back at those they perceive as their attackers. 

 

I'm not saying, and if anyone in this thread actually is, then I am totally not in agreement with them, to leave the more full "non-sexy" armor out in favor of the sexy.   So, if you don't want to wear it, you don't need to any more than they do.

 

I think that's the problem here, in a way it's like my mother always thought when it came to me fighting for equal rights for everyone as a Straight White Male.  She always asked me why I am so eager to "give up my rights" and I kept saying "I'm not giving anything up, rights are not a finite resource that I have to give up for someone else to have." and it's the same way here.  Nobody has to give up the more 'realistic' armor for the more 'sexy' armor, there is room for both, or should be...

[xkg]

I find nicely feminine shaped full armors (especialy the hips part) far more "sexy" than the half-naked ones.

Its all about the shapes

 

Something like that seems like a perfect combination of a nicely shaped, practical, medieval times styled female's armor.

 

 

[Voragoras]

As for this amusing perception that nudity in battle is "unrealistic", one may remind you about ancients and warmer climates.

 

The Greek Phalanx, for instance, went into battle dressed only in helmet, shield and some plates protecting lower legs, shoulder and an arm. And it was extremely effective. Extremely!  Athenians, Spartans and Thebeians routinely obliterated many times larger forces, virtually without own losses. Again and again.

 

Besides protection, it's also important to be able to move freely. It's also a question of stamina. Water is important, hampering and warm clothing is not. Clothes were also a health hazard, as a sword, spear or arrow cutting through clothes would pick up material and insert it into the wound, causing potentially lethal infections and reactions.

 

As for "morals", it was such a self-evident thing that you should flaunt your penis into the face of your enemy, that the Greeks would so totally not understand anything at all about this discussion.

 

"Our" morals is not something natural or absolute. Look at native tribes in Amazonas, for a better clue. And ancient peoples certainly didn't share them. Our morals come from a nomadic goat and sheep herding culture, where women were regarded, owned, treated and traded just like any other cattle. The "morals" are ultimately just about possessions and upholding the authority of the chief bull, the clan chief. The most extreme example is surviving in Muslim cultures, with all their covering up and stoning, etc. But Jewish and Christian "morals" are quite related, and not far removed on the full scale.

 

I have to correct this view that the phalanxes of the Greek armies all went into battle with very minimal armour and this somehow justifies semi-nudity in battle. Let me tell you now that the Greek phalanx is a military formation, not an individual solder, and the phalanxes moved forward in a tight arrangement with their shields covering their front lines, with the exposed parts (usually their shoulders, legs, and heads) were all heavily armoured with bronze plate. They needed stamina to march forward in that consistent line for so long, and then to shove their spears and press into the opposing enemy's lines to break their formation, so they only armoured the parts that were exposed behind the shield line... Hence, they didn't go into battle half-naked, and your argument is self-defeating.

 

It was tactics and close military formation that allowed the phalanx soldiers to go relatively light-armoured, and a lone Athenian or Spartan would not march into battle wearing that kind of armour, because he would be slaughtered.

[xelander]

Regarding Greeks: They almost always had armor of some kind, be it a bronze cuirass (classic period), linothorax (Iphicratean hoplites) or later on a chainmail shirt (the thorakitai from the Roman period). it is true that having a large shield allows you to skimp on the armor, but the majority Greek hoplites had some kind of torso protection. There were some hoplites who had only the shield and the spear (and kopis, too), but they were small in number and used in support roles - because of their lightened load, they were able to move more quickly on the battlefield, effecting and/or preventing flanking.

 

Regarding plate armor and functionality - with the exception of size, male and female plate armor would look exactly the same. You want the blows to glance off and away from you, whereas the boob armor would direct the force of some blows right toward your sternum - you won't like that at all. XKG's first and second picture above illustrate exactly those two types of armor I'm talking about.

 

So far, Cassandra's, Blackwall's and Cullen's armors look quite realistic and aesthetically pleasing to me. Well, except maybe for the giant ridge sticking out of Blackwall's right pauldron. But still, I like the direction so far.

 

Edit: Right - forgot to mention that the Greeks wore greaves on at least one of their legs (the forward/shield one, for sure). Stuff form "300" and the like might look cool but is neither historically accurate, nor functional.

[Voragoras]

The overwhelming majority of all warriors who have ever fought in human history, have done so in rather limited armor cover, or none at all.

 

Primarily because of the costs and the availability of raw materials required for outfitting and crafting the armour, which is why the European knights would wear full plate (the efficiency of which is debatable, actually, but there we go) and the regular soldiers would march into battle in a standard chain and cloth combination. It was also expected in the earlier times of the Roman army that the soldiers would outfit themselves, and you had to own a certain amount of property to qualify for armed service, so I imagine (this is speculation, my main field isn't medieval history) something similar would have been present in the medieval world, with the knights providing the armaments for their soldiers, or something.

[Voragoras]

^ 300 isn't real? But... Gladiator still is, right???

[Star fury]

^ 300 isn't real? But... Gladiator still is, right???

Bah, is he going to tell us that Santa Claus is not real too?!