In that case, it would be available to all PCs, but I see your point at least in the abstract.
Indeed it would, hence the moderate perspective. It's not about gender, it's about variety regardless.
In regards to clothing, and indeed almost everything other than armour, I would agree -- even just one or two sets of armour that are in the game, and have relevant drawbacks, I wouldn't mind being less protective (I would mind if they afforded the same armour bonus as other sets; that doen't make sense). I do think that wanting to wear something that affords very little protection into battle would be by far a minority opinion, but again, I wouldn't mind seeing a character who it made sense for wearing it. If there was such a character that it made sense for, I then wouldn't mind if you could take their armour, one way or another. Since it is very unlikely that someone would want to trade in a greater chance of keeping alive for looking 'hot', I would not expect this to be very many, if any, characters. I wouldn't've minded if Isabela wore revealing leather armour, for instance -- it would've suited her character. I did somewhat mind her wearing what she did wear, due to how impractical it is for what she did, but I can tolerate it better with that character than I could if Aveline had worn something equally impractical.
One would think if they were more revealing that there would be some reason, and its main point would be one other than protection. This is especially notable where Mage gear is concerned, but keep in mind that DA has a history of revealing armors, most notably on a Mage and a Rogue character, with the Rogue's gear keeping up with what it needed to be. This suggests that DA and DA2, and thus DA in general. Absurdities like this are obviously intended, and we're seeing more of it with the Iron Bull it seems. These things give us a measure for what is practical, even when absurd, in the universe. One just accepts that it works because it has to work for the game to work, otherwise a character like the Iron Bull would go entirely unused.
Still I'd tend to agree that gear that covered less would be less protective, but would have its own reason for wearing it beyond the visual - likely having to do with mobility or magical perks.
Clothing, certainly. Armour... well, there have been cultures who -- for whatever reason, be it heat, lack of resources, et cetera -- haven't worn much if any armour. If there is such a culture where it makes sense in Dragon Age, I'm fine with them not wearing much armour, equally between men and women. However, once people actually do start wearing armour, they cover up their vital areas first. That includes the chest and the abdomen, which are the areas most commonly left exposed by 'sexy' armour. Even in ancient Egypt, a very hot climate, soldiers often wore a band across the torso (generally the first area people protect), and the Pharoahs sometimes wore more complete armour. It's very rare that if somebody has the means to protect themselves more fully going into battle, they don't.
It's easy to forget how protective wear evolved over thousands of years, and devolved. Moving ahead for one culture, sagnating in another, having cultural strings attached to some, but practicality dominating over others, expirements and ideas of what would work, some panning out, others failing. One culture ahead prior going backwards, or collapsing, another pulling ahead. All throughout our timeframe, side by side - even today we aren't all on the same level, but we never have been.
The idea of what was important to protect has also evolved over time, we often think of the torso, but we have a very in depth knowledge of what's in there now - it's hard to put ourselves in the perspective of a culture that protected the feet over their torso or neck, or their hands because they needed them to work tools, over other parts. What's been protected has changed a lot, not as much as 'how' we protected ourselves, obviously. And then there's the 'why' protective things for the feet went far beyond battle or hunting, while a culture that didn't typically protect the torso could easily still wrap themselves in skins and furs against weather. There's no simple overview of this, because Human culture goes throughout all of recorded history, and well into times prior.
Interesting choices are rather subjective, but yes, I agree that there should be a variety of choices, especially with regards to armour customisation.
No doubt, but I still feel it's important to think of things audiences haven't seen before, while this ensuring that a given proposition follows. Note that this doesn't exclude the old, or the less less surprising, this is an accent, a supplemental to the greater whole.
I'm fine with finding a wacky suit of armour every now and again. Perhaps some mad mage left a particularly odd suit hidden away in a cave or whatnot. That's cool. What I've been arguing for is that the norm, the basic suits of armour, and indeed most if not all of the best suits of armour, are practical and the sort of thing the average warrior would be wearing on the battlefield.
With the DA universe we go by what we've seen, best for the Inquisitor? We'll see, but best for a companion? They'll look as they look, and they'll have to be effective, regardless of whether a character like the Iron Bull is in practical, fully protective, armor. Remember, a setting . . . sets . . . its own levels of acceptable absurdity, and it's been willing to sacrifice practicality for 'because we want the character to look like this' since the beginning, with DA:O.
Right or wrong? You know my position at this point, I'm okay with all variations of armor, practical and impractical, beyond and in between, plain and ornate and otherwise . . . because variety is what I find when I look at reality. People never cease to surprise or amaze me.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
