1832 réponses à ce sujet

[Panda]

I'd much rather have a less muscular qunari male and keep the current qunari female model than have the female beefed up to the male state. In my eyes the male is definitely not aesthetically pleasing, and while that is clearly not the end-all-be-all of character design, it would simply make me not want to play them. I don't like hulks.

@Panda: Of course I can find people with too much (or too little) muscle and/or too much (or too little) fat not handsome/beautiful. As I said before, you don't magically become visually attractive because you consider yourself so or because you have a great personality. Just like I don't get any cleverer because I think my eyebrows look awesome.

@the person asking about the skimpy male armor design in FF: I'm all for it. Give the ladies and gay men something to drool over too. Would only be fair.

 

I like to keep qunari as distinctive race other than grey skinned humans with horns. Especially when my PS3 don't even have grey skinned option for qunaris and you can be hornless. Personally I like think the "hulk" look is aesthetically pleasant although it's not attractive to me if that makes sense.

 

I'm not sure what your comment towards me had to do with qunaris though.

[Hazegurl]

There's still a world of difference between lightweight armour and a wire G-string though.
Anything can have a positive spin on it, but to suggest game designers put women in battle underwear to indicate that they are more skilled than men is tantamount to peeing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.
It just isn't true.
If people want their female characters to run around like the VS Angels on roids, that's cool, but lets not pretend its for anything other than people's viewing pleasure

I wasn't talking about G string armor, just armor that isn't as large or full bodied as male armor.  I think I read something a long time ago about how armor was more of a hinderence to anyone wearing it more than a benefit anyway.  With full armor the wearer could be carrying about 100 extra pounds on their body.  By the time they started to move, most would be too tired and completely out of breath to engage in full on combat, especially if the battle lasted a long time.  Which made their defeat by those not wearing armor to be the more likely outcome.

 

It sort of makes IB's boob plate armor banter even more irrelevant as is wondering why he isn't wearing any armor. lol! Perhaps IB really is onto something when he walks into battle with just a few straps and some tats on his arms.  It doesn't seem logical to step onto any battlefield in armor, period.

[Seraphim24]

That picture of Rasaan is too prettified.

 

Yes, we must crush this malevolent evil known as pretty! In the name of justice! Pretty has invaded our schools and infected the minds of children with it's malicious bile!

 

[The Baconer]

I wasn't talking about G string armor, just armor that isn't as large or full bodied as male armor.  I think I read something a long time ago about how armor was more of a hinderence to anyone wearing it more than a benefit anyway.  With full armor the wearer could be carrying about 100 extra pounds on their body.  By the time they started to move, most would be too tired and completely out of breath to engage in full on combat, especially if the battle lasted a long time. 

 

[...]

 

It doesn't seem logical to step onto any battlefield in armor, period.

 

This is erroneous.

[Panda]

Yes, we must crush this malevolent evil known as pretty! In the name of justice! Pretty has invaded our schools and infected the minds of children with it's malicious bile!

 

 

Meaning she's too humanized when she's supposed to look like qunari instead of human.

[KBomb]

Meaning she's too humanized when she's supposed to look like qunari instead of human.

So is it because she is humanized or that she is too pretty for qunari? Humanized and pretty are not mutually exclusive. I am certain there are highly beautiful qunari women, just as there are some less attractive ones.

[Seraphim24]

Meaning she's too humanized when she's supposed to look like qunari instead of human.

 

That's the diplomatic way to phrase the quest to destroy pretty and nice looking things, sure.

[KBomb]

I wasn't talking about G string armor, just armor that isn't as large or full bodied as male armor. I think I read something a long time ago about how armor was more of a hinderence to anyone wearing it more than a benefit anyway. With full armor the wearer could be carrying about 100 extra pounds on their body. By the time they started to move, most would be too tired and completely out of breath to engage in full on combat, especially if the battle lasted a long time. Which made their defeat by those not wearing armor to be the more likely outcome.

It sort of makes IB's boob plate armor banter even more irrelevant as is wondering why he isn't wearing any armor. lol! Perhaps IB really is onto something when he walks into battle with just a few straps and some tats on his arms. It doesn't seem logical to step onto any battlefield in armor, period.

Actually, armor--even plate-- was made to be weight distributed and was relatively light. I wear around the same weight when I go hiking. It was also articulated to allow freedom of movement.

I do think it's silly for everyone to take Bull's statement to heart. If Bioware meant it as a serious statement, I doubt they would have chosen the only warrior who doesn't wear armor. It would make more sense to have Blackwall say it. As I said, a lot if the banter is a kick back to some of the discussions on the forum. I think this is one if them. Iron Bull saying it is ironic, which is what the intention was.

[Panda]

So is it because she is humanized or that she is too pretty for qunari? Humanized and pretty are not mutually exclusive. I am certain there are highly beautiful qunari women, just as there are some less attractive ones.

 

 

That's the diplomatic way to phrase the quest to destroy pretty and nice looking things, sure.

 

In their defense, it's less vociferous effort compared to many gaming companies and their respective fan bases, but it's still there.

 

Like I earlier said she should have more "monstrous" look meaning that she shouldn't look like horned human. She's prettified and humanized cause compared to male qunari she looks much more like human, doesn't have "crude" facial features and doesn't seem to be big and have much muscles. That's for the comic look.

 

In DAI qunaris both men and women look closer to each other which is good, they look like same race.

[Seraphim24]

Like I earlier said she should have more "monstrous" look meaning that she shouldn't look like horned human. She's prettified and humanized cause compared to male qunari she looks much more like human, doesn't have "crude" facial features and doesn't seem to be big and have much muscles. That's for the comic look.

 

In DAI qunaris both men and women look closer to each other which is good, they look like same race.

 

But why did was it decided to go with that concept in the first place? I'll never understand why people treat everything in the game as some kind of given that has rules they must obey... the game was a made up thing, it's all fantasy, they could have had just the human race, or they could of had aliens that are ultra-human looking... everything that resulted was the product of conscious effort on people's part.

 

In this instance there actually was a competing concept that was abandoned.

 

If you want to suggest there's no point to having a strange looking race if you aren't going to make them different then perhaps they shouldn't have had extra races at all. /Shrug. Either way, it's all up to people (who make the rules), no one is bound by anything.

[Hazegurl]

This is erroneous.

http://www.livescien...ght-energy.html

 

http://www.history.c...-not-have-shone

 

@KBomb, but this isn't modern day armor or vests we're talking about, but armor that existed a long time ago.  Something that is usually worn in the fantasy genre. 

 

I agree that IB's statement really isn't meant to be taken seriously but it seems like so many here are so I wanted to point out that if we're talking about realism and armor, it seems like less was more effective anyway.

[Panda]

Eeeh. I like to have different races in the game and I like qunaris design especially in the DA2 and I hate when male part of race looks very different from humans, but female version is toned down so much that it looks human with horns/different colored skin etc. So I don't like much take on Rasshan especially in the book cover where none of her picture says qunari other than horns.

[midnight tea]

You've got that backwards. The boob plate armor would provide far more protection than fighting unarmored.

 

I realize not everyone is reading every post in this thread, but I've covered this twice before. It would protect just as well against weapons that wound by slashing or stabbing, as they can't get through plate armor. Cutting or stabbing through plate armor only happens in Hollywood. In the real world you would be more likely to damage your sword or pike by hitting someone with plate armor in the chest, than you are to injure the wearer. The objective with those weapons is to go for spots between the armor.

 

Yes, and the boob plate armor is most dangerous if a person wearing it is hit in the chest. There are entire webpages explaining that this is the EXACT problem with the boob-plate armor.

 

So thank yo for proving my point.

[xkg]

Yes, and the boob plate armor is most dangerous if a person wearing it is hit in the chest. There are entire webpages explaining that this is the EXACT problem with the boob-plate armor.

 

So thank yo for proving my point.

 

Give me the link to some page with actual tests - like for example, hitting 100 times boob armour vs hitting 100 times flat armour - not just theories. Otherwise it didn't happen. 

[Han Shot First]

Yes, and the boob plate armor is most dangerous if a person wearing it is hit in the chest. There are entire webpages explaining that this is the EXACT problem with the boob-plate armor.

 

So thank yo for proving my point.

 

No, you're wrong.

 

A sword can't cut through plate armor, despite what Hollywood might lead you to believe. Read accounts of some of the trials by combat in the Late Middle Ages. The last one in France ended with one of the knights dropping his weapon, wrestling his opponent to the ground and struggling to get his helmet off, and needing to hammer at a buckle keeping the helmet in place with the hilt of his dagger. Once he finally got his opponent's helmet off he was able to finish him with a dagger. He was forced to have to wrestle armor off of his opponent in order to kill him. With slashing or stabbing weapons it is very difficult to wound someone wearing plate. You either have to go for gaps in the armor, or like the knight in that trial by combat, knock the helmet off your opponent.

 

Plate armor, even of the 'boob' armor type, would leave the wearer extremely well protected. More well protected in fact than wearing chain, padded armor, or leather armor. 

[KBomb]

No, you're wrong.

A sword can't cut through plate armor, despite what Hollywood might lead you to believe. Read accounts of some of the trials by combat in the Late Middle Ages. The last one in France ended with one of the knights dropping his weapon, wrestling his opponent to the ground and struggling to get his helmet off, and needing to hammer at a buckle keeping the helmet in place with the hilt of his dagger. Once he finally got his opponent's helmet off he was able to finish him with a dagger. He was forced to have to wrestle armor off of his opponent in order to kill him. With slashing or stabbing weapons it is very difficult to wound someone wearing plate. You either have to go for gaps in the armor, or like the knight in that trial by combat, knock the helmet off your opponent.

Plate armor, even of the 'boob' armor type, would leave the wearer extremely well protected. More well protected in fact than wearing chain, padded armor, or leather armor.

I remember reading about a test once. They used the same type of armor, crossbow and bolt that would have been used in the fifteenth century or so and the bolt penetrated about an inch in the armor when fired at a semi-close range (can't remember the exact) and it penetrated about an inch in. Considering all armor had padding underneath and it takes about two inches in to damage the internal organs enough to kill someone without medical treatment, I would say the armor was pretty stout.

Couple that with in-game mechanics like guard and barrier, I don't think the armor from Origins would be "more dangerous than being naked", as the poster claimed.

I'll look and try to find the article later.

[The Baconer]

http://www.livescien...ght-energy.html

 

http://www.history.c...-not-have-shone

 

Yes, full plate requires more physical exertion than going without, but armored knights were often mounted as heavy cavalry. We're also making a plethora of assumption in the idea that plate armor "may have" been the decider in historical battles, most notably Agincourt, while conveniently ignoring the poor strategical decisions made by the losing parties in those engagements. Note that the English fielded their very own armored men-at-arms in that same battle.

 

It is another thing entirely to declare "It doesn't seem logical to step onto any battlefield in armor, period." (something neither of the articles would even support) even though humans have literally never stopped using it in warfare since its application.

 

 

No, you're wrong.

 

A sword can't cut through plate armor, despite what Hollywood might lead you to believe. Read accounts of some of the trials by combat in the Late Middle Ages. The last one in France ended with one of the knights dropping his weapon, wrestling his opponent to the ground and struggling to get his helmet off, and needing to hammer at a buckle keeping the helmet in place with the hilt of his dagger. Once he finally got his opponent's helmet off he was able to finish him with a dagger. He was forced to have to wrestle armor off of his opponent in order to kill him. With slashing or stabbing weapons it is very difficult to wound someone wearing plate. You either have to go for gaps in the armor, or like the knight in that trial by combat, knock the helmet off your opponent.

 

Plate armor, even of the 'boob' armor type, would leave the wearer extremely well protected. More well protected in fact than wearing chain, padded armor, or leather armor. 

 

Plate armor was shaped to deflect blows, thus redirecting the kinetic energy. While it is all-but-impossible to slash through plate armor, serious bruising and broken bones could still be easily inflicted. Boob armor works in opposition to the logic behind plate armor because it would either direct attacks toward the sternum, where the armor would be weakest thanks to the shape of the boob-cups, or allow the kinetic energy to be focused on a smaller area smack-dab on your chest.

[Han Shot First]

 

Plate armor was shaped to deflect blows, thus redirecting the kinetic energy. While it is all-but-impossible to slash through plate armor, serious bruising and broken bones could still be easily inflicted. Boob armor works in opposition to the logic behind plate armor because it would either direct attacks toward the sternum, where the armor would be weakest thanks to the shape of the boob-cups, or allow the kinetic energy to be focused on a smaller area smack-dab on your chest.

 

Maces and war hammers were capable of breaking bones through plate, but swords and pikes were not. The former are going to be a problem however no matter what armor you were wearing, and swords and pikes are going to have a much easier time with leather or padded armor. In accounts of trials by combat during the Late Middle Ages where the two fighters were well armored, the fighters had a difficult time injuring each other through the plate armor. Swords only inflicted wounds when a fighter landed a strike between gaps in the armor.

 

'Boob' plate would leave someone reasonably well protected, even if it doesn't provide the same level of protection as standard plate.

[Mihura]

So let me get this straight, people that wanted to have choices for armors do not want others to have the option to have muscles in women protagonists? kinda ironic no? Seems kinda logical that people can have choices in that regard. I sure want that, just like people want more fanservice.

 

[Grieving Natashina]

This has been an interesting sword discussion.  I figure I'd do a little digging and see what an outside perspective had to say about it.

 

http://www.thearma.o...tm#.VUf5EvlVhBc

 

 

8. Some swords could cut through plate armor.

 

False. Although maile armor ("chain mail") was not foolproof against strong sword cuts, a fighter in full plate armor was however effectively immune to the edged blows of swords. There are no real-life accounts of edge blows effectively cutting through an armored harness; that is one reason why plate armor was so popular and so much effort put into perfecting it. Though swords were not capable of cutting through plate armor, a fighter would not avoid striking edge blows against an armored opponent if it might bruise or stun him, knock him about, tear into or crack open his helmet or visor, slice through straps and tear off pieces, or otherwise weaken his defense against a more effective technique such as a thrust.

 

 While sword cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh might have no effect against soft or hard types of armor, if delivered with great force they could sometimes traumatized the tissue and bone beneath and thereby incapacitate a target. Although, to be accurate, not all armor was of equal quality and some type of helms could indeed be partially split by edge blows from swords. While there are many images from Medieval sources of swords cutting into armor or through helmets, nothing in the historical accounts of actual armored combat or the voluminous instructional texts on armored fighting supports this as being common.

 

 Modern experiments, when performed under realistic conditions with historically accurate weapons using proper technique against historically accurate reproduction armor, have yet to convincingly duplicate what is depicted in such images. An armored fighter was still vulnerable to sharply-pointed tapering swords and other weapons employed in thrusting as well as to crushing from specialized anti-armor weapons. Yet even thrusts against plate armor were difficult to succeed with because it was intentionally designed to deflect and resist them, thus gaps and joints were typically targeted. Yet descriptions of fights with specialized weapons designed for fighting plate armor, such as pole-axes and maces, reveal even they were able to pierce through armor only infrequently. More often they were effective in simply denting and cracking armor to stun and bruise the wearer into a vulnerable condition. But, given strong effort and a hit to the right spot, a rigid point stabbing strongly could puncture armor even if its cutting edge would not.  (See: "Medieval Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005)

 

 

A video that demonstrates bone breaking with a sword.

Spoiler

 

So Baconer's evidence about swords breaking bone is looking very strong based upon what I was able to find.  I'll admit, I'm enjoying this debate quite a lot.  I love historical debates that make me actually go and hunt down sources.  

 

Some display of accurate 15th century Medieval fighting, just for some fun.

Spoiler

 

Note: This isn't a post for or against boob plate.  There have been some valid points on all sides that I've been enjoying reading.  It's merely addressing the side topic about swords and plate armor in general.

[KBomb]

So let me get this straight, people that wanted to have choices for armors do not want others to have the option to have muscles in women protagonists? kinda ironic no? Seems kinda logical that people can have choices in that regard. I sure want that, just like people want more fanservice.

 

Who said they didn't want anyone to have the option for muscles in females?

 

I certainly don't want a muscular female forced upon me, but I would absolutely welcome the option for others.

[midnight tea]

Give me the link to some page with actual tests - like for example, hitting 100 times boob armour vs hitting 100 times flat armour - not just theories. Otherwise it didn't happen. 

 

Nobody in their right mind would conduct such test, just like nobody in their right mind would create a sword to test if a sharp hilt and a blunt edge is safer for the user.

 

Best I can bring is an opinion form somebody who specifically makes armors: http://kotaku.com/58...who-makes-armor

[Grieving Natashina]

Who said they didn't want anyone to have the option for muscles in females?

 

Yeah, I'm confused by that one as well.   I've been mainly absorbing the conversation, but Han's and Baconer's debate got me curious about swords.   I haven't seen anything like that though....

[Mihura]

Who said they didn't want anyone to have the option for muscles in females?

 

I was not talking about you obviously but there are other posters that are happy with the current female qunari, I am not. I want more diversity for the female bodies and little less typical beauty. 

[Grieving Natashina]

I was not talking about you obviously but there are other posters that are happy with the current female qunari, I am not. I want more diversity for the female bodies and little less typical beauty. 

Ah, okay.  I see where you're coming from now.