I honestly don't understand how someone could think this armor is "unrealistic" and "impractical" and "deadly" :
Yet, are perfectly fine with these:
It's people ascribing their own personal morals on what should be and shouldn't be in a game assuming they are correct because it feels 'wrong' to them.
Established by whom? Iron Bull? The same warrior who doesn't even wear proper armor at all?
And he explains (in banter with Dorian, who points this out) that this is a cultural thing. Also - despite qunari resistance to damage, Iron bull's body is a collection of nasty scars.
A "modicum of protection" is offered, as is mobility. Unless you want to wave goodbye to most of the mage armor, as well. No one said rune protection can replace an entire armor, or said that you stated as much. However, if there are properties in place to cast aside impractical armor (metal armor with lightening bolts or ice spells or cloth jackets for mages) for one small thing, I think it can be done for another-- unless it's an unpopular feature. Then it has to be "real".
I'm pretty sure mages or rogues aren't supposed to be damage sponges, unlike armor-clad characters - we see that reflected in armors worn by companions, which is specific to class they represent. And mages are either predominantly ranged characters who cast magic to have (automatic) barriers on themselves, while rogues use invisibility and mobility to avoid damage - therefore mage or rogue armor is enough for them.
Or because the lore simply hasn't explored how magic would change warfare. If you try and make up excuses for other errors you wind up with a mess of contradictions.
I don't have to make up excuses when the game offers you a crafting system where all the proprieties of materials are listed and can be combined to armor appropriate to the class - they have a ton of different abilities, from enhancing the channeling of magic for mages (mostly cloth), to improved constitution for tanks (mostly metals), or non-specific properties like increased healing. We also know that Thedosians use plethora of runes and enchantments, both offensive and defensive - maybe you should check that out before you accuse me of making stuff up??
What has been established right from the first game is, that boob armour works very well in the world of Thedas. Almost every single female armour in DA:O is basically boob armor. They worked back then, there is no reason why they shouldn't now.
From what I've seen in Origins, it's a stretch to call them "boob armors" - and most armors with boobs I've seen in Origins has been made out of leather, not metal.
Also, if they went as far as to give characters comments about the impracticality of boob or ornamental armor and even left a body with chainmail bikini on and funny amulet to loot it from (called Victim Of Fashion, with -1 cunning, -100% to all defenses, afaik), then it's pretty obvious what they intend to establish.
midnight_tea, on 17 May 2015, 10:25PM said:
And he explains (in banter with Dorian, who points this out) that this is a cultural thing. Also - despite qunari resistance to damage, Iron bull's body is a collection of nasty scars.
So, Bioware used Iron Bull as a mouth-piece to establish what proper and practical armor should be and that the armor used in Origins is now ridiculous. Yet, they chose a warrior character with the most impractical armor of all to be said mouth-piece? It's almost as if Bioware was using a bit of irony and humor to poke a bit of fun at the stuff we argue about on the forums, huh? Also, as you stated, Iron Bull's body is full of scars which screams the armor he is wearing is impractical. Qunari might have some damage resistance, but they went down like every other enemy in DAO and DA2.
I'm pretty sure mages or rogues aren't supposed to be damage sponges, unlike armor-clad characters - we see that reflected in armors worn by companions, which is specific to class they represent. And mages are either predominantly ranged characters who cast magic to have (automatic) barriers on themselves, while rogues use invisibility and mobility to avoid damage - therefore mage or rogue armor is enough for them
See, here is the issue with statements like this. You build your argument on "realism" to back up claims that this armor is nonsense, then use "fantasy mechanics" to back up those same claims when defending the use of other impractical armors. It's either one or the other. If we're going to discuss this armor being unrealistic in a fantasy world, you can't turn around and say, "Well, that armor would be okay because magic." Mages are supposed to be deadly--the games practically melt that into our brains. You don't think strategically, the enemy would have archers or other mages in wait to take out mages? They can't--by lore--hold barrier forever. Anyone worth their salt would just wait and pluck them from the battle. Ranged or not, wearing cloth armor is useless. As for rogues--same thing. Rogues only stay in stealth when not attacking. Once they make a move, their position is known and other rogues can easily take them out. Especially another rogue who can also use stealth. If you're a duel-wielder, you have to get right in the middle of the action. You might have a swiftness, but so do the enemy rogues. Wearing cloth is useless. Warriors also have the guard ability and thanks to enchantments, can utilize their guard to be stronger every time someone strikes them. The warrior won't take damage until the guard is depleted. Sounds like a barrier for a warrior to me.
I don't have to make up excuses when the game offers you a crafting system where all the proprieties of materials are listed and can be combined to armor appropriate to the class - they have a ton of different abilities, from enhancing the channeling of magic for mages (mostly cloth), to improved constitution for tanks (mostly metals), or non-specific properties like increased healing. We also know that Thedosians use plethora of runes and enchantments, both offensive and defensive - maybe you should check that out before you accuse me of making stuff up??
I know this wasn't replied to me, but armor can be interchangeable. A warrior can wear armor that protects against spells and improve his guard.
From what I've seen in Origins, it's a stretch to call them "boob armors" - and most armors with boobs I've seen in Origins has been made out of leather, not metal.
Scale, plate and Dragonbone all had "boob plates". As for the bolded, those are the very armors people are defending and want some variation of back. Bikini chainmail was brought up for strawman arguments and frankly, they shouldn't even be aligned with the Origins armor, since Bioware has never employed bikini chainmail.
Also, if they went as far as to give characters comments about the impracticality of boob or ornamental armor and even left a body with chainmail bikini on and funny amulet to loot it from (called Victim Of Fashion, with -1 cunning, -100% to all defenses, afaik), then it's pretty obvious what they intend to establish.
As I said, it's almost as if they were having a bit of fun at our expense, doesn't it? Unless you think that is beyond them, in which case you'd have to believe that they also intended and established one to be able to protect themselves with cheese wheels and hams and bananas tied to sticks.
I don't understand why you guys specifically want boob plate armour. As in someone, while crafting a metal breastplate, decided to also hammer out two metal cups in order to encase somebody's soft fleshy boobs.
I mean, we already have sexy revealing mage robes (Vivienne) and form-fitting rogue leathers (Isabela and Sera). And those, in my opinion, make complete sense because rogues and mages either favour dexterity and mobility or are standing in the background trying not to get hit. They also make sense in the specific contexts of the characters because Vivienne favours fashion over utility and Isabela enjoys drawing attention to her physical physique. Maybe when we move up north in the next few games we'll see even more sexy mage robes and possibly even warriors in revealing leather armour (maybe with metal shoulder plates and helmets). Nobody is arguing that those go against practicality and reason. Can't you be satisfied with those?
Iron Bull and that shirtless Avaar lady that somebody posted a few pages back also kind of make sense because of historical cultures who don't bother wearing clothes in battle because they would get in the way.
Why do you specifically want metal boobs? As opposed leather or cloth boobs.
I don't understand why you guys specifically want boob plate armor
I want gladiator style armor for my badass warrior male character as well. A lot of people already said why they want it back in. BECAUSE OPTIONS.
I don't understand why you guys specifically want boob plate armour. As in someone, while crafting a metal breastplate, decided to also hammer out two metal cups in order to encase somebody's soft fleshy boobs.
I mean, we already have sexy revealing mage robes (Vivienne) and form-fitting rogue leathers (Isabela and Sera). And those, in my opinion, make complete sense because rogues and mages either favour dexterity and mobility or are standing in the background trying not to get hit. They also make sense in the specific contexts of the characters because Vivienne favours fashion over utility and Isabela enjoys drawing attention to her physical physique. Maybe when we move up north in the next few games we'll see even more sexy mage robes and possibly even warriors in revealing leather armour (maybe with metal shoulder plates and helmets). Nobody is arguing that those go against practicality and reason. Can't you be satisfied with those?
I suppose some want it because they liked how it looked in Origins and want to have a set for their Inquisitor. I suppose some people just are weary with what they feel are bland armors in DAI and would like some variety and I suppose some just want more options. I have already stated how it makes little sense for mages and rogues to wear flimsy armor. If it makes sense for Vivienne to favor fashion over utility, why can't the Inquisitor? It would be optional. As for being satisfied, the same can be said for those wanting more Skyhold clothing, more hairstyles, more armor variants, etc. The question should be: Why do people care what optional armor people would like or wouldn't like? If you don't like it, don't equip it.
Iron Bull and that shirtless Avaar lady that somebody posted a few pages back also kind of make sense because of historical cultures who don't bother wearing clothes in battle because they would get in the way.
DAI isn't a historical simulator. If people are going to argue that "boob plate" armor is impractical and should be excluded for that purpose, then all armor should be held to the same scrutiny and standards. Personally, I have no issue with Iron Bull's armor, nor Vivienne's or Sera's. I just find it a bit hypocritical and humorous that such impractical armor gets free passes like magic and enchantments that make them more practical, but those practicalities can't be applied to the Origins armor.
Why do you specifically want metal boobs? As opposed leather or cloth boobs.
Some people like that style of armor. I suppose they'd want plate armor in the style, as well as leather and cloth. Why do you specifically want to exclude optional armor?
Best DAO armors didn't have boob plates, mostly medium armors did. Templar armor, Cailan's armor and armor of sentinel are all more aesthetically pleasing than boob plate armor. I don't really know what BW was thinking with boob plates, they look downright ugly and unfitting to those armors that would have all looked better without. Seriously this trend should just die already.
This is way more aesthetically pleasing armor than any of boob plates:
I honestly don't understand how someone could think this armor is "unrealistic" and "impractical" and "deadly" :
I'm more bothered by the mutant abominations wearing the armor.
Best DAO armors didn't have boob plates, mostly medium armors did. Templar armor, Cailan's armor and armor of sentinel are all more aesthetically pleasing than boob plate armor. I don't really know what BW was thinking with boob plates, they look downright ugly and unfitting to those armors that would have all looked better without. Seriously this trend should just die already.
This is way more aesthetically pleasing armor than any of boob plates:
Whether it looks better or not, is your opinion and nothing more. Personally, I dislike all of those armors. I don't care for bulky armor. Wade's Heavy Dragonscale was pretty great armor, imo and suited my warrior's needs just fine. You didn't like it, you didn't have to equip it--just as I didn't equip the Tin Man suits.
Also, why does it even matter that he "best armors" didn't have the plates? No one is asking that all armor be removed and replaced with this instead. You could still equip it. What a strange justification.
Whether it looks better or not, is your opinion and nothing more. Personally, I dislike all of those armors. I don't care for bulky armor. Wade's Heavy Dragonscale was pretty great armor, imo and suited my warrior's needs just fine. You didn't like it, you didn't have to equip it--just as I didn't equip the Tin Man suits.
Also, why does it even matter that he "best armors" didn't have the plates? No one is asking that all armor be removed and replaced with this instead. You could still equip it. What a strange justification.
Yes it's my opinion. Although I can't fathom how anyone would find DAO's boob plates aesthetically pleasing compared to form fitting armor or some other ways to do female armor.. but I guess some do. 
Personally I see it just cop-out, way to do fastly armor for females by slapping boobs to male armor without thinking what would look better and maybe even look more realistical.
I'm meaning best stats-wise here.
Yes it's my opinion. Although I can't fathom how anyone would find DAO's boob plates aesthetically pleasing compared to form fitting armor or some other ways to do female armor.. but I guess some do.
I'm meaning best stats-wise here.
I just want the armors like the Fire Emblem franchise has.
Forget The Witcher and The Elder Scrolls, be more like Fire Emblem Bioware.
Boob plate armor seems pretty irrelevant when it comes to Dragon Age. There's a lot of it in Origins, but the armor designs are dreadfully banal. Like, what the hell do I care if it's molded to look like a female torso when it's still encompassed by drab plates or generic leather suits. Single digit levels are pretty much a vast wasteland of junk that you just use until you get something better, but not much better far as that game was concerned.
I just want the armors like the Fire Emblem franchise has.
Forget The Witcher and The Elder Scrolls, be more like Fire Emblem Bioware.
Hmm I don't know if DA should go into more JRPG style either. Some people already think it's style is too "cartoony".
Hmm I don't know if DA should go into more JRPG style either. Some people already think it's style is too "cartoony".
Don't back out now, Panda. You're in this boat too ever since you used Titania as an example of good armor. 
Those people can have the options they like as well.
Don't back out now, Panda. You're in this boat too ever since you used Titania as an example of good armor.
Those people can have the options they like as well.
I do like JRPG's style in general, but I like DAI's current style well enough
I just think it needs more armor options, it doesn't really have lot of different armors for classes, though you can customise your armors with tinting and adding boots and gloves I'd still like to see more schematics. Many armor was just recycled though game so you often ended up using armor in end game that you used in the beginning of game, different name and stats, but same look ^^;
So, Bioware used Iron Bull as a mouth-piece to establish what proper and practical armor should be and that the armor used in Origins is now ridiculous. Yet, they chose a warrior character with the most impractical armor of all to be said mouth-piece? It's almost as if Bioware was using a bit of irony and humor to poke a bit of fun at the stuff we argue about on the forums, huh? Also, as you stated, Iron Bull's body is full of scars which screams the armor he is wearing is impractical. Qunari might have some damage resistance, but they went down like every other enemy in DAO and DA2.
Problem with your argument is that his armor has been noted as being impractical in the game itself - so it's not like game devs or character himself are unaware of it and are committing a logical blunder. Far from it. Bull simply chooses this type of armor for personal reasons (thrill of fight) as well as cultural ones (he's been raised to believe that Qunari wear full armor only when they go on actual war/Qunari invasion). The reason he has scars I've pointed out already, so I'm not sure why you're repeating it and treating it as if it strengthens your argument, when it perfectly fits mine. The impracticality of some of his armor hhas been shown to have their consequences.
See, here is the issue with statements like this. You build your argument on "realism" to back up claims that this armor is nonsense, then use "fantasy mechanics" to back up those same claims when defending the use of other impractical armors. It's either one or the other. If we're going to discuss this armor being unrealistic in a fantasy world, you can't turn around and say, "Well, that armor would be okay because magic." Mages are supposed to be deadly--the games practically melt that into our brains. You don't think strategically, the enemy would have archers or other mages in wait to take out mages? They can't--by lore--hold barrier forever. Anyone worth their salt would just wait and pluck them from the battle. Ranged or not, wearing cloth armor is useless. As for rogues--same thing. Rogues only stay in stealth when not attacking. Once they make a move, their position is known and other rogues can easily take them out. Especially another rogue who can also use stealth. If you're a duel-wielder, you have to get right in the middle of the action. You might have a swiftness, but so do the enemy rogues. Wearing cloth is useless. Warriors also have the guard ability and thanks to enchantments, can utilize their guard to be stronger every time someone strikes them. The warrior won't take damage until the guard is depleted. Sounds like a barrier for a warrior to me.
Your black-and-white thinking amuses me - no, it's not either one or the other, because the world of Thedas isn't either FULLY magical or FULLY realistic, nor I've ever claimed is one or the other. It's a blend of both, with its own established rules which are - apparently - pretty consistent, and ultimately decide what is possible in a given world or not (based on lore, characterization, observations, etc.)
And there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory in what I said - there are rules within the 'real' (non-Fade'y) world that seem to be very similar or near identical to ours, as well as magical system that modifies those rules to certain extent. Runes, enchantments, special materials or techniques used in battles have been established, just like rules in the world that magic has hard time breaking or has little to no discernible effect on.
Also - no divisions or types of soldiers or warriors known for mobility (archers, light cavalry, etc) in real world wore full metal plate armor or even full leather armor. They've traded their safety for the sake of damage and speed, therefore sitting here and arguing that "wearing cloth/metal is useless on a battlefield" is just plain ignorant.
I know this wasn't replied to me, but armor can be interchangeable. A warrior can wear armor that protects against spells and improve his guard.
Only you forget to mention that armor was interchangeable only if was made out one type of special material. It also never provided bonuses equal to what more appropriate types provided for each class. So it was available, but if a different class picked it say, mage picked a heavy armor) it was at the expense of effectiveness in battle, which is my point.
As I said, it's almost as if they were having a bit of fun at our expense, doesn't it? Unless you think that is beyond them, in which case you'd have to believe that they also intended and established one to be able to protect themselves with cheese wheels and hams and bananas tied to sticks.
I have no doubt they had fun - but in this particular example, they have definitely been poking fun at unreasonable armor designs, that's for sure. Therefore it doesn't matter how serious or lighthearted they've been - the statement has been made.
Guest_Roly Voly_*
Without actually taking a side in this post on the whole boob armor thing, can someone tell me, please, how Iron Bull's comments are somehow negated because of the armor he wears? Wearing non-protective armor like he is is not in any way, shape, or form the same as wearing armor that will actively cause harm and possibly death like some of the boob plate armor. So again, I ask why him remarking on boob armor is invalidated because he wears non-protective armor.
Without actually taking a side in this post on the whole boob armor thing, can someone tell me, please, how Iron Bull's comments are somehow negated because of the armor he wears? Wearing non-protective armor like he is is not in any way, shape, or form the same as wearing armor that will actively cause harm and possibly death like some of the boob plate armor. So again, I ask why him remarking on boob armor is invalidated because he wears non-protective armor.
The guy who fights half naked compliments someone who fight wearing practical armor.
Guest_Roly Voly_*
The guy who fights half naked compliments someone who fight wearing practical armor.
That does not in any way address my question. How does Iron Bull complimenting Cassandra for wearing armor that will not actively CAUSE her death in any way get diluted because he himself is not wearing armor on his torso?
This is way more aesthetically pleasing armor than any of boob plates:
Boob cups certainly wouldn't improve it.
midnight_tea, on 18 May 2015 - 1:48 PM, said:
And there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory in what I said - there are rules within the real world that seem to be very similar or near identical to ours, as well as magical system that modify those rules to certain extent. Runes, enchantments, special materials or techniques used in battles have been established, just like rules in the world that magic has hard time breaking or has little to no effect on.
You're glossing over the fact that warriors can utilize runes, enchantments, and special techniques in battle. As well as employ mages to cast barriers. That is established in Thedas.
Also - no divisions or types of soldiers or warriors known for mobility (archers, light cavalry, etc) in real world wore full metal plate armor or even full leather armor. They've traded their safety for the sake of damage and speed, therefore sitting here and arguing that "wearing cloth/metal is useless on a battlefield" is just plain ignorant
This is simply not true. Some foot archers--who were usually crossbowmen-- before the 15th century wore chainmail and plate on their legs. They also carried long shields that would protect them while they reloaded. The poorer crossbowmen would wear iron plate and the peasants who were enlisted for the jobs would wear whatever they could scavenge from the dead--whether that be chainmail, plate or woolen jackets. Just anything they could get. Also, all foot archers carried a sword or a dagger in case things got too hairy. This is what a Genoese Crossbowman wore. He is wearing a brigadine--which has metal plates riveted under a quilted fabric, chainmail and plate on his legs.
Only you forget to mention that armor was interchangeable only if was made out one type of special material. It also never provided bonuses equal to what more appropriate types provided for each class. So it was available, but if a different class picked it say, mage picked a heavy armor) it was at the expense of effectiveness in battle, which is my point.
Yet, you can still add materials that aided your armor, regardless of what that armor was. My warrior could still wear mage armor and depending on which material I chose(masterwork), strengthen and multiply my guard. Furthermore, how in the world is "my" warrior wearing armor that may be impractical, but pleasing to me, going to affect your warrior or your game? As it is, if I want a warrior to wear mage armor, they can. If I want a mage to wear warrior armor, they can. If I want, Cassandra can wear a quilted jacket. Yet, this type of armor is the only one that is a no-go.
I have no doubt they had fun - but in this particular example, they have definitely been poking fun at unreasonable armor designs, that's for sure. Therefore it doesn't matter how serious or lighthearted they've been - the statement has been made.
Because the statement has been made, it must hold true? Have you spoken to Vivienne about mages? There was no joke involved there, should we assume her views should hold true simply because her writer was making a statement? Or seen how Hawke loathes bloodmagic, even though he can be a bloodmage and romance a bloodmage. I am not so sure all banter or rhetoric should be taken at face value. Especially in a world where writers give each companion their own values and opinions and canons are changed depending on funds and technical limitations or a story direction that didn't quite pan out. Iron Bull going on about that armor is his opinion on the matter and not a prelude to the subscription that the armor should no longer be in existence or banned entirely. Obviously, that armor still exists in Thedas, considering he was speaking about people still wearing it. It isn't like he said, "Oh, I am so glad that armor has been banned and is no longer in production!" It's his opinion because it doesn't always stand up to fact. My warden wore it every day in-game and she was fine. Leliana wore it, she was fine. It could cause death, as could a mage's armor cause them death and would be completely impractical in the throes of battle should a warrior or rogue get too close.
We're just running in circles at this point, so this will most likely be my last thought on it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll just end my part by saying that this is an optional armor that is well established in the world of Thedas and would be completely optional if added. (which I doubt will happen anyway) Long hair is impractical, too--yet I still see people asking for it, along with other things that are deemed impractical. Impractical stems on the arbitrary.
Without actually taking a side in this post on the whole boob armor thing, can someone tell me, please, how Iron Bull's comments are somehow negated because of the armor he wears? Wearing non-protective armor like he is is not in any way, shape, or form the same as wearing armor that will actively cause harm and possibly death like some of the boob plate armor. So again, I ask why him remarking on boob armor is invalidated because he wears non-protective armor.
I just want to answer this for myself--I can't speak for anyone else.
I don't think it so much invalidates it as much as it leads me not to take anyone seriously for using it as a foundation to build their argument against impractical armor. He has better armor available to him, yet chooses impractical armor that could actively cause harm or death--for whatever his reasoning--he is still choosing poorly. Yet he condemns those who choose as he does in his compliment. If he were fighting off someone in the front, a well placed arrow would take him out from behind or a sword to the spine. It's laughable how that is overlooked in par to his compliment. Personally, I have no issue with what he wears, but I can see how a good eyeroll would come from his statement.
It's like Hawke telling everyone that bloodmagic is abhorrent. When he is a bloodmage and is in love with a bloodmage. (in some playthroughs) It's just that, "orly" factor.
I've been spending the last couple of weeks thinking about this topic off and on. I've concluded that I'm fine with it as a player and possible NPC choice given the right circumstances. For example, in the next game we could end up in Rivian, where the weather appears to be rather warm. I know it's right near Par Vollen, which is the hot and humid jungle. So within the story we could have men and women dressed in what could be considered impractical or revealing armor that could be a schematic available for the player.
My concern, that someone else brought up several pages ago, is seeing say, seeing random NPC in another country (like somewhere more blistering, like the Anderfels or somewhere cold like the Frostbacks from someone that isn't an Avvar) dressed the same way as someone from the warmer/more mild climes wouldn't fit for me. I'll be honest; I look at some of the very armored lady NPCs in places like the Western Approach and wonder how they don't keel over from overheating. Some saris and other looser fitting clothes (armor as reinforced leather underneath with lighter chain) would have made me more sense to me from a purely practical standpoint.
In this case, if they keep the armor in a place where being so scantily dressed makes sense, like Rivian or Par Vollen, or the warmer parts of Tevinter, I think it would fit. The player could wear that as a reflection of their character's personality and a possible nod to the culture of their place of birth. Yet, I don't want to see it absolutely everywhere. I hope that makes some sense.
I'm staying out of the Iron Bull debate. I've stated my thoughts regarding him and I don't want to add to the debate at this point. It's going around in circles more than the stated topic is.
My concern, that someone else brought up several pages ago, is seeing say, seeing random NPC in another country (like somewhere more blistering, like the Anderfels or somewhere cold like the Frostbacks from someone that isn't an Avvar) dressed the same way as someone from the warmer/more mild climes wouldn't fit for me. I'll be honest; I look at some of the very armored lady NPCs in places like the Western Approach and wonder how they don't keel over from overheating. Some saris and other looser fitting clothes (armor as reinforced leather underneath with lighter chain) would have made me more sense to me from a purely practical standpoint.
To add to this, the concern I have with boob plate is that it will once again be the only option for female characters. I think it looks stupid, but if it's an option I don't care if it's there. I was thrilled to finally have regular looking armor for my female characters and don't want to go back to the days of boob cups and chain bikinis being the whole of what she can wear.
And while we're at it, I'm glad we can have mages wear something other than bath robes. You can't even get away with saying they were pretty dresses or something like what Viv wears. I went through most of DA2 with my mage in underleveled armor because I just couldn't stand to put a robe on her. Too easy to trip in a fight, and really, we're supposed to be on the lowdown. Sure, that was in my head and never addressed in game mechanics, but... seriously? 
I guess it's just a matter of finding a balance between being practical for people who prefer that, and "sexy" or "pretty" for people who want the character to dress up a bit. Some embellishments on armor wouldn't be bad to make it look nice. But again, option.
Retour en haut