1832 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

It does seem pretty coherent to me. English is not my first language, but it doesn't really stop my brains having coherents thoughts you know, it mostly affects my grammar and typos. And how does that even prove your point? Boobs aren't sexualised on women since they are unattractive on men? Conclusion: they are sexualised on women or not sexualised at all. I think you are meaning they are sexualised on women only (that doesn't go against anything I have said) and that doesn't prove at all that they are as sexualised as pecs. My claims that law bans showing female breast does however prove that they are more sexualised than pecs as does that bare boobs rank up movie rating when pecs don't.

 

You are getting there, law says so why?.

 

And if male muscles are as sexualised as boobs why does this incoherent law exist? What should be done to it? Do you want women to walk on street topless? Or should men cover up muscles? What about movie ratings, should there be change? If yes, I recommend those feminist movements for you

 

Well, you claim that English isn't your first language, so that might be why you seem to be incapable of understanding my points. 

 

I never said that boobs were not sexualized, so you can stop claiming that I did. What I said was that boobs are not more or less sexual than pecs. Men like t**ties, women like chiseled pecs.

 

You're strawmanning my argument by going out of your way to misrepresent what I say. Even if English isn't your first language, you could at least try to read what I say before claiming I say something else entirely.

 

The law says so because the law says so. The law isn't a person or a thinking entity, it can be changed at will. 

 

For the love of [deity], stop recommending I check out feminist movements. I'm not a fan of ideologies in general, but I particularly dislike feminism. In no way does feminism actually advocate for equality for the sexes. If it did, feminists wouldn't be pushing for "women's rights" (I say that loosely because in no Western nation do women not have the same rights as men) while completely ignoring those of men. Modern feminism is all about giving women special treatment and furthering an agenda.

[Han Shot First]

 But boob plate is nonsensical in a world where everyone else wears armour that won't, y'know, kill you if you trip and land on your front. There's no reason for it other than sexiness. Even if the woman is making the decision to wear it, it's still about sexiness. (And she's damn stupid for wanting to wear boob plate tbh)

 

 

I always thought that was an odd argument against it.

 

I'm not convinced that falling face first is going to kill someone for starters. Or at least not the fall itself. People in the modern military wearing load bearing vests with magazines on their chest could fall, and hit their chest, and not break ribs or die. I'm speaking from first hand experience there. And that is potentially with significantly less protection that someone armored up like a knight would be wearing, with their padded gambeson on underneath

 

Also why would that person not instinctively be putting their hands in front of them to break their fall? Are they already unconscious? And if you're actively engaged in hand to hand combat with someone and they knock you flat, broken fall are not, you're probably dead anyway. Because that coup de grace is coming.

[midnight tea]

While you are correct about Rambo, there is an another 80s military movie that was in part geared towards a female demographic by sexualizing the male characters: Top Gun.

 

Google Top Gun and volleyball. All those oiled up shirtless dudes weren't there for the people who just wanted to watch Tomcat-on-Mig action.

 

Funny that I was actually supposed to make a point about how male torso would be actively sexualized if it was actually accentuated (like, for example, being OILED) but the discussion goes so fast I actually never made it

 

(edit: I checked and I actually did mention it earlier, huh... )

 

Also - I'm pretty sure that Top Gun volleyball-playing, oiled dudes wasn't what appeared on posters advertising the movie.

[ticoteco246]

We've seen Rasaan, a female Qunari. And there were complaints that she was dressed inappropriately even though she is from the same Qunari culture that allows topless men. That is a double standard. 

 

Admittedly I've never seen any of these complaints (also I did say in game, and Rasaan is not in game) and yes, these specific people are being hypocritical. But wanting no boob plate while being fine with Bull's toplessness is not inherently hypocritical, like some people here seem to be implying.

 

But why not let there be the option for people who do want it? Who cares if it is stupid(though there has been links saying the lethality of such armor is innaccurate), that is a choice they should be able to make for their character. 

 

Options are one of the staples, if not the staple, of RPGs. So let there be options. 

 

Then why not have the option for a mage to turn into a dragon? Why not have the option for elves to have Qunari horns? Who cares if it's stupid? The thing is, when a series or a game creates a set of rules, it follows those rules. Clearly, in the DA universe, it has been acknowledged and accepted that boob plate is dangerous and stupid (and for people who will say, "but Origins had it!", Bioware's opinion on boob plate has changed). Who knows, maybe they'll bring it back and ignore the fact that they've stated how dangerous it can be, but I'd seriously side-eye them for not sticking to a rule that is incredibly easy to keep and consistent with actual, real-world rules. Physics and biology still exist in Thedas.

 

I always thought that was an odd argument against it.

 

I'm not convinced that falling face first is going to kill someone for starters. Or at least not the fall itself. People in the modern military wearing load bearing vests with magazines on their chest could fall, and hit their chest, and not break ribs or die. I'm speaking from first hand experience there. And that is potentially with significantly less protection that someone armored up like a knight would be wearing, with their padded gambeson on underneath

 

Also why would that person not instinctively be putting their hands in front of them to break their fall? Are they already unconscious? And if you're actively engaged in hand to hand combat with someone and they knock you flat, broken fall are not, you're probably dead anyway. Because that coup de grace is coming.

 

It was more of an exaggerated example, but the point stands that boob plate armour will absolutely crush your sternum if it pushes in. Regular plate armour is curved around the chest, so there are no points that dig in, but boob plate armour has a cleavage down the middle. If the front of the armour gets hit hard enough (ignoring that both types of armour can cave in with enough force, that's simply an inescapable fault of plate armour) the cleavage area goes straight into your sternum and boom, you're dead.

 

Let's say, in a hypothetical situation, you're wearing plate armour and fall straight onto your chest, no one to kill you anyway, no hands to catch you. If you're wearing normal plate armour, your body will press up against the armour. It's flat, so nothing digs in anywhere on your chest. If you're wearing boob plate, your body also presses up against the armour. Except, this time, there's a wedge right in the middle of your chest. Gravity will keep you going down and then that wedge crushes your sternum because it has nowhere else to go.

 

It's a glaring design flaw that can get the wearer killed in situations where normal plate would protect you. If your armour isn't protective, then what's the point of it?

[o Ventus]

I always thought that was an odd argument against it.

 

I'm not convinced that falling face first is going to kill someone for starters. Or at least not the fall itself. People in the modern military wearing load bearing vests with magazines on their chest could fall, and hit their chest, and not break ribs or die. I'm speaking from first hand experience there. And that is potentially with significantly less protection that someone armored up like a knight would be wearing, with their padded gambeson on underneath

 

Also why would that person not instinctively be putting their hands in front of them to break their fall? Are they already unconscious? And if you're actively engaged in hand to hand combat with someone and they knock you flat, broken fall are not, you're probably dead anyway. Because that coup de grace is coming.

 

I've never been a medieval knight, but I know that a steel breastplate is heavier than a kevlar vest, and a full suit of medieval armor is heavier than most modern military kits. And depending on exactly what kind of metal armor we're talking about here, actually falling down in a suit of armor can severely injure the wearer, if not accidentally cripple or kill them. If you're wearing a gorget (a metal collar that protects the neck, sternum, and upper back) and a bevor and sallet (protects the jaw and throat, extending somewhat down the sternum) and you hit the ground hard enough, you very well could break your neck, if not just some ribs. Likewise, given how heavy and awkwardly shaped metal armor tends to be, you could break your hands if you fall on them (or inflict some other injury to them), both because of the sheer weight, and because your hands are encased in metal themselves with the gauntlets and vambraces.

[midnight tea]

I always thought that was an odd argument against it.

 

I'm not convinced that falling face first is going to kill someone for starters. Or at least not the fall itself. People in the modern military wearing load bearing vests with magazines on their chest could fall, and hit their chest, and not break ribs or die. I'm speaking from first hand experience there. And that is potentially with significantly less protection that someone armored up like a knight would be wearing, with their padded gambeson on underneath

 

Also why would that person not instinctively be putting their hands in front of them to break their fall? Are they already unconscious? And if you're actively engaged in hand to hand combat with someone and they knock you flat, broken fall are not, you're probably dead anyway. Because that coup de grace is coming.

 

I'm not familiar with guns or magazines, but I'm pretty sure they're not shaped like a sharp wedge and placed directly on sternum, with hardly any padding.

 

 

Also - your other point is kinda strange. I do't think I've ever heard about anyone designing things with a massive flaw, because they'd assume that "people will instinctively putting their hands in front of them, breaking their fall". Why would they wear a helmet then, if they'd institutionally cover their head from damage on the front, or instinctively land on their bottoms if they were falling on their back?

 

Also, um... there's a good reason to assume that medieval (or medieval-like) knights in heavy will be at increased risk of landing flat on their chests - armor hampers movement, plus they're holding sizeable weapons in their hands.

 

You also can't ignore the risk of falling off horse - something that fairly frequently happened. As someone who's been horse-riding for at least a decade I can assure that falling off one is survivable, but even with hands extended to protect head and chest the landing itself will be heavy enough that it can break a few ribs (aside from breaking hands first). No way that this problematic wedge wouldn't be sticking out of women's back in case somebody threw her off her mount.

[midnight tea]

No it's not. A full suit of plate wore only about forty pounds distributed over the entire body. Modern soldiers wear that much weight on solely their chest. 

 

That's true, actually. Yet they're also not wearing metal plates - it's mostly material that is nowhere as rigid as one from which medieval armors were made from.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I've never been a medieval knight, but I know that a steel breastplate is heavier than a kevlar vest, and a full suit of medieval armor is heavier than most modern military kits.

No, it isn't.

 

4. Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer immobile.—Wrong.

An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate.

 

The notion that the development of plate armor (completed by about 1420–30) greatly impaired a wearer's mobility is also untrue. A harness of plate armor was made up of individual elements for each limb. Each element in turn consisted of lames (strips of metal) and plates, linked by movable rivets and leather straps, and thus allowing practically all of the body's movements without any impairment due to rigidity of material. The widely held view that a man in armor could hardly move, and, once he had fallen to the ground, was unable to rise again, is also without foundation. On the contrary, historical sources tell us of the famous French knight Jean de Maingre (ca. 1366–1421), known as Maréchal Boucicault, who, in full armor, was able to climb up the underside of a ladder using only his hands. Furthermore, there are several illustrations from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance depicting men-at-arms, squires, or knights, all in full armor, mounting horses without help or instruments such as ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with genuine fifteenth- and sixteenth-century armor as well as with accurate copies have shown that even an untrained man in a properly fitted armor can mount and dismount a horse, sit or lie on the ground, get up again, run, and generally move his limbs freely and without discomfort.

 

There are a few exceptional instances when armor was extremely heavy or did indeed render its wearer almost "locked" in a certain position, such as armor for certain types of tournaments. Tournament armor was made for very specific occasions and would have been worn only for limited periods of time. The man-at-arms would have mounted his steed with the aid of his squire or a small step, and the last pieces of his armor could then be donned after securely sitting in the saddle.

http://www.metmuseum...ms.htm#weight_b

[Panda]

Although this talk is somewhat amusing, but becoming quite repeative and bit annoying (probaply for both sides), I will list reasons why I don't like boob plates:

 

1. They rarely if ever look aesthetically pleasing. This has been my major point and still is. There simply is many better looking way to do armors for women than slapping boob plates on male armor. This is based on taste.

 

-> Exception: Hana earlier said that Meredith has boob plate. I don't see it as boob plate since it doesn't have boob cubs nor focuses attention on boobs like boob plates often do. If that's considered boob plate however, I don't have problem with it and I think it's pretty. DAO however didn't have those and all boob plates on DAO were butt-ugly like in majority of games they are.

 

2. It's cop-out and overused tradition of fantasy games. Since it doesn't even look good (as boob cups or those you had in DAO or Skyrim or Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning) why it's so used everywhere? Probaply because it's such easy way to make male armor to female armor, just slap some boobs in there! No need for creativity and alternative approaches of women having boobs, let's just model some cups for them.

 

3. Why should it be used in every game if it doesn't even fit art style and world developers have build? DA's art style is pretty realistical compared to some JRPG's or notorius chinese/korean MMORPG's for example (realistical as warriors use armor and people don't have huge weapons who are many times their size or so) and it seems like art style and DA's world has since DAO moved away from boob plates. In other hand with Iron Bull developers seem to be established that there are women in DA universe that wear boob plates and that they are dangerous. However this could seen as joke from developers to strenghten changed art style and world that doesn't have boob plates.

 

-> I think the realism argument is tied to this and I think realism is used as not similar as our world, but having enough similarities and rules that your world has that it feels realistical. For example art style of fantasy game can be realistical or very unrealistical.

 

 

4. They unnecessarily sexualise female characters. Yes this is one of my points, but this really depends on boob plate like Skyrim's pic on OP does it since it swirls around boobs like look at here are the boobs.. but lot of  Steel bikinis are much more offensive on this though especially when compared to their male counterparts on games. Sigh, all those korean and chinese MMORPG's that Kefka posted really made me relive how horrible steel bikinis and other female armors are on those.. I hope I never have to see again on games I play. Overall with boob plates I don't think this argument is as strong for me though, since it's more like: "this warrior is female look she has boobs!" than "this warrior is sexy!" with boob plates.

[In Exile]

 

I never said that boobs were not sexualized, so you can stop claiming that I did. What I said was that boobs are not more or less sexual than pecs. Men like t**ties, women like chiseled pecs.

 

 

I don't think that's quite the right analogy. On guys, it's got to be the combination of chest and abs. But YMMV. 

[o Ventus]

The weight of a suit of metal plate armor varies depending on what the armor was for. Fully-equipped jousting armor could weigh up to 110 pounds (the minimum weight typically being around 60 or 70 pounds, because the wearer was never supposed to be moving all that much and could afford to be more heavily armored at the cost of mobility since they were on horseback). Plated armor for hand-to-hand and melee combat (while rare, it did exist) was lighter, obviously, but still quite heavy. Depending on the pieces worn, it could go for anywhere between 40 to 70 pounds (not taking weapon and shield weight into account), usually averaging around 45 to 50 pounds.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The thing is, when a series or a game creates a set of rules, it follows those rules. Clearly, in the DA universe, it has been acknowledged and accepted that boob plate is dangerous and stupid (and for people who will say, "but Origins had it!", Bioware's opinion on boob plate has changed). Who knows, maybe they'll bring it back and ignore the fact that they've stated how dangerous it can be, but I'd seriously side-eye them for not sticking to a rule that is incredibly easy to keep and consistent with actual, real-world rules. Physics and biology still exist in Thedas.

Except in Inquisition they have it as an option for Dalish PCs as fully functional armor. So they are being inconsistent within the same game. 

[midnight tea]

Except in Inquisition they have it as an option for Dalish PCs as fully functional armor. So they are being inconsistent within the same game. 

 

I wouldn't call it functional. In fact, it has rather poor stats and I never use it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wouldn't call it functional. In fact, it has rather poor stats and I never use it.

If you buy the schematic, you can make it quite powerful. As powerful as other styles of armor. 

[TheOgre]

Then why not have the option for a mage to turn into a dragon?

It's a glaring design flaw that can get the wearer killed in situations where normal plate would protect you. If your armour isn't protective, then what's the point of it?

For the first statement. Why not? My argument would be because only shape shifting witches of Flemith ((not merideths))caliber can do it.

The second part, there are armor pieces in dai for "Realism" sake that just wouldn't ever work for purely protective reasons. It's because we want to look like more than just tin can figurines that are covered head to toe. I want to look intimidating and confident in barbarian style armoring. I want to be a qunari warrior that has tattoos and ripped muscular arms for days.

If I ever played a female warrior, I want her to look pretty yet dangeorus. Rather hard to pull off with dai style armor.

[Panda]

Well, you claim that English isn't your first language, so that might be why you seem to be incapable of understanding my points. 

 

I never said that boobs were not sexualized, so you can stop claiming that I did. What I said was that boobs are not more or less sexual than pecs. Men like t**ties, women like chiseled pecs.

 

You're strawmanning my argument by going out of your way to misrepresent what I say. Even if English isn't your first language, you could at least try to read what I say before claiming I say something else entirely.

 

The law says so because the law says so. The law isn't a person or a thinking entity, it can be changed at will. 

 

For the love of [deity], stop recommending I check out feminist movements. I'm not a fan of ideologies in general, but I particularly dislike feminism. In no way does feminism actually advocate for equality for the sexes. If it did, feminists wouldn't be pushing for "women's rights" (I say that loosely because in no Western nation do women not have the same rights as men) while completely ignoring those of men. Modern feminism is all about giving women special treatment and furthering an agenda.

 

Seriously, english is not problem we have.

 

I simply disagree with your points and say why I do so while making arguments and even put some proves on those, but you seem to want dismiss them without bringing much counter-argument or prove otherwise.

 

I recommend you feminist movements, since I don't think you really side with your points, you are just using them as counter-argument. Since if you were you should realise there is quite big inequality that you bring up as women are not allowed to show their boobs when men can show their muscles that are as sexualised as boobs. I really think you should became feminist and bring stop to this inequality.

[The Baconer]

Except in Inquisition they have it as an option for Dalish PCs as fully functional armor. So they are being inconsistent within the same game.

It is inconsistent, and a problem to be excised.

On the topic of male/female sexialization: Males had some equal opportunity in the form of fetish nipple robes. Coincidentally, said robes were also fecal-tier in looks and design, so take it as you will.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

-> Exception: Hana earlier said that Meredith has boob plate. I don't see it as boob plate since it doesn't have boob cubs nor focuses attention on boobs like boob plates often do. If that's considered boob plate however, I don't have problem with it and I think it's pretty. DAO however didn't have those and all boob plates on DAO were butt-ugly like in majority of games they are.

Yeah, I've been arguing for boobplates as seen with Meredith or in franchises like Fire Emblem, Mass Effect, etc. Armors where it isn't the focus of the armor, but just a part of it. 

[midnight tea]

If you buy the schematic, you can make it quite powerful. As powerful as other styles of armor. 

 

No it isn't - it's even Tier 2, instead of Tier 3, unlike medium and light armor (decent stats, those two).

In fact, I'd say it's actually fitting for elves to have an under-powered and less functional heavy armor, as their physique is frail and they're more known from being talented ranged/magical fighters rather than close-encounter ones. So them having a so-so heavy armor actually fits them pretty well, IMO.

[midnight tea]

If I ever played a female warrior, I want her to look pretty yet dangeorus. Rather hard to pull off with dai style armor.

 

Oh I don't know - I quite like the mail armor. With proper colors picked, it looks really good.

[ticoteco246]

Except in Inquisition they have it as an option for Dalish PCs as fully functional armor. So they are being inconsistent within the same game. 

 

[I had a longer reply going and then lost it, so forgive me if I get a bit short or don't explain myself well in this]

 

 

With the warrior armour, I'm not entirely sure the boob cup parts are metal. In fact, considering they're the same material as the stuff around the legs, I'm pretty sure they're a quite flexible leather. Also, it's hard to tell from this angle, but is the metal part between the breasts flat or does it have cleavage? Because that's honestly the biggest problem with boob plate, the fact that it curves in to create that deadly cleavage

 

The dalish warrior armour is a hot mess tbh. All that exposed skin, especially in the collar/neck area..... Note sure what the devs were thinking when they created this. 

 

For the first statement. Why not? My argument would be because only shape shifting witches of Flemith ((not merideths))caliber can do it.

The second part, there are armor pieces in dai for "Realism" sake that just wouldn't ever work for purely protective reasons. It's because we want to look like more than just tin can figurines that are covered head to toe. I want to look intimidating and confident in barbarian style armoring. I want to be a qunari warrior that has tattoos and ripped muscular arms for days.

If I ever played a female warrior, I want her to look pretty yet dangeorus. Rather hard to pull off with dai style armor.

 

Yes, if there was a proper reason for why shapeshifters could become dragons, gimme. I adore dragons. But if all logic dictates against it and then it's included anyway without explanation, then nah (okay that's a lie, I would love to shapeshift into a dragon. I'd just do it angrily)

 

Bolded up there is something I've already said. If there's a cultural reason for lack of armour or what have you, then I'm all for it! As long as it makes sense within the world and is a part of the culture, then yes, give me badass qunari warriors who don't wear armour on top because that's what their culture dictates.

 

About the female warrior: why does it need to be boob plate? (Also I've found that the prettiest armours for women are rogue armours, so you can always create some using snoufleur skin so any class can use them, and then tint them with colours later. Snoufleur skin has pretty excellent stats  ) I know I often bring up Cassandra, but her armour is probably my favourite warrior armour in game. Very feminine, and adheres to her curves, but also functions as armour without the boob wedge. Armour that still shows curves without dipping in the middle of the breasts is still feminine and pretty imo. 

 

(still don't understand where the concept of the cleavage wedge came from. even tight shirts don't work like this. reminds me of poorly drawn comic book ladies)

[9TailsFox]

Are we back to realism debate again? If dragon shoot fireball at you die. I know Cass is strong but no amount of armor would help her to take all damage from dragon for 15 min.

[Panda]

Yeah, I've been arguing for boobplates as seen with Meredith or in franchises like Fire Emblem, Mass Effect, etc. Armors where it isn't the focus of the armor, but just a part of it. 

 

Googled Fire Emblem, some of it's armors for women do have boob plates. However I don't think Merediths has boob plate since it's modeled more around boobs than making them apart like here are the boobies. But I guess there is no clear guidelines what is boob armor either so there can be some confuse over it too. Like one guy that someone posted pages ago (like 20 pages ago or so) who did video game designs or sth claimed that boob plates should be saved and then called steel bikini armor boob plate armor (that compared to male armor was very sexualised) so I guess there would need to be some kind of consensus what is boob plate too.

 

Though I think we mostly here are on same line.

[midnight tea]

The dalish warrior armour is a hot mess tbh. All that exposed skin, especially in the collar/neck area..... Note sure what the devs were thinking when they created this. 

 

If there reasoning they've had is the same as the one I've argued for in earlier comment, then I see this armor as hot mess only in a sense that the Dalish/elves don't know much about being effective heavy-armor warriors.... which, based on their physique and preference for ranged combat, they aren't.

[Han Shot First]

I've never been a medieval knight, but I know that a steel breastplate is heavier than a kevlar vest, and a full suit of medieval armor is heavier than most modern military kits. And depending on exactly what kind of metal armor we're talking about here, actually falling down in a suit of armor can severely injure the wearer, if not accidentally cripple or kill them. If you're wearing a gorget (a metal collar that protects the neck, sternum, and upper back) and a bevor and sallet (protects the jaw and throat, extending somewhat down the sternum) and you hit the ground hard enough, you very well could break your neck, if not just some ribs. Likewise, given how heavy and awkwardly shaped metal armor tends to be, you could break your hands if you fall on them (or inflict some other injury to them), both because of the sheer weight, and because your hands are encased in metal themselves with the gauntlets and vambraces.

 

My take is that would not actually be molded to the wearer's physique, similar to how the muscle cuirass is not precisely molded to it's wearers. The inside basically would be indistinguishable from your standard breasplate, and the other features are only cosmetic details on the outside.

 

Not unlike this ancient Carthaginian breastplate:

 

 

There are plenty of protrusions and cosmetic features on the outside, but the inside would look like the inside of of any other breastplate from the era.