1832 réponses à ce sujet

[BraveVesperia]

The original comparison of muscle plate armour and boob plate armour makes no sense to me. Presumbly muscle armour is supposed to convey a sense of strength. Boobs aren't associated with strength or combat or anything like it. The female equivalent of muscle armour... would be muscle armour, surely?

 

That boob plate looks uncomfortable. What if one pops out of its slot in the middle of battle. So awkward.

 

I don't actually mind gender equal skimpy armour sometimes. Skyrim's Forsworn stuff, for instance, leads to half-naked men and women. But it's animal fur, bone and rags. It's supposed to be basic and primal, not practical like plate armour.

[Char]

I wouldn't fall out of my tree if Bioware did choose to include one or two options because they would then be optional content and I could simply exercise my choice not to use them. However I would be unhappy if they made that style of armour the dominant style (appearing on NPCs etc), because I'd prefer to see the majority of characters taken seriously.

[SnakeCode]

That's true, however I think that makes people not wearing helmets during cutscenes (they still have them during normal battles) completely reasonable, story-telling would suffer if you couldn't see any emotions on people's faces for example during attack of Haven. So I don't think boob plate = not wearing helmets are in same level, other is important for story and other is just aesthetics (or sexying up female characters).

 

Both are just aesthetic choices. There's absolutely no reason for characters to not be wearing helmets (out in the field) other than to allow the player to see their faces. You could accurately express emotions whilst wearing facial protection with quality voice acting. The only thing you would be missing out on would be facial expressions, and even then it's not a given since many helmets leave enough uncoverd to allow for them anyway.

[Panda]

My point is that there is nothing hypocritical over not wanting characters to wear helmets during cutscenes despite it being somehow unrealistical and still arguing against non-realistical armor for female characters like steel bikinis or boob plates (though not that many are here so against the boob plates). Because helmets need to be off so that you can see expressions that help story-telling a lot, when steel bikinis and boob plates serve only aesthetical reason (and only for some players who do like them).

[Panda]

Both are just aesthetic choices. There's absolutely no reason for characters to not be wearing helmets (out in the field) other than to allow the player to see their faces. You could accurately express emotions whilst wearing facial protection with quality voice acting. The only thing you would be missing out on would be facial expressions, and even then it's not a given since many helmets leave enough uncoverd to allow for them anyway.

 

Ever heard of non-verbal communication? Lot of communication is based on expressions and eye-contact that you can't do with helmet on. And actually majority of helmets cover whole faces in DAI. I use them after all. For this same reason people are complaining, myself included, for lack of cinematic dialogue since you can't see non-verbal communication without it which breaks immersion and story-telling. Same thing really as it would be in cinematic cutscenes with helmet on, no expressions so not much non-verbal communication and thus story-telling suffers.

[Uccio]

I wouldn't fall out of my tree if Bioware did choose to include one or two options because they would then be optional content and I could simply exercise my choice not to use them. However I would be unhappy if they made that style of armour the dominant style (appearing on NPCs etc), because I'd prefer to see the majority of characters taken seriously.

 

I would´t take this armor seriously, nor most of the DA armors anyway.

 

[Char]

To better see the shapes of their character's body when walking around. Just for eye pleasure. Not everything must be Mariana trench deep.

I don't think Bioware go through the long process of character development purely to create eye candy. And I think they'd like their female characters to be appreciated for something more than their body type. with that being said, I think Bioware's personalising of armour schematics could allow for that in some respects, since there's no appreciable reason why the Inquisitor couldn't be as showy with her assets as Vivienne.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that characters are just there to be ogled, but I guess it -is- a video game.

[Char]

I would´t take this armor seriously, nor most of the DA armors anyway.
 

Well yes, "here, let me draw you a path to my neck" isn't something I really understand either. But I wouldn't mind enough variation that I can go to the Emprise without wondering why Vivienne and Bull haven't got hypothermia, or to the Western Approach without wondering why Cassandra hasn't fainted from heat exhaustion. I'm all for options, if they remain optional. Preferably still tasteful, but my idea of tasteful is individual, like everyone else's.

[SnakeCode]

Ever heard of non-verbal communication? Lot of communication is based on expressions and eye-contact that you can't do with helmet on. And actually majority of helmets cover whole faces in DAI. I use them after all. For this same reason people are complaining, myself included, for lack of cinematic dialogue since you can't see non-verbal communication without it which breaks immersion and story-telling. Same thing really as it would be in cinematic cutscenes with helmet on, no expressions so not much non-verbal communication and thus story-telling suffers.

 

Never called anyone a hypocrite, it's just interesting how people pick and choose how/when impracticality or "realism" is acceptable or not. 

[Paragonslustre]

In keeping with the serious nature of this thread, I actually don't mind the booby armour. More places to stash cheese ... if I had any ... and in that vein, male armour could have bigger codpieces and be renamed cheesepieces.

[Uccio]

Well yes, "here, let me draw you a path to my neck" isn't something I really understand either. But I wouldn't mind enough variation that I can go to the Emprise without wondering why Vivienne and Bull haven't got hypothermia, or to the Western Approach without wondering why Cassandra hasn't fainted from heat exhaustion. I'm all for options, if they remain optional. Preferably still tasteful, but my idea of tasteful is individual, like everyone else's.

 

True, I am all for the diversity and tons of armor/weapon/clothing options. 

[Panda]

Never called anyone a hypocrite, it's just interesting how people pick and choose how/when impracticality or "realism" is acceptable or not. 

 

Not straight-forwardly

 

Well, now you know at least my view. Story-related reasons > aesthetic/sex appeal.

[GreyWarden_Smith]

OPs male breastplates look like a Greek breastplate and the Greeks liked and admired the male body back in those days just look at their statues and considering they come from a hot environment it would make sense for warriors to protect their vitals areas in breastplate but allow circulation so in sense its realistic for that environment. Also I don't think design would affect the effectiveness of the armour as much as boobplates would IMO.

 

Spoiler

 

All that aside, I like how DA:I approach armour in-game tbh but there isn't anything wrong with aesthetically pleasing armours too in my opinion and there are certain looks on each character that I prefer like I prefer The Iron Bull when he has full armour & Dread equipped rather than vitaar and his torso out but that's my preference and someone prefers a different look that's their taste. 

 

The armour that looked ridiculous IMO was the Venatori armour for warriors but I assumed they were slave warriors due the helmets and collars.

[xkg]

I don't think Bioware go through the long process of character development purely to create eye candy. And I think they'd like their female characters to be appreciated for something more than their body type. with that being said, I think Bioware's personalising of armour schematics could allow for that in some respects, since there's no appreciable reason why the Inquisitor couldn't be as showy with her assets as Vivienne.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that characters are just there to be ogled, but I guess it -is- a video game.

 

Yeah we all play our games differently. I am speaking mostly about armour for the PC character. In RPGs I like blank slate PCs more and I always assume my PC's character isn't defined from the beginning (even if it is - I just ignore it then) so any armour fits.

I always go for the armour I like best if I am able to progress further with it. Stats and bonuses matters less.

 

Playing my Arcane Warrior I used archon robes even though there were much better ones and as an AW I could use heavier armours.

 

Spoiler

 

Restricting my PC to limited set of outfits just because they have predefined personality is instant fun killer for me.

The more choices there are the better.

[TheOgre]

I wouldn't fall out of my tree if Bioware did choose to include one or two options because they would then be optional content and I could simply exercise my choice not to use them. However I would be unhappy if they made that style of armour the dominant style (appearing on NPCs etc), because I'd prefer to see the majority of characters taken seriously.

 

That I can see would be irritating. If it just so happened it was the armor of choice for stats alone yet you are stuck with that.

 

Then again, if it's one feature I'd really enjoy they take a queue on would be transmog.. Make it so you wear the armor you like aesthetically the most while still wearing the end game armor. Like I'd love to wear the red blood stained chainmail from that bandit keep. It looks somewhat okay on my Qunari.

[Silcron]

Not including boob armor because it'd be impractical? Tell that to the orlesians out in the field in DA:I.

And it's not like it'd be difficult to include in the game without breaking lore or whatever. Just call the sets ceremonial armor and that's it. That way you convey that the armor was made to look good and look good wearing it, in a ball or a ceremony. If you wear it on the field, well, that's your decision (and again with the orlesians, they reminded me of WoW human paladins with the huge lion themed shoulderpads. So it's not like we haven't seen anyhting like that before.)

And ceremonial armor existing would not be unrealistic, not grounded, not believable, however you want to call it.

[KBomb]

Well, that's heavy warrior armor versus light mage armor. There's a lot more leeway with rogue and mage armors than warrior armors. It's fine for Sera to have a form-fitting leather armor or for Vivienne to wear a low-cut dress in battle because they aren't on the front lines taking hits. Good looking female warrior armor with metal cleavage, I feel, is harder to make without it looking dumb. The example in the OP, for instance, looks pretty ridiculous to me so I was wondering if there are better ones we can look to if they were ever to be implemented.

If you're going to play the "reality" card, it needs to be consistent. It would make no sense for mages or archers to wear cloth and exposed bits. An enemy would want to take out any ranged, especially a mage, quickly.

Like I said, people pick and choose based on what suits their preferences, even subconsciously. This is why options are a good thing. A little bit if reality and a little bit of fantasy. Both sides are suited and it harms no one.

[KaiserShep]

If you're going to play the "reality" card, it needs to be consistent. It would make no sense for mages or archers to wear cloth and exposed bits. An enemy would want to take out any ranged, especially a mage, quickly.

Like I said, people pick and choose based on what suits their preferences, even subconsciously. This is why options are a good thing. A little bit if reality and a little bit of fantasy. Both sides are suited and it harms no one.

 

I'm certainly glad for the options. Thankfully, Vivienne can wear fully-covered robes and even Varric can get a proper chest plate.

[KBomb]

I'm certainly glad for the options. Thankfully, Vivienne can wear fully-covered robes and even Varric can get a proper chest plate.

Indeed, sir. Indeed.

[9TailsFox]

I'm certainly glad for the options. Thankfully, Vivienne can wear fully-covered robes and even Varric can get a proper chest plate.

Cover Varric's chest hair blasphemy.

[DomeWing333]

If you're going to play the "reality" card, it needs to be consistent. It would make no sense for mages or archers to wear cloth and exposed bits. An enemy would want to take out any ranged, especially a mage, quickly.

Like I said, people pick and choose based on what suits their preferences, even subconsciously. This is why options are a good thing. A little bit if reality and a little bit of fantasy. Both sides are suited and it harms no one.

I'm not going for reality. I'm going for what's appropriate for the role. Front-line warriors wear metal armor, back-line mages and rogues wear cloth and leather armors. It's built into the world, even the mechanics of the game. And what I'm saying is that from what I've seen, it's easier to make good looking cloth and leather armors that account for female body shape than it is to make good-looking metal armor that accounts for female body shape. Which makes perfect sense. Cloth and leather are soft; they naturally mold to curves. Metal is...metal. The shape it has is the shape it has. And the attempts I've seen to shape it into breasts have largely come off as weird and awkward-looking. I much prefer the "boob shelf" solution, which can give the armor a feminine, hour-glass shape without overtly screaming "Look! I have boobs!" into my face. Here's an example of a design that I think does a good job in working with the feminine figure while still making for good, practical-looking armor.

Spoiler

[Panda]

If you're going to play the "reality" card, it needs to be consistent. It would make no sense for mages or archers to wear cloth and exposed bits. An enemy would want to take out any ranged, especially a mage, quickly.

Like I said, people pick and choose based on what suits their preferences, even subconsciously. This is why options are a good thing. A little bit if reality and a little bit of fantasy. Both sides are suited and it harms no one.

 

Rogues are mobile, they can dodge, evade and go in stealth. Mages have protective spells. Rogues in heavy armor wouldn't be able to move quickly and that would defeat their purpose.

 

Warrios whole purpose is: "Hit me". They even have taunts that make enemy focus them. So they need more protective armors. Unless they are qunari apparently ^^

[Terodil]

I like that armor, DomeWing.

I agree with the OP too though. I want more choice. DA:I armor (while thankfully getting rid of the always-skirts-thing they had going for those poor mages in DA:O and DA:KW) is pretty horrible in my eyes, especially for female (N)PCs. As we discussed in the (now sadly locked) realism vs. fantasy thread, realism is definitely not the end-all-be-all of *fantasy* games.

If you don't want to use a particular set of armor, nobody forces you to; conversely I find it a bit... petty to want to limit other players' choices because you consider them inappropriate for whatever reason (unrealistic, simply 'unnecessary'... idc).

[Terodil]

Rogues are mobile, they can dodge, evade and go in stealth. Mages have protective spells. Rogues in heavy armor wouldn't be able to move quickly and that would defeat their purpose.
 
Warrios whole purpose is: "Hit me". They even have taunts that make enemy focus them. So they need more protective armors. Unless they are qunari apparently ^^

You do know that those roles are completely unrealistic too, right?

Warriors don't want to get hit in reality.
Rogues can't dodge like that in reality. They also can't stealth.
'Mages' can't cast any spells in reality.

[Panda]

You do know that those roles are completely unrealistic too, right?

Warriors don't want to get hit in reality.
Rogues can't dodge like that in reality. They also can't stealth.
'Mages' can't cast any spells in reality.

 

We are speaking about fantasy classes I believe and these are the regular roles given them in games, movies etc. If we went full realism, then the games wouldn't have dragons and so on either, just people hitting each other with swords and dying in plague.

 

However, we can think what would be realistic for this world creators have build. What would be fitting and approriate.