dan107
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by dan107
-
Obviously no one fights in steel armor nowadays, but there are plenty of ways to test physical strength. As a personal experience, I maxed out the Army physical fitness test -- 77 push ups, 80 crunches and 2 miles in 13 minutes. Not a whole lot of women that can do that. The difference is so pronounced, that all branches of the military have separate standards for men and women. -
Not really, I accepted dan's premise of a fantasy setting where women and men are equal combatants. So why don't men wear chainmail bikinis? No reason really. Like I said, it all depends on the look you want for the game. (See Conan for men in underwear). Nothing to do with realism though.
-
If you're not expecting to fight and win, the only reason why you would end up in combat is if you're attacked unexpectedly. So unless you would make it a habit of walking around in armor on a daily basis, as you cook and do the laundry, no you wouldn't be wearing armor to begin with.
-
Onna Bushi were specifically female warriors in feudal Japan. They often fought alongside male Samurai (as they themselves were considered part of the Samurai class) To state that a woman defeating a man in combat (armored or otherwise) is fantasy is probably one of the most arrogant, ignorant, and sexist things I've seen posted on a forum in a long time. And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men. CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely.
-
I'm sorry, I do not follow. You said that the world's logic estabilished that women are equal fighters to men. According to that logic, if men need to cover as much of their skin as possible, so do women. If women don't, neither do man. And considering the cost and weight of materials involved no, its not a stylistic choice. Indeed. Once you've established that women are equal to men in combat, it doesn't matter what either wears. You can have both running around in underwear, both wearing full plate, or any combination in between, depending on what overall look you want for your game. All I'm saying is that realism is no longer a factor.
-
Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant. Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor? No but there would be nothing against bikini armor except the argument which Catamite made: This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim. Absolutely. And like I said in response to him earlier, that's a perfectly valid arguement. My whole beef is with people saying that women should wear plate while fighting men because it's REALISTIC. It most certainly is not.
-
What are you talking about? The standard of realism is the same. Once you've established that there is magic in the world, physics goes out the window. Once you've established that there are "magical" (for lack of a better word) women able to beat men in armored combat, the realism of armor goes out the window as well. If a wizard can use a fireball to destroy a building, it doesn't really matter if the exact temperature of the fire may not be enough to burn stone. Likewise, if a woman can beat a male fighter in combat it doesn't matter if she wearing plate or a bikini. Both scenarios are pure fantasy. Sort of like Joan of Arc? Read my posts from earlier. Joan of Arc was a spiritual leader that inspired the MEN around her for religious and patriotic reasons, and was at all times surrounded by some of the finest bodyguards in the world. There is no verified record of her having ever beaten a man in one on one hand to hand combat.
-
Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant. Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor? Not at all. At that point it's a purely stylistic choice. What kind of "realistic" protection it provides should no longer enter the arguement, since the situation is unrealistic to begin with.
-
Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.
-
Jump Around
dan107 replied to Monte Carlo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Honestly, I cannot imagine a circumstance under which a game is any more or less enjoyable for me if I have the ability to jump around. -
What are you talking about? The standard of realism is the same. Once you've established that there is magic in the world, physics goes out the window. Once you've established that there are "magical" (for lack of a better word) women able to beat men in armored combat, the realism of armor goes out the window as well. If a wizard can use a fireball to destroy a building, it doesn't really matter if the exact temperature of the fire may not be enough to burn stone. Likewise, if a woman can beat a male fighter in combat it doesn't matter if she wearing plate or a bikini. Both scenarios are pure fantasy.
-
Obviously we're talking about realism specifically vis-a-vis women fighting men in combat. Didn't think I had to specify that. Magic, dragons, etc. have nothing to do with it. Unless the setting fundamentally redefines what it means to be a man or a woman, my arguements hold.
-
Once you've established that X is unrealistic in and of itself, realism goes out the window. You can have X+Y, X+Y+Z, X+Y-A*X^2, etc. At that point, if X is present, it's a purely stylistic choice, and realism is not a valid arguement for either side.
-
I think you missed my point. Women in chainmail bikinis fighting men is completely unrealistic. So is women fighting men in heavy armor. What they're wearing is pretty much irrelevant here.
-
That is an entirely different arguement altogether, and one that has far more merit than realism. If you want to say, "I want a game where I play a badass female fighter that kicks everyone's ass and screw realism", more power to you. All I'm saying is don't use realism as an arguement in a situation that's quite absurd to begin with.
-
I said maybe to "equal" the malus in strength and constitution for woman. I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^ Well, realistically that ought to be the case. I'm not saying that that's a good way to make a game, but the notion that women should wear similar armor to men because of REALISM is absurd. If you want to bring realism into the equation, women fighters shouldn't be there to begin with.
-
Source? The bayonet. When did those amazons you're so enamored with defeat men using primarily bayonets?
-
It happened in real life though. It just wasn't the norm, and varied with culture. A woman can murder a man. The average man is stronger than the average woman, yes, but an average woman is still lethal, and a very above average woman vs. an average man could end very badly for the male. Of course a woman can murder a man. She can murder a man by poisoning him, stabbing him in the back, or strangling him in his sleep. But show me any historical precendent where women were able to defeat trained men with any kind of consistency in hand to hand combat. Google is your friend: http://listverse.com...emale-warriors/ Just because female fighters don't feature greatly in your education, doesn't mean they haven't existed. The links you've provided reference women LEADERS, not warriors. Typically generals and emperors/empresses do not fight hand to hand on the front lines. And if they do, they are surrounded by some of the best bodyguards in the world. Indeed it is about representation in a fantasy game. Therefore, the notion that women fighting in chainmail bikinis is unrealistic does not hold much water. Like I've said twice already, women fighting men in hand to hand combat is unrealistic to begin with. What they're wearing doesn't really matter.
-
Source?
-
Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield? Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway. Strawman arguement. One, no one called you an idiot. Two, no one said that a woman can't SHOOT a man. We're talking about women defeating men in hand to hand combat wearing heavy armor. Which is indeed fantasy.
-
It happened in real life though. It just wasn't the norm, and varied with culture. A woman can murder a man. The average man is stronger than the average woman, yes, but an average woman is still lethal, and a very above average woman vs. an average man could end very badly for the male. Of course a woman can murder a man. She can murder a man by poisoning him, stabbing him in the back, or strangling him in his sleep. But show me any historical precendent where women were able to defeat trained men with any kind of consistency in hand to hand combat.
-
http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons How does that contradict anything I've said? Even in the link you've provided, they're wearing regular clothes and carrying muskets. Neither of which requires any kind of physical strength. Show me any period in history where a female regiment wore heavy armor and successfully fought men in hand to hand combat. Just so you know: armor became progressively pointless since the invention of the crossbow and melee combat was still very important all the way up to the world wars. This is why muskets effectively doubled as a lance for a long time. So that all female army? They defeated a technically superior european force. Just so you know, there is a reason why even in the 21st centrury, a time when physical strength is less important in combat than it has ever been the overwhelming majority of the world's militaries do not allow women in combat units. That reason is that men are far superior physically. That difference is only exacerbated in hand to hand combat. The idea of a woman being able to defeat a trained male fighter in sword combat wearing heavy armor is fantasy, period. Whether she's wearing full plate or a string bikini doesn't make it any more or less realistic. Whatever your reasons for not wanting to see chainmail bikinis may be, realism has nothing to do with it.
-
http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons How does that contradict anything I've said? Even in the link you've provided, they're wearing regular clothes and carrying muskets. Neither of which requires any kind of physical strength. Show me any period in history where a female regiment wore heavy armor and successfully fought men in hand to hand combat.
-
If you want to talk about practicality and realism, there shouldn't be any women warriors period. A woman running around in plate mail, swinging a sword, and killing male fighters in fair fights is fantasy to begin with. How revealing her armor may or may not be does not really add to or detract from the "realism" of this already fairy tale premise.
-
If that's addressed to me, I'm certainly not asking to make the shooting gameplay any easier overall. Just less awkward. Same here. Take an Alka-Seltzer. You'll feel better. Whether or not to take out an enemy from a distance with or take him down up close with a pistol. Whether to stealth kill enemies or just sneak past them. Whether to try and avoid patrol routes or to climb into an open window. Whether to drop a grenade into a room full of guards or to hack a console and lock them in. Etc, etc, etc. You know actual tactical choices, not do I want to be a) crap with an assault rifle or b) not crap with an assault rifle. That's because people ignore the actual points I make and respond with sighs, groans, moans, attempts at wit, and flat out insults. And yet not one person in this thread has answered the very simple question that I posed 3 times now. Let's see if bolding helps. How specfically does starting out with abysmally bad aim and having to put points into a skill to no longer have abysmally bad aim actually make the gameplay better? Or if you like how having bad aim adds realism to the game, the question can be re-phrased: How specfically does starting out with realistically bad aim and having to put points into a skill to have unrealistically god-like aim actually make the gameplay better?
