[Please include women with shirts on.]

On a serious note, I wanna hear about dan's personal experience fighting women while both he and his female opponent wore steel armor and how bad he kicked her ass.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

No you claimed your logic based on the real world not on a fantasy world. Again this is not a real world were our logic even is right or wrong. I our logic there is no magic or dragons for example.

 

Not really, I accepted dan's premise of a fantasy setting where women and men are equal combatants.

 

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.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Ok Dan, let's accept your premise. However, people in wars don't tend to respect your feelings. You don't have to WANT to fight to be in a combat situation. Now you're a woman fighting a man. You know that you're going to lose if this stays a one on one affair, because physics dictates that no woman can beat a man in a physical confrontation under any circumstances.

 

Wouldn't you like armor that's actually protective so you can last as long as possible until someone rescues you, instead of immediately being gutted because you just had to show your midriff?

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

 

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

 

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.

 

In your setting, Dan, why would anyone bother with armor at all? It's heavy, limits vision and movement, and is stiflingly hot.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

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:

 

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

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]

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Edit for Dan107: No, it doesn't work that way. Realism applies to the logical, internal consistency of the setting. Magic isn't real either. That doesn't justify all humans being able to breathe underwater with no explanation. At least throw out a "someone cast a global ritual to make everyone breathe underwater" justification at me.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Even if I were to accept your premise, how is saying "X is unrealistic, therefore adding Y to X and making it even more unrealistic is ok" a valid argument?

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Chainmail bikinis in Project Eternity would feel just as stupid (and unrealistic) as half- naked women with flak bikinis in a Modern Warfare game.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons.

 

Source?

 

The bayonet.

 

When did those amazons you're so enamored with defeat men using primarily bayonets?

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

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.

 

And even if no woman has ever beaten a man in combat (a laughable premise) this thread is about representation within a fantasy game. No elfs or dwarves have beaten a man in combat either.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons.

 

Source?

[Please include women with shirts on.]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

Note that I did not say that that Witcher 2 picture was a bad example, but rather that the 'issue' of 'turning people into asexuals' is only really present in plate armor.

 

So yeah, I don't really care about clothes and mage robes (as long as the design isn't really stupid, but that's another story).

 

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.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

 

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.

[Please include women with shirts on.]

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.

[What is bad about the gameplay ASIDE from people trying to play this like a shooter?]

What point is there sneaking if gunning everyone down was easy as cakes, and required no effort at all?

 

If that's addressed to me, I'm certainly not asking to make the shooting gameplay any easier overall. Just less awkward.

 

*biggest sigh in the last 6 months*

 

Same here.

 

Take an Alka-Seltzer. You'll feel better.

 

I don't play RPGs because of their sophisticated story, and I neither play shooters because they lack one. I play RPGs because they force me to use different mindset instead of only point and shoot. Using AP as an example - it forces me to think: should I spent some points to improve my AR accuracy or should I spent them to improve my sneaking talents. With RPG mechanics removed from shooting/sneaking what choice would I have?

 

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.

 

Seeing flaws and pointing them out differs from stating game features as "flaws" and repeating your point of view 300 times just to defend it.

 

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?