Darji
-
Posts
465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Darji
-
-
Yeah gold is one of the things that should not have a weight. Anything else sure.
-
1
-
-
Fallout: New Vegas was a video game designed by... wait for it... Obsidian Entertainment. In this game there are no stat penalties for playing as a women nor as a man. While not realistic this was most likely done to not limit a player's options and allow to play whatever role as whatever gender.Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.
It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.
Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise.
Project Eternity is an upcoming video game designed by.... the exact same people. Why would they suddenly decide to limit the player's options in such a way when it is so rarely done? The only game I can think of with stat penalities is Arcanum which gives a +1 to strength for male characters and a +1 to Endurance for female characters.
Oh I absolutely agree. It doesn't make any sense to include any stat bonuses or penalties in a game. Let people play however they want. But don't say that you shouldn't have skimpily clad women in the game because it's UNREALISTIC. Sexist, childish, "I DON'T LIKE IT", etc, are all perfectly valid reasons. Once you mention REALISM however, the only logical conclusion is that women shouldn't be there to begin with. How they're dressed doesn't really matter.
Dan- you have admitted now multiple times that there are valid reasons for women not being scantily clad, yet your reason for still posting is a tangential argument on realism... you have also referenced your own fitness, I can't help but feel it's your own ego is bruised at the thought of a woman could beat you in a fight.... Well somewhere out there there is one, deal with it.
Women will fight as warriors in Eternity, regardless of how that compares to reality, and they deserve the same armour as the men, not whore outfits.
WE never even said anything against this. Just don't come with realism thats all we are asking. Everything is totally possible in a game or a fantasy world so its also totally possible in this game.
-
here are your streatch goals :
Meh I just cant copy and paste so go here:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts
-
Also a very huge problem here is to stay consistent to the world.
Here a bad example from yeah Dragon Age 2: In theory I really liked the conflict between Mages and Templars. It had much potential but it was destroyed through people in the world not reacting to your actions. For example you had a fight in a city full of Templars and you were clearly a Mage and casted spell after spell in their sight and even fought besides them. But suddenly as it ended they acted like nothing had happened. They thanked you for not being a Mage and just went on with their business.
Such events could destroy any mature story line and make it laughable in my opinion. So in short if you actually have such conflicts about racism or discrimination in your story make sure the world is aware of that and is reacting to your actions.
-
In real life heavy armor is useless anyway. It does not protect you against 20 sword hits. Maybe one but maybe not even one.
Man, think of how much time and money the Greeks and Romans would have saved if only someone had told them this.
Yes because greeks and romans had plate armors like we know them from fantasy games or how leader wore them, in all these pictures.....
I had seminars at my university about the roman empire or the antic I know what they were wearing back than. The thing that made romans so strong were mostly their shields and their tactics. not some very heavy armor. One hit and they were mostly done for
-
That is f course the case.
I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this.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.
See, here's my thing.
Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people?
Something like that.
We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people.
Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men?
Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?
Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible!
I think the problem here is that we are talking about absolute examples. The strongest woman will never be equal to the strongest man but that does not even mean that he will win against her.
-
And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter.
Less utility is not the same as no utility. Women tiring more quickly in heavy armor does not make heavy armor useless for women.
She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do.
But that's the point. She's exceptionally large and could beat many average men due to being a very above average woman. A man her size would have her once again at a physical disadvantage, but most men aren't her size.
And any trained man? Really? A 5'3 man that weighs 110 pounds should, nine times out of ten, beat a 6'5 woman that weighs 220 pounds?
In real life heavy armor is useless anyway. It does not protect you against 20 sword hits. Maybe one but maybe not even one. If someone aims very well you are dead anyway and it does not even matter if you were plate or leather armor. I rather want to wear leather armor because i could actually move much faster than my enemy
-
Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.
That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women.
Adventurer.
Not human.
Adventurer, tovarishch. Person who wakes up in the morning, looks at a picture of a dragon, and says, "Yeah. I think I want to hit that with a stick."
Anyone in the "adventuring profession" would as a matter of necessity be an above-average human being (or elf or snorlax or whatever).
If both are adventurer you still would have that disadvantage between men and woman.
-
(personal and humble opinion, poor english, sorry, etc.)
Obsidian people and us all here are old roleplayers, jaded to some extend; white hair here, and there, not the horny teenagers focused on cheap tricks, dat sorceress illustration, powermaxing skills anymore. Not to that extend, at least... we have our weaknesses, sure. We'll hide them. This is what I want to believe.
Now. Tropes are in the mood. Some could be avoided as said:
- Romances (no, please, really... Obsidian, not this time)
People? on the list!
I think a form of romance is doable and would be welcomed by some fans (not a big fan of it myself) but personally I think serious relationships in a video game are an absolute joke. Just because a character calls you "husband" doesn't mean you love her; it feels like empty words and it's an empty relationship....because she's an AI program. I don't care if it's a roleplaying game, roleplaying love just isn't doable imo.
Having said that though, I did enjoy the little bit of flirting that the Courier and Cass did, and I know a lot of people liked Doctor Dala from OWB. I think flirting is fine, as flirting can be playful, flattering and funny without being too serious, but it really shouldn't extend beyond that. A "friends with benefits" sort of relationship could be humorous, fun and appease those that DO want romance without being awkward for those that don't. Seems like a fair in-between point.
Thats all that should be. Maybe some flirting maybe some hot affection at night and maybe imply that they married in the end if they are still alive. Do ont go with the getting married, having kids etc during the story. Timeskips are the worst things for RPGs because they always fail to deliver^^
Exactly.
We should be aiming for characters that are deep and detailed enough that we experience everything they do, but you CANNOT simulate love. You can simulate flirting and it still offers entertainment in the same way a "THAT'S WUT SHE SAID OOOOOOOOH" remark offers entertainment, but beyond that, it just starts to feel incredibly forced and fake and alienates the player from the experience.
See, I can't understand this. If its OPTIONAL, you can just ignore it, but some of us DO like it. DOA was actually pretty good with bonding relationships (not just romances) and actually felt something for the characters. As for not feeling "love", there is a whole visual novel culture in japan who wants a word with all of you, also tali in mass effect 2 is one of the most memorable characters. Again, include it, but do it well and not slapped on or forced.
What you had in origins and also Mass effect was not romance it was sex. and flirting. There was no real love involved. If you want to see how its done right play The Witcher and look at the relationship between Triss and Gerald.
-
Yes sure. But again that is fantasy. These people right now arguing about real life XDWould be fun to see the devs bypass the whole human-centric argument by implementing a race where, in a not-uncommon form of sexual dimorphism, the female is physically dominant. Imagine a race where the females looked like ogres and the males looked like gnomes - or for a milder example, orcs and elves respectively.
And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter.
-
I think we really should end this:
Do we think that wearing a bikini armor is absurd in a fantasy game? No
Do we want Bikini Armor in this game? No
Do we think that in the real world men have advantages when they fight against women: Yes
Do we think men would always win in real life? No
Do we think that men should have these advantages in a fantasy game? No
Cant we all live with this?^^
-
Red Sonja even wore more than Conan XDActually, men, ie. Conan as above, do wear 'armour bikinis'.
-
There's something... odd going on here.
There's this weird jump being made between "women are, generally speaking, weaker than men" and "there is no reason for any woman to be a warrior".
I'm not entirely sure how y'all are bridging that particular gap.
Woman are weaker in terms of physical stats. That is something you can not really deny. BUT to be a good fighter does not only depend on your strength . Also woman could have one huge advantage. The advantage of being underestimated which could make them very easily the winner of this duel or fight.
-
Important as long its in the game itself. If I have to buy seperate books in real life its just stupid.
-
Personally I want a armor in which I can move and defeat my enemies. Not one that is heavy and maybe has a bit protection which would not even matter against a well aimed hit anyway^^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?
-
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 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.
This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim.
I never claimed realism, I claimed internal logic.
-
No but there would be nothing against bikini armor except the argument which Catamite made: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?
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.
-
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.
Yes but having magic changes the way people engage fights. for example if its a magic that can be focused on a person instead of a location you actually need some armor that could reflect that. If its centered on a location than maybe its better to actually be able to move fast instead of having heavy armor.
-
Omg please not. Maybe if it uses stamina or is restricted in some way. But every time ? No thank you. This is not Wow.
-
Yeah but plate was also not very useful in combat.1. I know that also non leader wore these but it was not really the normal since it was still very expensive. For example in the middle ages in Germany people actually had to pay for their armor, If they could afford such costly armor they could wear it bust most of them could not and and not such armor. Prestige leaders and also highly ranked knights and rich people were wearing such armors.
Roman Legionnaires of a certain time period were required to buy their equipment as well. It didn't stop them from deploying tens of thousands of men. Armor is not as expensive as some people think. Though of course it depends on the socio-economic conditions of the area we're speaking of.
Fun fact: Chain was actually more expensive than plate unless you went REALLY fancy with the plate armor.
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.
As for the Romans: Yes the Romans won mostly with tactics and also manpower. But depending on your stand in the society you had certain positions in a army and those who actually could afford armor were fighting on the frontlines because for them it was a chance to success and honor. People actaully wanted to fight there back than. ISadly I forgot how this hierarchic system was called...
If I remember correctly from my university days XD
-
That will happen if you guys are one of the few bigger developers who do not fear to make actual RPGs and not something like Dragon Age 2 XDThis is what happens when everyone here pours this much support more quickly then anyone at Obsidian expected. You've got them all frenzied up at the studio on a Saturday. I believe that deserves a thumbs up.
-
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.
I also agree. If you go with this argument you have a point if you try realism you just fail.
-
Yes but not in a plate or very heavy armor...
Neither did the men in her army, in general.
These armor were for prestige and not really for fighting in real battles. Maybe in some tournaments.
Not entirely true. The era when plate was really great protection was brief, but it did exist. And it wained due to the proliferation of the crossbow, and later gunpowder. If your setting has neither, heavy gothic plate could be a great force multiplier.
Also: average weight of plate armor? 50 or so pounds. Modern female soldiers (though not front line general infantry, as most militaries, wisely in my view, don't allow it) carry more in their kit anyway.
This is a useful thing for you to read, I think: http://www.metmuseum...ams/hd_aams.htm
I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^
So you are willing to make concessions to gameplay that go against realism, however minor? Why not just ignore the penalty altogether then, rather than saddle male characters with an utterly arbitrary stat penalty for the sake of balancing female characters' stat penalties?
EDIT: Where did you get the idea that even with armor on, you're dead in one or two hits anyway? Why do you think people even bothered to make armor if that was the case?
1. I know that also non leader wore these but it was not really the normal since it was still very expensive. For example in the middle ages in Germany people actually had to pay for their armor, If they could afford such costly armor they could wear it bust most of them could not and and not such armor. Prestige leaders and also highly ranked knights and rich people were wearing such armors.
2. I would also go for no penalties I just try to go against this "this is not realistic when woman wear revealing armor" argumentation. Again it is still a fantasy game and almost everything should be allowed. But that's up to the developer or designer. And since I trust Obsidian I have no real fear that they actually would but bikini armors in this game since it does not even fit their style.
-
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^^"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.
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.Yeah realism should not really play a role in this. Because than you also would be dead in 1 or 2 hits.
Also we do not even know what kind of world it will be. Yes fantasy but fantasy can mean many things. Maybe they do not even have such a material to make heavy armors. Maybe the metal in this world is very light who knows^^
A suggestion for the romances you're considering (if any)
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted