Lephys

^ That's the kind of thing I was thinking of, but I didn't really know how to say it without describing it for several pages, heh. I'm glad I didn't try. Your form of the idea is excellently concise. I definitely think it's something to consider, but it's one of those "If I were on the dev team, I'd probably be able to tell you whether or not it was feasible to implement, based on all factors at play. But I'm not, sadly" things... I mean, functionally, at least SOME form of that seems perfectly feasible. But, who knows... it may go against something they've already got in there? *shrug* In an ideal world, it gets into the game. 8P

Ahh. Well, I appreciate the feedback, . I just didn't want to get 60 hours in (I'm a slow RPG player, heh) and THEN find out about "Oh, hey, doing THIS or THIS before you started would have SIGNIFICANTLY enhanced your playthrough!". 8P That, and the version discrepancy. The wiki page says that the GOG.com version has been patched to the 1.7.4 or whatever patch, but GOG.com shows a 2.0.5 (something like that) installer version. I was trying to make sure I wasn't going to break the game and have it spazz out 30 hours in by installing the wrong patches, since the patching info seems to be a bit out-of-date (at least in that it doesn't really say anything about the newest GOG version). I know what you mean about the graphics. I personally LOVE the graphics. I mean, it COULD be nicer looking, without hurting anything, I suppose, but it's not at such a crude level that you can't tell what's what or recognize details in things (like if it were 8-bit and you were going for an immersive RPG experience, heh). I might try the sound one (I like pretty sounds, 8P), and I'll definitely go with the Unofficial Community Patch (originally from Terra Arcanum?). ^_^

@Trashman... you go spearhead a project with a historical accuracy team in place of an art team and let me know how well your game does. Also, you can act as though I'm full of nonsense all day long, but I've merely been the messenger in this thread for Obsidian's sentiments on the matter in regard to what they're already planning (a fine ****tail of subtleness and distinction). Honestly, what it comes down to, for me, is this: If you (and the "some" who want the same thing) don't get your ultra-verisimilitudinous military uniformity, you suffer no detriment to functional gameplay. Yet, if we crazies don't get our inter-character distinction, the game suffers a detriment to not only subjective artistic/style pleasantries (same as the lack of military uniformity), but also to the ability to intuitively select and command our characters, however small you would argue that is. It is an objective, functional factor. Add to that the fact that it's really a pretty minor issue (EVEN if I were worried Obsidian were gonna boob-armor it up -- which would make it a more major minor issue, heh) -- and it's even MORE surprising that anyone's so adamant about it. My stance... what's it really hurting? *shrug* Other stances... "OMG, I CAN'T BELIEVE you would even SUGGEST that, it's such a huge, terrible big deal! That would destroy the VERY FABRIC OF THE GAME!" Yeah, because all games we've ever played were ruined and unplayable thanks to any amount of artistic license with equipment designs and aesthetics, and now this game wants to basically utilize some of the most true-to-reality designs anyone has ever seen, and it's a big deal that they're not going 100% historically/realistically accurate? "OMG, THAT PLATE ARMOR WOULDN'T BE 10% MORE FEMALE-TORSO SHAPED! This is way better than all other games' armor designs, and yet I HATE IT EVEN MORE!" Also, @Trashman, since the game would, apparently, be inherently more fun if you had to manually do all the resizing of armor pieces, why don't we just get the most bang for our buck, here, and go ahead and have each actual individual piece of armor (like joint segments and everything) need to be manually taken to a blacksmith and resized. We can throw in a Measurement Taking minigame, for good measure, so that the more accurately you take measurements, the more accurately the armor is fitted, and the better it works (the less it hinders your character's movements). Also, we should make sure it actually takes like 2 weeks of in-game time to get a single set of armor altered, so as to maximize the realism-based fun. "Can we go to the cave yet?" "NO, Steve! My ARMOR isn't ready yet!" "We can't afford 5 more nights at the inn, dammit, without doing something that actually earns us some income!" "Well... better practice your sexy dancing, then."

Well, it's not like the game's development; They can't exactly show us concept art, and demo videos of an incomplete site. "Well, at some point, this will be a log in box, and this will allow you to navigate the page." It's kind of a "Not done/done" thing. Several of the other Kickstarters have done the same thing. Most don't even mention anything about the pledge managers, except for maybe initially (to tell you that there will, in fact, be a backer site/manager), then like a week before it's done (in one of those "Good news, folks! It's almost time for the backer site to be up!" updates). It's kind of like waiting on your food at a restaurant. I don't expect the server to come tell me "Okay, they're blending the sauce now!", or "They've flipped the chicken, so the other side is cooking now!". I just know a meal takes time to make, and I patiently await the completed meal. The incomplete components of the meal have no value to me, and are not news-worthy.

Hear hear! They really should be treated more like logos than pretty works of art.

Watching the latest Chris-Playing-Arcanum video sparked my urge to go download the game and install it (I have the original disc, SOMEwhere at my parents' house, but there's no telling where, exactly). I'm just curious, but, wasn't there some major bug in the original game that prevented the main campaign from being completed, perhaps even only if you did things a certain way? I seem to remember some canyon area or something, when I originally tried to play through the game (it's so long ago, it's all a bit fuzzy) that was supposed to load another area, or some NPC that was supposed to talk to you to progress something, and it just plain wouldn't do it. I remember giving up on the game because I literally couldn't figure out how to go any further. Am I imagining things, and, if not, is this an issue in the 2.0.0.5(I think it's 5) version that's available on GOG? Oh, come to think of it, I think someone posted some patch tips for Chris in one of these Let's Play updates... **EDIT** Found the pcgamingwiki link on page 1. I probably should have looked for that before posting silly questions... *Feels stupid*. Any tips specifically for the GOG.com release? Should I just install all the improvement patches (high res stuff + music improvement + shadows improvement, etc.?), and maybe the "Unnofficial Patch by Drog Black Tooth"? It says it includes lots of bug fixes and "restored content." Maybe that's the dead end I was thinking of from my original playthrough ~12 years ago.

NO one suspects the humanoid platypi!!! ^_^

Hmmm... Curses! And they almost got away with tricking everyone into thinking it was 100% new information! Thwarted yet again! *The Obsidian team twirls their collective sinister mustache between thumb and forefinger, then dramatically whips their diabolical cloak across the lower half of their face before fleeing the scene* "You'll regret this!", they shout, as they slink back to their lair. And there was much rejoicing.

Nice one, Tamerlane, Naturally, the female armor should be devoid of codpieces. I'm glad that detail didn't go on being neglected. Also, for no apparent reason, I'd just like to point out the artistic notion of gestalt. 8P

I love the refreshing spritz of new details within the current pitcher of collective data tea. ^_^

Well, I like to think of it as the difference between only having sharp weapons and blunt weapons. A hammer or a sword. You can progress with one or the other. ORRR, you can have 2-handed weapons, AND blunt weapons, AND slashing weapons, AND piercing weapons, AND ranged weapons, AND throwing weapons, AND shields, and any combination there-in. I mean, I don't know what that serves, other than pleasant complexity? Why is it nicer to have a variety of different factors that make up the available weapons in the game than it is to have like 2? *shrug* I guess you could say it serves a lack of oversimplification? Reactions to things in a variety of different ways, rather than a couple of different ways.

As for that, you'd treat it, I'd imagine, just like you would regular vision. If character A is in one spot, and can only see 20 feet into darkness (in usual games), and character B is 20 feet ahead of A and can see 20 feet further, and spots something 20 feet out (assume they're all in a straight line, for simplicity), then A can use a sufficiently ranged weapon to make an attack on the foe that B has spotted, because A is aware of what B can see, abstractly (as is the player, who shares all their collective senses and knowledge). To put it another way, if character A has low-light vision, and character B does not, and they're standing side-by-side, and A gets blinded, you wouldn't lose the ability to see anything while selecting character A, and have to switch to B just to see what's going on and where your party is. You would simply lose all the sight capabilities from A -- thus, your lowlight vision -- and would only be presented with what character B could see, even though the radius would be largely the same. How well a single character can see can be handled by attack rolls and targetability and such, whereas the player can still be shown whatever his/her best input is from among all the characters' visual senses at the time. At least, that's how it tends to be handled, and is, I think, an understandable abstraction, since you can't really shrug off the "How do we handle the fact that the player essentially IS the entire party?". That being said, I'm not really sure it'd be worth implementing, based on my current level of knowledge.

Ehhh... the difference, though, is that that's really kind of just "Good" vs "bad," blending together in the middle. It's like a single quadrant of the Cartesian plane. Midnite Rule's proposal would extend that to the entire plane. Sort of. It's got a good bit more complexity, even in its base form.

Yeah. I'm sorry. That was just sort of pre-emptively directed at anyone who would say that it would somehow be a crime to compromise the fact that individual pieces of armor had to be individually fitted. In a way, it would be really immersive and cool to have that happen. But, I think that's an acceptable abstraction (especially for a game like this, on a budget, in which there are FAR more important systems) that it auto-sizes. But, just to clarify, wasn't directed at you. Sorry about that. The issue at hand, when I joined in, was what you describe, until someone said "Why should armor on a female look ANY different from armor on a male?", at which point I responded to that. I then received numerous bits of flak for supplying such a reason, and pointing out reasons for what I thought "should a female breastplate really look like" (again, threat title). It's silly (for someone -- not saying you're doing it) to act like the only option for "different from a male one" is "super-oglable female armor," so I think my articulation on precisely where, in between, it should be, was well geared to the "issue at hand." A purely binary discussion is pointless, so I merely approached from a different angle is all. (FYI, I know this is just text, but I have no intention of it being hostile text. I'm only attempting to clarify my perspective.) For what it's worth, I do agree with all you said about the specific issue you were tackling. And yeah, that was ultra-annoying, and that was just female next to female. So, imagine if she looked just like Zevran or something, simply because their armors were identically shaped. Thank you for such an awesome example that I didn't even think of.

I have nothing against the decoration idea. I simply also have nothing against... well, I'll call it "reproportioning," to be accurate. Take helmets. Some helmets are narrower, some are wider, some taller, some shorter. It's not always just going to be a 1:! slider you drag to scale down or up the size of the armor piece in question. And yes, I realize that, even with no-expense-spared fitting of armor, the difference for a male torso and female torso wouldn't be that noticeable, but that comes back to the whole "We've gotta make these stilettos and estocs slightly exaggerated in their proportions, otherwise the blades wouldn't show up" thing. The problem of the character models being rather small on-screen. It's like 16-bit sprites of old, where you had to do things like "Well, the boot wouldn't actually come up THAT high, but if I don't put a contrasty pixel here, there won't be a top-of-boot ANYwhere on the sprite!", only in HD now. Haha. Anywho, I think you could have quite subtle difference (again, I know boobplate has been mentioned in this thread, but the thread is titled "What should a female breastplate really look like?" and not "BOOBPLATE -- DISCUSS!") -- albeit slightly exaggerated so as to only be roughly 80% true to real female armor proportions, rather than a full 100% (accuracy you wouldn't be able to verify or benefit from, anyway, on such a small model) -- and achieve that "Oh, cool, I picked a female main character instead of a male, and I like how my armor actually fits me and I can easily tell I'm not just another, slight-different-sized character model in full-plate!" effect without making the armor utterly ridiculous and torturing anyone with an extreme awareness of real, historical plate armor proportions. To bring up something I haven't even brought up yet because I've been too busy fending off outright silly attacks against a simple point/advocation (not so much from you, Spiritofpower), this is a game. Obvious though that may be, we RPG players value the specifics of our character aesthetics. It's part of our own, unique style and experience of the game. So, when you give someone a female character that looks a certain way, and they play through the game, and one day they acquire some full plate armor, and then *poof*, all their character uniqueness is covered up by some armor that's exactly the same armor model as everyone else's plate armor models, that doesn't do anyone any favors. It basically says "Yay! Annnnd now you look generic! 8D" Which is yet another reason they're doing things like having literally the exact same piece of armor appear differently when equipped by an Aumaua than it does when unequipped, passed to a Dwarf, then equipped by that Dwarf. Realistic? No. Would the game be more fun if you had to have every piece of armor manually fitted to every single character? I think not.

Agreed. But, the range of scaling can be... well, scaled (heh) to whatever range-size they need it to be, depending on how well they represent time. More on time further down. Also agreed. There's actually another thread about this, that went on for a bit, but, for what it's worth, I personally feel that your skill and experience should progress a lot more than your sheer power. But... at the same time, it's a game. Always balances and compromises, heh. A lot of games just go all out on the power difference, though, between new game and endgame. And that presents a bit of a problem, with things beyond just how to handle potential challenge scaling. Yeah, that's the thing. I think it should all work together. It shouldn't be "Oh, did you use level-scaling here, or did you use encounter-scaling? OR, did you actually have this be pertinent to the story/world?" I say, why not all three, and only to the degree that they're useful? Well, I think it would just plain make more sense if a lot of those "We ventured off into the forest and across the continent for a whole 3 hours, then explored a huge bunch of ruins for another hour, then made it back by supper" situations took a lot longer. I don't mean active play time, like "You have to make your characters run for 3 ACTUAL hours to get there!" or anything. I just mean, I think, if the world's actually as big as a friggin' world, things should probably take longer than they generally do. That kind of time passage can be handled "off-stage," so-to-speak, by things like fast travel/map travel/area transitions. The Mass Effect Games actually did this pretty well, considering. They never really told you how much time had passed, but, after going off on a mission, the entire "world" progressed as if at least a day or two had passed. Shops got new stock, some people who were waiting on something at a station were gone now, etc. It's like everything actually moved forward whenever you did, rather than sitting around, waiting for you to get to it in a given state. Granted, it didn't affect a whole lot, mechanically, in those games, but it was still quite nice, methinks. Fair enough. I just think that's all the more reason to make one you like, . If I were a developer, it would be one of those "Challenge, ACCEPTED!" moments. Well, I'm glad you find value in them. I just know it's an unfortunate fact that I'm rather wordy, and that my brain was not designed to please and convenience the rest of the world, heh. And, for what it's worth, I appreciate your posts. If not for them, I wouldn't actually get to evaluate this whole thing so much, and gain an even better understanding of it (and think of even more possibilities). Also, I may have said it already, but I couldn't tell from your posts that your English was any lesser than anyone else's.

Fair enough. I simply maintain that, objectively, I don't see an actual problem with the style of the concepts, and I really don't see another, objectively "better" way of doing it. You have no problem with straying from realism, as long as there is reason, right? Okay, well then forget about discerning between characters (who happen to be of different genders, who happen to possess different physical forms and proportions) as the reason, and go with "ideally, everyone would have properly-fitting armor, but, realistically, that would be quite expensive and time-consuming," and how about we just say "Well, then in this world, it's not as expensive and is more commonplace, so pretty much everyone gets decently-fitted armor." If that is true, then a male Orlan gets a different (albeit subtly different) set of armor from a male Human. And guess who gets a different set of armor from BOTH of them? A human female. Is it because she's female? No. Is it because her torso and shoulders and hips are shaped differently from both the Human male AND the Orlan male? Yes. The simple fact that she is female is completely irrelevant. If she was a genderless Rock Golem, and she happened to exist in the form that a Human Female happens to have, and she wanted to wear armor for some reason, then we would give her armor that fits that form realistically, because that's the static rule we decided, because, realistically, armor could and was actually fitted like that when the resources were available, so the only factor we're fudging a little is the resource requirements to do such a thing. Everyone keeps calling out the whole gender thing, when all the different races wouldn't be able to wear the same breastplates without obvious trouble, anyway. If you're going to go with "Oh, well the armor's resized for this Orlan or Godlike," then why is it resized for them? That's correct: because of the differences in their physical form/proportions. But then, I guess that's silly of us "different breastplate" advocates to be so in favor of breaking that rule in some special way for gender, because I totally want all female breastplates to be shaped like dragons instead of breastplates that fit the person who's wearing them. So in response to the still-put-forth question of "Why are we singling out gender as some special thing?", I would ask that same question in return, because all I'm advocating is armor tailored to form. So, either don't tailor any of the armor to ANY form, or tailor it to all forms. Why would you tailor it to SOME forms, then just assume "Oh, well, you see, I want to make sure all FEMALE characters actually just have to wear the MALE-fitted armor, and we'll just, for the sake of realism, assume that they use some memory foam and wear like 5 extra padded coats underneath to make it fit their non-v-shaped-and-broad-shouldered torsos, u_u" Next thread: "Helmets should not be fitted to character heads! If they're too big, then, for the sake of realism, your character should simply be unable to see! And if they're too small, you wear them like hats! We wouldn't want to compromise the quality of gameplay and realism aesthetics or anything!"

^ I'd just like to point out that: A) We don't know that there isn't a "deity" in P:E who's actually just an ancient, powerful entity who bestows arcane abilities to the priests who follow it (just as an example of ways in which the Priest class might already fulfill your "cleric but not divine caster" role), and B) We don't know that Wizards won't have some sort of healing specialization skill/ability grouping. Hell, there could even be a deity who represents Selfishness or Self-Empowerment or something, and who grants power to those who essentially worship themselves or don't really care for any particular deity. So, a Priest's power could come from it, but not from directly worshipping it. Hatred would be another example. The more powerfully you hold to hatred, the more power you draw from the deity of hatred, even though you go about garnering hatred and not kneeling and worshipping the deity of Hatred all day long, or spreading the word of hatred. *shrug* I don't think your Priest necessarily has to be the kind who goes to church every day and burns incense and lights candles, or reverently visits a temple on a regular basis, as all the deities most likely aren't going to be the same in what they represent and what they want in their "followers." Just for what it's worth.

Heh. I swear to you... if I could somehow make my brain compress its thought processes, I would. I try my best. It's just not my strong suit. Not at all. My only point with the difficulty is specifically in response to the notion that there is a problem with some enemy still being tough, simply because you should've been able to make them not-tough. In other words, because of level-scaling, this foe is "too tough." Hence the comparison to non-level-scaling systems still presenting you with tough enemies no matter what. Regardless of how you got there, the result is the same. That was the only point of that comparison. Not "All of level-scaling is the same thing as difficulty options" or anything. Ehhh... A) Nothing dicates that your RPG actions and progress must be reduced to some miniscule duration of time (Look at Fallout 1... just the water chip quest could take, what, 100 days or something?). And B) Nothing says you have to become SUPER strong from starting out as sucking. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. I just want to emphasize that it's not "short-duration nooblet-to-deity transition or nothing at all!" I agree with you that that kind of thing is rather problematic and detrimental to immersion. But, an excellent example is what you've said here: See, with something like a bear, it's probably not going to get better. So, if there's a cave to explore, where bears live, then you wouldn't explain an alteration in bear-power with "Well, it's been hunting and sleeping a lot, so it's gained some levels!". BUT, IF there was some reason to scale this cave (if, perhaps, it was core content or something), you could have younger bears there (adult, but not fully-grown, experienced-at-survival-and-defending-their-territory bears) to present an appropriate challenge for greener player characters, and simply "replace" them (they don't ever exist in any form until you actually get to the cave) with 10-year-old bears that are larger, stronger, and more ferocious and have held their own for many years at that cave. And who's to say it's not happenstance, which bears and how many you find in that cave the one time per-playthrough that you go to it? I mean, that cave and those bears never even existed in the first place, until some developer said "Hey, here's a place this character could go at a given point, and so it's not going to be level 1 or level 99, but instead some at least halfway-decently-appropriate challenge level for the player at the point at which he reaches it." It's not as if they were just designing the game, and went "Oh hey, a naturally-occurring cave of virtual bears! Ooooh, I'm going to unnaturally SCALE these already-existent bears according to my will! MUAHAHAHA!" It works much more easily with sapient things like bandits, since they ACTIVELY try to improve their effectiveness at banditry (be it through skill, numbers, equipment quality, etc.) so that they can bandit-ize larger and larger hauls of valuables and do even more of whatever-the-hell-they-want. Also, you say you'd rather see it dependent upon time, rather than your level. But, all your level progression takes time, correct? So, that fits naturally into a world where time passes everywhere, and not just where you are. Did you do 10 sidequests before you got to this scaled core content, or did you do 5? If you did 5, then the amount of time it WOULD'VE taken you to go off and complete those other 5 hasn't passed yet. Boom. Instant time-basis. See, there are ways of doing it that are far more elegant than Oblivion, yet talk of the potential for doing it elegantly and intelligently gets met with so much "BUT WHAT ABOUT HOW HORRIBLY YOU COULD DO IT, LIKE IN OBLIVION?!!! AND THEREFORE I WANT TO SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE WELL!" And I know you're not saying that, I'm just commenting on the fact that this discussion is always so taxing, because it takes like 90 posts to get people to actually become open-minded. You have been quite open-minded about it, and I appreciate it. And I apologize for my lengthy posts. I just don't like to leave holes of vagueness, which are only going to prompt 17 more back-and-forth posts of questions and answers, anyway. My aim is pretty much to elaborate on exactly why the announcement of the use of level-scaling doesn't frighten me into thinking the game's going to definitely suffer because of it, and to, perhaps, alleviate those fears in other people.

Or a Sims diamond above their head! 8D

Call me crazy, but it seems like having more physique-fitted armor and being able to go "Oh, okay, that's Suzy, and that's Tom" with absolutely no effort is entirely worth the miniscule cost of the realism of "Because of economical reasons and time constraints, Suzy's plate armor wouldn't actually be any different from Tom's." And that in no way means "There should be metallic bosoms sculpted into the female breastplates, in fine detail." See previously posted character model concepts from recent update for details. Simply put, the female armor is different from the male armor. Note that the difference is subtle, and that it allows you to tell, at a glance, who is who when you happen to have a male character near a female character. The gender difference isn't any more important than any other aesthetic difference that should make characters easily discernible. And, with the straying-from-realism bit, it's no different from things like "That's not really how narrow a Rapier would be in proportion to people, but we need it to show up for what it is on these small character models," or "that engagement radius is actually 3 feet too large for that weapon's reach and that character's height, but it works perfectly fine for the purposes of mechanics/gameplay and isn't hurting anyone."

I see. I think I understand the 3D water, now. And I have a greater understanding of how difficult it would be to do any kind of dynamic shadows that actually reacted to the lightsources with the 2D approach. I appreciate the lesson.

Well, I was just thinking, at the very least, about shadows on the environment that follow the day/night lighting. I mean, those things in the environment are all 2D, so they're never going to rotate or anything, so all you have to do is take a 2D vector shadow, starting at the sunrise position, and skew it across to the sunrise position (and redo it for moonstages). You wouldn't really need 3D model info, since you don't have a 3D dynamic object making the shadow in the first place. I mean, all a shadow really is is a map, on the ground (for all practical purposes, in a pre-rendered environment, a 2D plane) of where light is blocked as opposed to where it isn't. It's just a 2D shape. With actual 3D objects, it's derived from the angle of the lightsource, in 3D space. But, in a completely 2D environment (in which the sun and moon don't actually have an angle at which they strike any of the environment), I would think you could simply get some skew-math right on the shadow-shape for each object (imagine cutting the whole object out, in Photoshop or Illustrator, and filling it a solid color, then stretching/skewing/rotating that 2D shape until it APPEARS to be lying against an isometric ground plane). Again, I know that would be time-consuming, manually, but I figured there might be some person out there who's developed a piece of software that can perform some 2D/vector calculations for something like that. I mean, vector shapes are just equations, basically. Right? (Again, I admit my noobness, and if I'm WAY off, I'll just stop wasting your time). But, weren't the "taller" rocks that were protruding from the low level of water a part of the same 2D image as the rest of the rocky streambed? Seems like getting 3D water to appear to flow above AND below certain bits of a 2D image would be more trouble than simply using 2D water along with masking and such (I don't know what the technical terms would be in a game engine like that) to create the illusion of the water being higher or lower. But, again, what seems to me to be the case isn't necessarily the case.

Yes, but if you ARE engaged, and you don't want to run away, but you don't want to stand in the same spot until one of you is dead... There's room for support for that. In other games, relocation involved running away, then luring that enemy back to you at the location of your choosing. But, in an actual fight, you can maneuver in such a way that you can successfully relocate WHILE still engaging your foe. You know, "backpedaling," as the OP pointed out, and/or pushing your foe to the edge of a cliff, or into a corner, or a trap switch, etc. You shouldn't have to completely disengage, then run about like an idiot, playing "PREDICT THAT ENEMY PATH!" just to get someone where you want them. Of course, nor should it always be ultra-easy to maneuver your foes where you want them. Hell, maybe there could even be a ground-targeted ability that relocates your foe (engaged in melee combat) to the designated spot (range would be limited to your engagement circle). I don't think Wizards and Priests and such would necessarily have this ability as they would a simple disengagement "Get the Hell Away From Me" ability. Also of note on this topic is the Rogue's "Reversal" ability, which puts the Rogue on the opposite side of the foe. More like that would be nice. *Gets backed up to a precipice... uses Reversal... Leonidas-kicks opponent off of terrain edge*.

... Why are people UN-concerned with it? In that case, why should equipment even look different? A leather vest and steel plate should just look the same. I mean, you can check your inventory if you want to know what someone's wearing. All weapons should use the exact same sword model, even if they aren't swords. Because, it's really not that big of a deal. They'll still all function properly. It's just aesthetics at that point, and we're obviously being overly picky and want the art team to waste their time, u_u Argue the semantics as much as you want... the female concepts you reference are wearing a differently-formed breastplate than the males (along with, I'm sure, slight tweaks to other pieces). I don't see the point in saying "Well, yeah, females have a different physique than males, and the armor should be shaped accordingly, but that doesn't mean the females should get 'special' armor because they're female instead of male!" Your words are challenging themselves to a duel, as we speak. I'm not gonna say "No one" said anything about a "special breast plate" that's even more different than simply being based upon the different proportions of the female torso, but you arbitrarily challenged even those of us (myself included) who were, indeed, saying no such thing, with the same notion.