Jump to content

Recommended Posts

as far as I've seen they are going for the simplistic/realistic armor, mix of chainmails and leather.

I dont like Full plated for heavy armor. (aesthetically) i would love to see something different.PZO9051-Ulf.jpg

 

Chainmail + leather.

 

It's Wayne Reynolds. I actually like his style remeber him from when he made some black and white works for Rolemaster . And it's a proof he can draw some good armour. Well guess DnD art direction sucks :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was. But usually a lance broke after the first charge.

 

A warhammer/morningstar was a populare choce to use from horseback. Due to increased height and horse charge, it's momentum was even higher than normal.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was. But usually a lance broke after the first charge.

 

A warhammer/morningstar was a populare choce to use from horseback. Due to increased height and horse charge, it's momentum was even higher than normal.

 

True, but swords give you an edge with the exendend lunge, and furthermore in a long battle the difference of weight could make the difference.

 

To be clear, I'm not sayng swords were some sort of favorite weapon in late MA battlefields. They weren't. I'm just explaining why western knights kept using swords even in the era of plate armors.

Edited by Baudolino05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with this topic, but just thought I'd throw in the concept of characters gaining enormous strength - it is a fantasy game after all, and if I can gain a (D&D example) 19 hill giant and above strength, then it stands to reason that the size and weight of the weapon a character can weild could increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a bit against the topic question, but would it be possible to enter a #helmet off# option for those who would like to see our character, and not look at a helmet all the time? This is just aesteticly. You would still get the bonus from the helmet, you would just see the face you designed at character creation a bit during the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good topic :)

I love the art that obsidian showed us.

 

Anyway about the topic... I want the designs to be simple but still good looking. I dont want spikes, giant shoulder pads, weapons that are larger then ones character... Now i dont know anything about the world that this game will be in. There might be wood that are just as hard as iron for all i know (depends on how obsidian do the story) to give a example... But even then i want the design to still be something that make sense so no giant weapons and so on.

 

And on the topic of "magical" weapons and so on... I still dont want any "crazy" designs on magical items.

 

I do hope that we will see differences in how armours look depending on the area / culture and material that they use within the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite digging some "fantasy" armor (see DAO and the yes, tin can look), I really like the concept art. I'd be really pleased if that was the overall direction for this game.


Dreaded Silence - Boston Melodlic/Doom Metal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm going to get chewed out for this, but I think skimpy apparel is OK as long as it meets the following conditions:

 

1. It is not ridiculously impractical

Obviously, design of all armor and clothing will probably be, to some extent, slightly impractical for reasons of artistic creativity and aesthetic appeal. If a character is wearing something skimpy, it should at least make some sense. By this I am agree that plate mail bikinis are just preposterous. However, if a character isn't wearing armor to prevent restrictions of movement/speed, and possibly comes from a tribal fighter society or something of the like. My point is, it can be put into proper context if done right. There are historical examples of warriors who dressed scantily for reasons of climate or fighting style, and also done sensibly in some quality fiction, such as Game of Trones and The Malloreon, had said warriors with the Dothraki and the people of Nyissa, respectively.

 

2. It does not objectify the character or gender in question

Pretty straight-forward. Tasteful levels of revealed skin should not be the first thing the player associates with the character. This can be taken to a terrible place when all the females suffer from the same barbie doll look and chain mail bikini syndrome (see: skyrim mods). Likewise, if a female character is wearing skimpy clothing for reasons of fitting into a particular aspect of the universe, developers have to hold the male characters by the same standards (unless the society is explicitly sexist or something, which would have to be a theme of its own).

 

 

...so that's when I think skimpy apparel can be appropriate. It obviously isn't necessary, but if it would make sense for the warriors of a particular society not to be wearing berkas, then it might actually be a good idea.

 

Now, onto weaponry. Please, please, PLEASE no anime swords or stupid, nonsensical, flashy items! I don't want to play a warrior with majestic, perfectly maintained hair flowing through the wind with a spotless face. If he gets down and dirty like a warrior does, then he ought to be rugged. And, contrary to what movies and games would have us believe, women also get bruised, scarred, and dirtied. I would also be displeased to see my enchanted items to be so blatantly colorful and glowing I can't shift my attention away from them.

 

I know it's a fantasy universe, but I think we're all inclined to hope for some amount of realism and simplicity.

Edited by themanclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd first like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with OP. And while we're on the topic, I'd really like to see time put on the artwork of the inventory items. I really like the way items have looked in previous IE games. Really enjoyable for the eyes, and each item feels magical and special. Diablo 2 also had great artwork for inventory items, making them look worthy of getting. Diablo 3 on the other hand, has chosen a really dull look for their inventory this time around. Makes collecting items less stimulating. (which is just kick in the face for a game so focused on collecting items..)

 

Oh! And I'd also like to see the armor I put on my character actually appear. Even tiny things, like belts, and rings. Let them all be visible on the characters. Well, maybe not rings, who knows if we'll ever get to see the characters that up close. But you get the gist of it. Putting something on your character equals having it appear on your character.

 

And, perhaps some level of customisation, like coloring your fabrics, and garments/accessories that are strictly for wearing and decorating your characters. Giving them your own personal flare. Not rare for a band of people to wear something uniform, to strengthen their team spirit.

Edited by Armand
  • Like 2

Like music? Check out my original Project Eternity songs: Project Eternity Excitement Song

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like what I'll call MMO-style armor. Sure, we could go realistic, but that's boring. Now, I do agree we should avoid 'female armor' issues (See: Every female in Terra).

 

Actually, now that I think about it, it might be a cool option for you to be able to sacrifice 'effectiveness' for flair on your gear. For example: My mage, Elminster, decides he wants glowing skull pauldron for his robe. This looks cool and kinda intimidating (+1 to intimidate checks, I guess), but could cause negative reactions in people who are made uncomfortable by skulls, and increases his aggro/threat mechanics behind the scene because he looks more threatening.

 

Really hard to draw the proper line on that, for obvious reasons, because you'll see people walking around looking absolutely ridiculous because of some arbitrary combination of modifiers it gives, but worth a thought I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a fantasy world where a great deal of opponents are beasts in the wild, I would like to see heavily armored forearms and lower legs, which would be frequent targets of animals and such.


The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can get behind this %100. I hate the extravagant art design of most fantasy games. Keep it practical and realistic. From the concept art released so far, seems they're going this route. The Witcher 2 does this better than any other fantasy game I've seen because the artists heavily referenced real life armor and dress in the middle ages but they managed to embellish it, giving it a distinct fantasy look.

Edited by licketysplit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier I'm not trying to push nude fights by bringing this up, rather an idea of practicality and functionality that can be hard to grasp. I used the example of a fictional character but people in reality, in history, have used and worn weapons and armor strange enough that their idea of practical and functional for the time just . . . may seem anything but to us. I'm not pushing big huge swords either. I'm just saying . . . 'careful' when insisting on simple, more believable alternatives. Simple happens, but so do other things, and that's in reality, and trust me, some of the weird barely functional stuff in fantasy? It doesn't hold a flame to some of the weirder stuff people have come up with in reality over the thousands and thousands of years of goofy Humans and their crazy ideas.

 

 

There were crazy people trought all ages. And crazy inventors. And failed experiments.

We can find peices of experimental weaponry and armor - that doesn't change the fact that it failed and never saw wide use. It was a faliure. Like many things even in modern times, with far more scientific approach to weapon design.

 

And yet others were not failures at all, well and oft used in their timeframes only inferior in any way when put up against later more refined weaponry and armor. Not every bit of weirdness was a failure for its time. Some wouldn't have even been failures later, they just fell to the wayside due to cultures dying out for wholly unrelated reasons.

 

Sure there were things there were right off, or eventual, failures, but that's not everything. Some of what we can read about really was just plain odd, but worked in the timeframe well enough or excelled in it, and possibly beyond in some cases. It's not as simple as it's weird so it failed or it was old so it eventually was out performed. Some of the oldest ideas in the book we still use today. Different application or purpose, in some cases, sure, but there none the less.

 

It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it.

 

This is blatantly untrue, in fact you still see peoples that refuse to use better technologies, that includes weapons, even to this day - despite it being available.

 

Yeah, okay I admit it I just want to be able to play Bill the Billman a simple footsoldier driven to adventure by happenstance! :D

 

I think that's just fine personally.


"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were crazy people trought all ages. And crazy inventors. And failed experiments.

We can find peices of experimental weaponry and armor - that doesn't change the fact that it failed and never saw wide use. It was a faliure. Like many things even in modern times, with far more scientific approach to weapon design.

 

And yet others were not failures at all, well and oft used in their timeframes only inferior in any way when put up against later more refined weaponry and armor. Not every bit of weirdness was a failure for its time. Some wouldn't have even been failures later, they just fell to the wayside due to cultures dying out for wholly unrelated reasons.

 

Sure there were things there were right off, or eventual, failures, but that's not everything. Some of what we can read about really was just plain odd, but worked in the timeframe well enough or excelled in it, and possibly beyond in some cases. It's not as simple as it's weird so it failed or it was old so it eventually was out performed. Some of the oldest ideas in the book we still use today. Different application or purpose, in some cases, sure, but there none the less.

 

Those that weren't faliures were sucesfull and would have seen widespread use.

90% of the weird weapons/armor unearthed were faliures. Either they were completley unusable or great but only in such a limited scenario that it was practicly pointless.

 

Again, when talking weapons we're talking multi-purpose weapon used to fight other intelligent and well-equiped opponents. If a weapon is only effective in hunting, it basicly fails as a practical war weapon.

 

 

It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it.

 

This is blatantly untrue, in fact you still see peoples that refuse to use better technologies, that includes weapons, even to this day - despite it being available.

 

No, that's blatantly true.

Smart people want to live. When people have acess to materials and finances, they will get the best they can if their lives depend on it.

Of course, if there is no war and no need for the best, then people won't bother - it just isn't necessary if what you have works well enough for hunting or what have you. Ancient triebes rarely had long-term planing in mind.

But if war breaks out, then the side that doesn't adapt is defeated. It's as simple as that.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, we could go realistic, but that's boring.

 

Some examples posted in this topic could change your mind :)

 

I'll just add this one :

 

scholariusbxxea9.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was. But usually a lance broke after the first charge.

I thought that was a myth.

 

On swords vs. other weapons: Yes, a variety of swords were popular simply because they were useful in such a broad array of situations if you had the proper training. That said, they were also common among the elite simply because they were expensive prestige weapons and humans aren't always rational about such things. And while spears were often used because they were effective in large groups in set piece warfare, a person with a good degree of training could do far more with a spear than sit in a line and poke people.

 

And on unrealistic weapons and armor: I'll take one exception here, assuming it fits the world building. If a piece of armor or weapon is explicitly designed to be utilized with some form of magic, then it doesn't have to be realistic by our standards. It simply has to be realistic by the setting's standards, such that its form very much fits its function. It's function just has no real world analogy. That doesn't mean giant World of Warcraft/Anime swords necessarily, either. Which I'd prefer were avoided do to personal aesthetic reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was. But usually a lance broke after the first charge.

I thought that was a myth.

 

No, it wasn't. I saw it with my own eyes and furthermore any modern-day test confirm that it's a fact, not a myth. If you hit something solid like a shield (or a body) charging horseback there is an high chance that your lance brake. That's why knights used to bring a second weapon in battle.

 

On swords vs. other weapons: Yes, a variety of swords were popular simply because they were useful in such a broad array of situations if you had the proper training. That said, they were also common among the elite simply because they were expensive prestige weapons and humans aren't always rational about such things. And while spears were often used because they were effective in large groups in set piece warfare, a person with a good degree of training could do far more with a spear than sit in a line and poke people.

 

Polearms were the most common kind of weapon from the Neolithic age till the beginning of the modern era. No need to ague about that. I just explained why swords remained popular among western knights even in the late middle-ages.

 

And on unrealistic weapons and armor: I'll take one exception here, assuming it fits the world building. If a piece of armor or weapon is explicitly designed to be utilized with some form of magic, then it doesn't have to be realistic by our standards. It simply has to be realistic by the setting's standards, such that its form very much fits its function. It's function just has no real world analogy. That doesn't mean giant World of Warcraft/Anime swords necessarily, either. Which I'd prefer were avoided do to personal aesthetic reasons.

 

I agree. What really matters is the internal consistency, but, frankly, I cant' find a good reason for using a "unrealistic" weapon vs armor system, as long as "realistic" systems prove to be equally balanced...

Edited by Baudolino05
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was. But usually a lance broke after the first charge.

I thought that was a myth.

 

No, it wasn't. I saw it with my own eyes and furthermore any modern-day test confirm that it's a fact, not a myth. If you hit something solid like a shield (or a body) charging horseback there is an high chance that your lance brake. That's why knights used to bring a second weapon in battle.

 

 

 

I confirm this: I saw too, after a charge of pikemen, almost the half of polearms lying at the ground, broken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I looked it up after your post and it seems like while they didn't always break, if they were charging at more than a canter they broke more often than they remained intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those that weren't faliures were sucesfull and would have seen widespread use.

 

Widespread use is relative to context, time frame and area of the world. Widespread use doesn't mean everywhere or throughout time.

 

90% of the weird weapons/armor unearthed were faliures. Either they were completley unusable or great but only in such a limited scenario that it was practicly pointless.

 

Again, untrue, many would have seen consistent use in their time frame. Just look at the cloak mentioned earlier, widespread enough that it's a consistent image in Sumerian carvings. Practical in the modern day or in later periods? No. Practical for them? Yes.

 

Again, when talking weapons we're talking multi-purpose weapon used to fight other intelligent and well-equiped opponents. If a weapon is only effective in hunting, it basicly fails as a practical war weapon.

 

Time is funny. Exactly where do you think weapons of war started? The cross over is obvious and it's not a question of the chicken or the egg. Hunting weapons and weapons used in battle, and war, were one in the same in many cases. Did that change eventually? Yes. This is another thing you have to consider time frame by time frame culture by culture context by context and location by location.

 

No, that's blatantly true.

 

Smart people want to live. When people have acess to materials and finances, they will get the best they can if their lives depend on it.

Of course, if there is no war and no need for the best, then people won't bother - it just isn't necessary if what you have works well enough for hunting or what have you. Ancient triebes rarely had long-term planing in mind.

But if war breaks out, then the side that doesn't adapt is defeated. It's as simple as that.

 

You're really stuck in a modern mindset, and you're forgeting to look at different time periods, peoples, cultures and locations for what they are. Your 'fact' is a fact to a particular amount of peoples in a particular amount of time. You're not thinking about the very different views of different peoples and cultures in different times and locations. They aren't you. They weren't raised in the world as we know it now. At least when talking about the past. So on that note your:

 

"It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it."

 

Isn't undeniable, because people throughout history have refused to change, and stuck to their traditions. For a great many people, in fact, throughout time tradition (as just one example) was more important than this adaptation you're talking about. To then death would have been preferable to changing.

 

Even without looking into the past, we can look around the world right now and find multiple examples of people who live in a world full of technology, advanced and glorious and all that . . . but don't partake of it. You have peoples that choose to still live very different lives and very different ways. Some because they have to, others because they want to and some because it's tradition. There's that tradition thing again. Even right in places such as the United States you can view peoples that do this. And it doesn't just happen in one way. One place, again let's say the U.S., you can find a people who prefer a simple farming style of life in accordance with their beliefs and traditions. Across the globe you can find peoples who live out in the jungles, making their own clothing and hunting their own food. Another hop and you find people in dry savana who cake their hair in mud to help prevent head lice, living as they were. Do some people leave these examples, and join the more modern society? Yes. However, others don't. Others live those out of the way no tech or low tech lives.

 

This applies to the clothing they use, the weapons they use, how they hunt and even, yes, how they fight or solve their issues. Yes, even in the modern world there are actually people that don't use guns. Somewhere out there someone is still hunting with a spear, a bow or any number of things that aren't a modern superior weapon and this applies to what they use when they fight.

 

The world is not a straight line where you can say:

 

"It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it."

 

Because no such fact exists, because if it were a fact then 'everyone would take it' as you put it, but not everyone does. It's easy to think of the entire modern world as cities, cars, skyscrapers, electricity and more . . . and even easier to forget that some people by choice, not even getting into the ones that don't have a choice at all, don't live anything resembling such lives. This is an example of technology, but you'd be amiss if you didn't think it applied to how they fought or what they used to fight with, when it came to it.

 

This:

 

It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it.

 

Wasn't true in the past. And it isn't true now. It may be true of some people. It may be true of a culture from which you come in the here and now. Heck, it's probably true of a lot of cultures throughout time, and definitly many now. It is not, however, a fact of all people everywhere throughout time, because if it was you wouldn't have countless examples proving otherwise. Which is what I was saying.

 

Facts are absolute. If what you're saying is not a broad, all encompassing absolute . . . then it's not a fact.

Edited by Umberlin

"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those that weren't faliures were sucesfull and would have seen widespread use.

 

Widespread use is relative to context, time frame and area of the world. Widespread use doesn't mean everywhere or throughout time.

 

Strawman. I never implied it did.

If a weapon or armor didn't even see widespread use in the reagion or time it was created - if it was almost immediately dropped - then it is a faliure.

 

 

90% of the weird weapons/armor unearthed were faliures. Either they were completley unusable or great but only in such a limited scenario that it was practicly pointless.

 

Again, untrue, many would have seen consistent use in their time frame. Just look at the cloak mentioned earlier, widespread enough that it's a consistent image in Sumerian carvings. Practical in the modern day or in later periods? No. Practical for them? Yes.

 

Another strawmen and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Wepons and armor are designed to work for whatever they face. They also change over time to adapt to wathever they face.

 

And there are also weapons that were a total faliure or too inefficent.

 

 

 

 

You're really stuck in a modern mindset, and you're forgeting to look at different time periods, peoples, cultures and locations for what they are. Your 'fact' is a fact to a particular amount of peoples in a particular amount of time. You're not thinking about the very different views of different peoples and cultures in different times and locations. They aren't you. They weren't raised in the world as we know it now. At least when talking about the past. So on that note your:

 

You are stuck nitpicking and going off on tangents that have nothing to do with anything anymore.

 

The only mindset I'm stuck it the only one that matters - the practical one.

 

 

Isn't undeniable, because people throughout history have refused to change, and stuck to their traditions. For a great many people, in fact, throughout time tradition (as just one example) was more important than this adaptation you're talking about. To then death would have been preferable to changing.

 

Want me to change that post to "smart people"?

Because poeple did make stupid things...however, war is unforgiving, so those didnt' last long.

The samurai? They were salughtered?

Celts? Run over by romans.

 

Adapt or perish. It is simple. However, this is another matter alltogether.

 

 

This applies to the clothing they use, the weapons they use, how they hunt and even, yes, how they fight or solve their issues. Yes, even in the modern world there are actually people that don't use guns. Somewhere out there someone is still hunting with a spear, a bow or any number of things that aren't a modern superior weapon and this applies to what they use when they fight.

 

And when they face someone with a gun, they die...

Still not seeing your point.

 

 

Wasn't true in the past. And it isn't true now.

 

It was always true and always will be.

 

Quit nitpickign and beating aroudn the bush.

 

 

You're basicly arguing against an issue that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I'm taking about.

 

I'm not saying "gun beats spear, spear is a failed weapon".

 

Nope, I'm looking at weapons and armor and their intended purpose (and that includes weapons and armor they would face), and how good they are at fulfilling it.

  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...