Armour & weapon designs - a plea (part II).

[AGX-17]

Chris Avellone said that there will be "a 16th century technology level much like our high or late Middle Ages with the exception of the printing press". I am confident that means there will be plate armour and two-handed swords that resemble real world gear, no overly fantastically shaped weaponry.

 

The only problem being that plate armor was being abandoned at that point because firearms made it worthless. A plate-armored knight has to close to melee range to inflict damage, leaving a musketeer a very good chance of shooting that steel-plated knight successfully.

 

The only continued use of plate armor was in the colonization of the New World where there were no enemies brandishing firearms to worry about, only arrows, spears, rocks, clubs and so on.

 

And like -Zin- said, the presence of the Monk as a class, a bare-fisted fighter who can defeat a plate-armored opponent in combat, further destroys these fantastical illusions of total armor realism.

Edited November 15, 2012 by AGX-17

[Dream]

True, to an extent, but the minority that it's designed to appeal to is "fans of Infinity Engine games," and not "fans of medieval life simulators." IWD, PST, and BG were hardly realistic in their depictions of armor, and the closest they came to realism included big pauldrons, boob plates, and skin tight everything.

That does not mean such designs are what is ideal to fans of those games. I've been a fan of those games for many years but I've always been fervently against big paudrons, boob plates and skin tight everything.

 

Also requesting a more "realistic" aesthetic =/= wanting a medieval life simulator.

In fact, when BG2 made the armor look a little more realistic the community responded by making mods to restore the old BG1 look and 1pp is now one of the most popular mods out there for the game.

What a subsection of the community does isn't a representative of the wants of the whole community. Especially when it's the modding community.

 

You can't say that P:E is made to appeal to the minority like there is only one minority. The reality is fans of the IE games don't care that much for realism as evidenced by the fact that the IE games are not all that realistic.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

Again you assume people didn't like these games despite the armour design choices.

Not once on any forum (even here where realism is some sacred thing) have I heard anyone say "Well I really liked BG/IWD/PS:T, but I just couldn't get into them because the armor designs ripped me right out of the experience."

Personal experience isn't a particularly valid source.

 

Sorry to say it but you're the (very vocal) minority of a minority and the majority of us just like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not.

Your opinion is not even the majority in this thread so I don't thinks it's wise to make that assumption.

 

Besides, I too like "cool designs", I just don't think big pauldrons, boob plates or skin tight armour are cool. Instead I prefer practical designs that serve a functional purpose and accurately provide an insight into the culture and environment in which the armour was crafted.

 

 

But what you like is representative of the community? 1pp is one of the few mods being included baseline in the enhanced edition rerelease of the game (which several of the original team members are working on). On top of that of all the reviews of the IE games (both fan and professional) no one has ever said that the armor designs were a detriment of those games (inb4 you post one random obscure review to try and prove me wrong); hell, I don't even remember anyone in this very thread saying that. Additionally, in this thread most of the posters either don't care if the armor looks unrealistic or would prefer to have the designers place more value in aesthetics than functionality. The only reason it seems like the realism crowd is larger than it is is because it's the same dozen or so guys circle jerking each other about the virtues of historical accuracy in a fantasy video game.

 

Pretty much all the evidence points to IE fans not caring if armor looks unrealistic, but somehow you feel you represent the community?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Dream

[Tamerlane]

Chris Avellone said that there will be "a 16th century technology level much like our high or late Middle Ages with the exception of the printing press". I am confident that means there will be plate armour and two-handed swords that resemble real world gear, no overly fantastically shaped weaponry.

 

The only problem being that plate armor was being abandoned at that point because firearms made it worthless. A plate-armored knight has to close to melee range to inflict damage, leaving a musketeer a very good chance of shooting that steel-plated knight successfully.

 

The only continued use of plate armor was in the colonization of the New World where there were no enemies brandishing firearms to worry about, only arrows, spears, rocks, clubs and so on.

Except... that's not really true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are all examples 16th century armour used in Europe...

[Agelastos]

Chris Avellone said that there will be "a 16th century technology level much like our high or late Middle Ages with the exception of the printing press". I am confident that means there will be plate armour and two-handed swords that resemble real world gear, no overly fantastically shaped weaponry.

 

The only problem being that plate armor was being abandoned at that point because firearms made it worthless. A plate-armored knight has to close to melee range to inflict damage, leaving a musketeer a very good chance of shooting that steel-plated knight successfully.

 

The only continued use of plate armor was in the colonization of the New World where there were no enemies brandishing firearms to worry about, only arrows, spears, rocks, clubs and so on.

 

 

Uhm. Full plate was used by cavalry troops as late as the 17th century, and breast plates as late as the 19th century. They still use them during parades.

Many different kinds of infantry troops, such as pikemen, used breast plates well into the 17th century.

 

Hell, full plate armor wasn't even developed until the 15th century.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Agelastos

[Barothmuk]

But what you like is representative of the community?

Absolutely not. I can't possibly know what the community wants as the community wants many different things.

 

That's why I never directly or indirectly said nor implied my preferences are indicative of the wants of the community.

 

Only you have been making such broad assumptions. E.g.

 

Pretty much all the evidence points to IE fans not caring if armor looks unrealistic

The reality is fans of the IE games don't care that much for realism

the majority of us just like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not.

 

And like -Zin- said, the presence of the Monk as a class, a bare-fisted fighter who can defeat a plate-armored opponent in combat, further destroys these fantastical illusions of total armor realism.

I'd think this is pretty obvious but "realistic" practical armour need not even equal plate armour. Edited November 15, 2012 by Barothmuk

[SophosTheWise]

Chris Avellone said that there will be "a 16th century technology level much like our high or late Middle Ages with the exception of the printing press". I am confident that means there will be plate armour and two-handed swords that resemble real world gear, no overly fantastically shaped weaponry.

 

The only problem being that plate armor was being abandoned at that point because firearms made it worthless. A

That's not true. Example: German armour (maximilian armor) or demilancers, several Reisläufer and Landsknecht cuirasses, the battle of Pavia and so on. The famous Greenwich plate armor was even used in the 17th century.

 

Edit: seems I'm late.

Edited November 15, 2012 by SophosTheWise

[Dream]

But what you like is representative of the community?

Absolutely not. I can't possibly know what the community wants as the community wants many different things.

 

That's why I never directly or indirectly said nor implied my preferences are indicative of the wants of the community.

 

Only you have been making such broad assumptions.

 

 

The argument in this thread is whether unrealistic armor should be in Project: Eternity or not. Since taste and immersion are highly subjective (for me it's good game play and writing that provides immersion; realism is pretty much a none-issue) the only real argument to have is what the majority of the community prefers. In that regard, all the evidence points to people, by and large, not caring if armor is unrealistic. If you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to present it and we can have a discussion about it. However, saying that unrealistic armor makes for bad video games is as an asinine a statement as saying romcoms are objectively better movies than action flicks; it's all a matter of taste.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Dream

[Nomine Vacans]

The argument in this thread is whether unrealistic armor should be in Project: Eternity or not. Since taste and immersion are highly subjective (for me it's good game play and writing that provides immersion; realism is pretty much a none-issue) the only real argument to have is what the majority of the community prefers. In that regard, all the evidence points to people, by and large, not caring if armor is unrealistic. If you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to present it and we can have a discussion about it. However, saying that unrealistic armor makes for bad video games is as an asinine a statement as saying romcoms are objectively better movies than action flicks; it's all a matter of taste.

"Most of IE fans don't care about realistic armor concepts, therefore armor concepts should be retarded because *I* like it."

Your logic is flawless as always.

[Dream]

The argument in this thread is whether unrealistic armor should be in Project: Eternity or not. Since taste and immersion are highly subjective (for me it's good game play and writing that provides immersion; realism is pretty much a none-issue) the only real argument to have is what the majority of the community prefers. In that regard, all the evidence points to people, by and large, not caring if armor is unrealistic. If you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to present it and we can have a discussion about it. However, saying that unrealistic armor makes for bad video games is as an asinine a statement as saying romcoms are objectively better movies than action flicks; it's all a matter of taste.

"Most of IE fans don't care about realistic armor concepts, therefore armor concepts should be retarded because *I* like it."

Your logic is flawless as always.

 

No, therefore Obsidian shouldn't worry about making armor that looks realistic and functional, just aesthetically pleasing and cool looking. If you feel as though anything that isn't realistic is retarded that's your issue. On top of that I've specifically stated that they should include a wide array of armor that's both mundane and fantastic so as to appeal to everyone's tastes; It's only the realism people who are demanding EVERYTHING be exactly as they like it.

 

Nice try though.

[Tamerlane]

Sorry to break it to you, but most people like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not. Popular **** is popular for a reason.

And we all know Project Eternity's trying to appeal to the mainstream masses.

 

True, to an extent, but the minority that it's designed to appeal to is "fans of Infinity Engine games," and not "fans of medieval life simulators." IWD, PST, and BG were hardly realistic in their depictions of armor, and the closest they came to realism included big pauldrons, boob plates, and skin tight everything. In fact, when BG2 made the armor look a little more realistic the community responded by making mods to restore the old BG1 look and 1pp is now one of the most popular mods out there for the game.

 

You can't say that P:E is made to appeal to the minority like there is only one minority. The reality is fans of the IE games don't care that much for realism as evidenced by the fact that the IE games are not all that realistic. Not once on any forum (even here where realism is some sacred thing) have I heard anyone say "Well I really liked BG/IWD/PS:T, but I just couldn't get into them because the armor designs ripped me right out of the experience." Sorry to say it but you're the (very vocal) minority of a minority and the majority of us just like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not.

Two of those pictures are from PST, by far the most "fantastical" of the bunch, and one of them is from a mod.

 

PST had a really good aesthetic but their 3D art was pretty damn ugly. BG's paperdolls weren't terribly attractive either, especially the more elaborate helmets.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Dream]

Sorry to break it to you, but most people like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not. Popular **** is popular for a reason.

And we all know Project Eternity's trying to appeal to the mainstream masses.

 

True, to an extent, but the minority that it's designed to appeal to is "fans of Infinity Engine games," and not "fans of medieval life simulators." IWD, PST, and BG were hardly realistic in their depictions of armor, and the closest they came to realism included big pauldrons, boob plates, and skin tight everything. In fact, when BG2 made the armor look a little more realistic the community responded by making mods to restore the old BG1 look and 1pp is now one of the most popular mods out there for the game.

 

You can't say that P:E is made to appeal to the minority like there is only one minority. The reality is fans of the IE games don't care that much for realism as evidenced by the fact that the IE games are not all that realistic. Not once on any forum (even here where realism is some sacred thing) have I heard anyone say "Well I really liked BG/IWD/PS:T, but I just couldn't get into them because the armor designs ripped me right out of the experience." Sorry to say it but you're the (very vocal) minority of a minority and the majority of us just like cool **** and don't really care if it's practical or not.

Two of those pictures are from PST, by far the most "fantastical" of the bunch, and one of them is from a mod.

 

PST had a really good aesthetic but their 3D art was pretty damn ugly. BG's paperdolls weren't terribly attractive either, especially the more elaborate helmets.

 

 

That's kinda the point of the PST pictures; you can have fantastical armor designs without a game being ruined forever. Also, 1pp is a mod that puts BG1's paper dolls into BG2 (in other words: no fan art). If anything the fact that it's such a popular mod is indicative of the community preferring BG1's armor designs to BG2's (which were slightly more "realistic"). As for the art being ugly; that's called an opinion. I, for one, happened to like it, and so did many others.

[Tamerlane]

Flaming swords were in BG1?

 

And if the ugliness of that art is an opinion, so is the degree of realism. I sure as hell don't know how you could call the armour in the top row in that picture "more realistic" than the stuff below it.

[Nomine Vacans]

That's kinda the point of the PST pictures; you can have fantastical armor designs without a game being ruined forever.

And Planescape is clearly a typical high fantasy setting. Of course.

Would you like to have sci-fi costumes in P:E because they look good in Star Trek?

 

If you don't care about unrealistic armors and concept why do you protecting them so vigorously? Do you belive that game will be bad becouse of highter than normal amount of common sence and better designed armor?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Comedian

[Dream]

That's kinda the point of the PST pictures; you can have fantastical armor designs without a game being ruined forever.

And Planescape is clearly a typical high fantasy setting. Of course.

Would you like to have sci-fi costumes in P:E because they look good in Star Trek?

 

If you don't care about unrealistic armors and concept why do you protecting them so vigorously? Do you belive that game will be bad becouse of highter than normal amount of common sence and better designed armor?

 

Obsidian has said they don't want to make P:E typical high fantasy either (as evidenced by guns, the whole soul mechanic, etc.).

 

As for why I'm defending them; because this is a discussion, or is your idea of a proper discussion one where everyone agrees with you so you can stroke your ego and feel smart?

[Monte Carlo]

Some of the arguments that have developed here are some of the most egregious examples of straw-manning I've seen on the forum for some time. Yes, nerd-boner, I'm looking at you. Dream, you are suffering from acute point. not. found.

 

The OP made the not unreasonable point that it would be interesting to see what r/w historical influences might or might not make it into P:E. We then discussed armour likes and dislikes and posted lots of cool historical and fantasy images. There was no dogma or entitlement. The style outlined in the concept art was taken into consideration.

 

Then lots of people, who clearly got bored of contrarian posturing in other threads, piled in with the strawman that this thread was trying to dictate the entire aesthetic for armour in the game.

 

People like -zin- (who posted the most awful single image in this thread) at least put forward a view. Why not start "I want JRPG / anime / manga" armour threads? This isn't like romances or one of the white-knight "sexism waaaaahhhh!" subjects.

[Nomine Vacans]

Obsidian has said they don't want to make P:E typical high fantasy either (as evidenced by guns, the whole soul mechanic, etc.).

 

As for why I'm defending them; because this is a discussion, or is your idea of a proper discussion one where everyone agrees with you so you can stroke your ego and feel smart?

And how existance of guns and soul-based magic put P:E in line with Planescape's eclectic craziness (in a good sence)?

My idea of a proper discussion is one where opponents basing their statements on facts and logical conclusions, not empty rethorics of "I know what majority want".

And I will repeat my previous question: do you believe that game will be bad because of higher than normal amount of common sense and better designed armor?

[Jarmo]

This is something I would like see a more seasoned adventurer/leader wear.

 

 

As long as the sword doesn't come along in the package that's not half bad medium armor.

If armor comes as a full set instead of being split between leg/arm/shoulder/nether/whatehver that'd be a pretty neat breastplate.

[Jarmo]

I'd guess most, though not all, are just fine there being impractical "just for the looks" armor on some types.

 

Nazgul and Sauron don't even have real bodies under the gear so the usual restrictions don't apply,

impractically heavy or spiky armor is also fine if the fella is the armor (golem),

or is a zombie who doesn't really mind occasionally stabbing himself in the face.

 

Even if it's some dragon priest spiky doomplate, and the priest doesn't expect to ever fight in it or rise his arms too much, all is fine.

If the dragon priestesses like to go about in glued-on boobguards and skimpy chain bikini, it's fine by me.

 

Just don't expect to grab the nazgul helmet or armor and fight effectively in it. Or get any protection from the priestesses tassels of evil.

The dragon priest doomplate might give decent spell protection, good damage reduction, but -5 to attack, dexterity and movement.

 

 

My take. Let there be variety. But variety in armor people wear, not variety in how the armor works.

Heavy is heavy, skimpy is skimpy, spiky and impractical is spiky and impractical.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Jarmo

[TrashMan]

The argument in this thread is whether unrealistic armor should be in Project: Eternity or not. Since taste and immersion are highly subjective (for me it's good game play and writing that provides immersion; realism is pretty much a none-issue) the only real argument to have is what the majority of the community prefers. In that regard, all the evidence points to people, by and large, not caring if armor is unrealistic. If you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to present it and we can have a discussion about it. However, saying that unrealistic armor makes for bad video games is as an asinine a statement as saying romcoms are objectively better movies than action flicks; it's all a matter of taste.

 

Not seeing it.

You cannot claim majority without any evidence other than "the people didn't stage a rebellion".

 

I really don't see people complaining when the game has mostly realistic armor either. So your argument is null and void.

You can basicly boil it down to "most people wouldn't care either way", however that tells us nothing.

 

Sometimes people don't care. Sometiems they dont' bother. Soemtimes they gobble up crap and smile (casei n point: many high-selling movies and books..like Twilight)

[Dream]

Obsidian has said they don't want to make P:E typical high fantasy either (as evidenced by guns, the whole soul mechanic, etc.).

 

As for why I'm defending them; because this is a discussion, or is your idea of a proper discussion one where everyone agrees with you so you can stroke your ego and feel smart?

And how existance of guns and soul-based magic put P:E in line with Planescape's eclectic craziness (in a good sence)?

My idea of a proper discussion is one where opponents basing their statements on facts and logical conclusions, not empty rethorics of "I know what majority want".

And I will repeat my previous question: do you believe that game will be bad because of higher than normal amount of common sense and better designed armor?

 

PS:T still had gravity, blades and spikes in it were still sharp, and unwieldy **** would have still been unwieldy. If one were to make a "realistic" planescape game then armor there would still have to be functional despite it's crazy setting. However, this was not the case in PS:T and as far as I can tell the fans didn't really have a problem with that.

 

Like I said earlier you can't really argue immersion or taste because those things are highly subjective. The only real argument you can have is about what the intended audience of Project: Eternity would like. Seeing as we can't exactly poll all 75k backers we have to extrapolate based on the data we have. This poll, for instance, shows that the games that most brought people here were PS:T, followed by BG, and followed further by "other or multiples" with most of those answers being BG + PS:T. That finding is in line with the fact that P:E was directly advertised as being a modern Infinity Engine game. Now, is it possible that the majority of the fans of those games loved them enough to invest in a spiritual successor while at the same time hating the armor choices they made (while never really complaining about it, despite the internet loving to bitch)? Sure, but it's not very likely.

 

As for realistic armor making games bad: no because aesthetics are not the end all be all of what makes a game good. For me as long as a game has solid game play and good writing then I'll likely enjoy it, but having a look that I like certainly doesn't hurt the experience (which brings us back to what would the average backer of P:E prefer; realism or surrealism, form or function).There have been several great games that had a realistic and functional design aesthetics, but Project: Eternity wasn't advertised as a successor to those games.

 

Not seeing it.

You cannot claim majority without any evidence other than "the people didn't stage a rebellion".

 

I really don't see people complaining when the game has mostly realistic armor either. So your argument is null and void.

You can basicly boil it down to "most people wouldn't care either way", however that tells us nothing.

 

Sometimes people don't care. Sometiems they dont' bother. Soemtimes they gobble up crap and smile (casei n point: many high-selling movies and books..like Twilight)

 

You realize that works both ways. You have literally zero proof that fans of the IE games would have liked them more if they had realistic armor. Look at it this way; if you are right and most don't care then it wont matter if the armor is unrealistic. However, if people actually did like the looks of the armor in those games than changing to a strictly realistic design aesthetic would diminish the experience for them. Sure it's possible all those fans secretly despised the armor choices, but it's a bit hard to argue that position.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Dream

[Nomine Vacans]

PS:T still had gravity, blades and spikes in it were still sharp, and unwieldy **** would have still been unwieldy. If one were to make a "realistic" planescape game then armor there would still have to be functional despite it's crazy setting. However, this was not the case in PS:T and as far as I can tell the fans didn't really have a problem with that.

Like I said earlier you can't really argue immersion or taste because those things are highly subjective. The only real argument you can have is about what the intended audience of Project: Eternity would like. Seeing as we can't exactly poll all 75k backers we have to extrapolate based on the data we have. This poll, for instance, shows that the games that most brought people here were PS:T, followed by BG, and followed further by "other or multiples" with most of those answers being BG + PS:T. That finding is in line with the fact that P:E was directly advertised as being a modern Infinity Engine game. Now, is it possible that the majority of the fans of those games loved them enough to invest in a spiritual successor while at the same time hating the armor choices they made (while never really complaining about it, despite the internet loving to bitch)? Sure, but it's not very likely.

Are you familiar with AD&D Planescape Setting outside of Planescape: Torment? Planescape is one of the most unique and eclectic settings. Comparing Planescape to generic fantasy (like Grayhawk or Forgotten Realms) is just incongruously.

As for realistic armor making games bad: no because aesthetics are not the end all be all of what makes a game good. For me as long as a game has solid game play and good writing then I'll likely enjoy it, but having a look that I like certainly doesn't hurt the experience (which brings us back to what would the average backer of P:E prefer; realism or surrealism, form or function).There have been several great games that had a realistic and functional design aesthetics, but Project: Eternity wasn't advertised as a successor to those games.

So you don't have any real complaints or valid arguments, you just want to argue. How good of you.

[TrashMan]

Like I said earlier you can't really argue immersion or taste because those things are highly subjective.

 

Oh, but I can.

Immorsion is mostly tied fo believability.

Realism is by definition immersive. You cannot argue that relism is not realistic and takes you out of the experience, now can you?

Logicly, realistic armor has that one advantage over unrealistic one. Period.

 

And just because some people can immerse hemselves in everything, doesn't mean that that everything is "good" or satisfactory.

Hell, I can cool myself off by dunking my feet in the water - that doesn't mean sweemers are wrong for wanting deeper water.

 

I want substance.

Not flashy bling.

 

 

The only real argument you can have is about what the intended audience of Project: Eternity would like. Seeing as we can't exactly poll all 75k backers we have to extrapolate based on the data we have. This poll, for instance, shows that the games that most brought people here were PS:T, followed by BG, and followed further by "other or multiples" with most of those answers being BG + PS:T. That finding is in line with the fact that P:E was directly advertised as being a modern Infinity Engine game. Now, is it possible that the majority of the fans of those games loved them enough to invest in a spiritual successor while at the same time hating the armor choices they made (while never really complaining about it, despite the internet loving to bitch)? Sure, but it's not very likely.

 

BG had pretty normal looking armor. Your argument is void.

 

 

 

You realize that works both ways. You have literally zero proof that fans of the IE games would have liked them more if they had realistic armor.

 

It would have made for a more believable setting - wether most people would like it or not I won't get into.

 

But LOTR is certanly a million times more believable and immersive than WoW.

Just try immagine LOTR with those WOW armors and items....uuugh

[Dream]

Are you familiar with AD&D Planescape Setting outside of Planescape: Torment? Planescape is one of the most unique and eclectic settings. Comparing Planescape to generic fantasy (like Grayhawk or Forgotten Realms) is just incongruously.

 

Being unique and eclectic doesn't suddenly make it so you can wear crazy looking armor comfortably; basic physics like it being bad when a pauldron spike occupies the same space as your head when you raise your arm still exist. The fact that the Planescape setting was created and is like is kind of the whole point of the argument that realism isn't THAT important.

 

So you don't have any real complaints or valid arguments, you just want to argue. How good of you.

 

Because I can enjoy a game with an aesthetic I may not like means I have no valid arguments? You enjoyed PS:T (I'm assuming) so I guess you have no valid arguments either?

 

Oh, but I can.

Immorsion is mostly tied fo believability.

Realism is by definition immersive. You cannot argue that relism is not realistic and takes you out of the experience, now can you?

Logicly, realistic armor has that one advantage over unrealistic one. Period.

 

Immersion is tied to a million things, and, as Planescape shows, a realistic world does not have to be one of those. If written well anything under the sun can be immersive. Immersion and believability may mostly tied to realism for YOU, but it sure as **** isn't for me (and for all the Planescape fans either). If that is the case, however, may I suggest staying away from fantasy games and trying out something like this; it's a lot more realistic.

 

 

BG had pretty normal looking armor. Your argument is void.

 

BG had boob plates, huge pauldrons, and all the female outfits were skin tight. If that's what you feel is normal then cool, lets do that for Project: Eternity.

 

 

It would have made for a more believable setting - wether most people would like it or not I won't get into.

 

But LOTR is certanly a million times more believable and immersive than WoW.

Just try immagine LOTR with those WOW armors and items....uuugh

 

You liked LotR's armor designs? Me, too.

[jezz555]

Are you familiar with AD&D Planescape Setting outside of Planescape: Torment? Planescape is one of the most unique and eclectic settings. Comparing Planescape to generic fantasy (like Grayhawk or Forgotten Realms) is just incongruously.

 

Being unique and eclectic doesn't suddenly make it so you can wear crazy looking armor comfortably; basic physics like it being bad when a pauldron spike occupies the same space as your head when you raise your arm still exist. The fact that the Planescape setting was created and is like is kind of the whole point of the argument that realism isn't THAT important.

 

So you don't have any real complaints or valid arguments, you just want to argue. How good of you.

 

Because I can enjoy a game with an aesthetic I may not like means I have no valid arguments? You enjoyed PS:T (I'm assuming) so I guess you have no valid arguments either?

 

Oh, but I can.

Immorsion is mostly tied fo believability.

Realism is by definition immersive. You cannot argue that relism is not realistic and takes you out of the experience, now can you?

Logicly, realistic armor has that one advantage over unrealistic one. Period.

 

Immersion is tied to a million things, and, as Planescape shows, a realistic world does not have to be one of those. If written well anything under the sun can be immersive. Immersion and believability may mostly tied to realism for YOU, but it sure as **** isn't for me (and for all the Planescape fans either). If that is the case, however, may I suggest staying away from fantasy games and trying out something like this; it's a lot more realistic.

 

 

BG had pretty normal looking armor. Your argument is void.

 

BG had boob plates, huge pauldrons, and all the female outfits were skin tight. If that's what you feel is normal then cool, lets do that for Project: Eternity.

 

 

It would have made for a more believable setting - wether most people would like it or not I won't get into.

 

But LOTR is certanly a million times more believable and immersive than WoW.

Just try immagine LOTR with those WOW armors and items....uuugh

 

You liked LotR's armor designs? Me, too.

 

You are taking the argument to an absurd extreme. PS:T did have fantasy elements and it wasn't entirely realistic, but it was more realistic than it could have been. As TrashMan brought up WoW would be an excellent example of immersion breaking un-realism and an excellent example of what myself and others don't want to see. You said if something is written well it can be immersive no matter what but the folly of this argument is that employing realism is a part of good writing. A good writer understands that you are injecting fantasy into the real world, not injecting fantasy into more fantasy. Baldur's Gate had fantasy elements, but it was realistic enough to maintain immersion and that is what's important not that a game be entirely one way or the other.

[SophosTheWise]

By the way: High Fantasy doesn't single out realistic and historically inspired armor. Proof? Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma. The Knight in Dark Souls wears a Maximilian armor, 16th century German plate armor. Of course it's not a historically accurate design, but it's cleary inspired by it. The armor that the Chosen One wears at the beginning of Dragon's Dogma is probably 14th century inspired.