What should a female breastplate really look like

[Elerond]

 Would the game be more fun if you had to have every piece of armor manually fitted to every single character? I think not.

 

I would say yes. As it would make gear min-maxing more challenging task and would also be great reason to prefer lighter armour that player's character themsevles can make fit instead of finding armourer/or something similar. And it also would work as great money sink. But same time it wouldn't be too menial task to become buggersome.  IMO.

[Ffordesoon]

@Lephys:

 

The fact of gender isn't really at issue in any discussion like this one, for the record. Men and women are not identical physically; that's obvious to anyone who can see. If there is a problem differentiating between characters of different sexes during the development of PE, and such differentiation is important to the game in some understandable way, I don't think anyone would argue that making that difference clearer wouldn't be the right thing to do.

 

The issue at hand, for those who care about such things (and I am one of those people, albeit one who's learned to pick his battles), is the idea that a human woman in the game shouldn't be made to prance around in "armor" that is clearly designed to be ogled unless it makes sense for the character to be in that armor.

 

And I don't mean in some flimsy "All the priestesses of Biblevania dress like this!" obvious-lore-excuse-for-skimpy-clothes kind of way. That doesn't mean that there can't be characters who dress the way they do explicitly to titillate people, either. It's very much a case-by-case/contextual thing. The only inviolable stipulation - and I'm only speaking for myself here - is that it must feel as though the character made the decision to dress the way she did, rather than being a finger puppet of the author's who occasionally drops her sword just so the men in the audience can watch her ass wiggle as she looks for it.

 

Not saying you're in trouble with the social justice police or anything. I'm just attempting to explain what the actual concern of someone who cares about "the gender thing" tends to be. It's not about equal representation in the sense that every character should look and act exactly the same, but rather that nobody should be represented in a deliberately titillating or exploitive way without cause.

 

Does that make sense?

 

EDIT: And I do agree that a generic avatar ain't exactly spiffy, either. DA:O had that problem; when my female City Elf rogue looked identical to Leliana because they both had the same awful-looking leather armor equipped, I was tremendously aggravated.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Lephys]

I wasn't saying the armor should have to be taken to an armorer's so you can wear it, just FYI. I was sort of assuming it would automatically resize itself to whoever it's being equipped to.

 

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.

 

@Lephys:

 

The fact of gender isn't really at issue in any discussion like this one, for the record. Men and women are not identical physically; that's obvious to anyone who can see. If there is a problem differentiating between characters of different sexes during the development of PE, and such differentiation is important to the game in some understandable way, I don't think anyone would argue that making that difference clearer wouldn't be the right thing to do.

 

The issue at hand, for those who care about such things (and I am one of those people, albeit one who's learned to pick his battles), is the idea that a human woman in the game shouldn't be made to prance around in "armor" that is clearly designed to be ogled unless it makes sense for the character to be in that armor.

 

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.

 

EDIT: And I do agree that a generic avatar ain't exactly spiffy, either. DA:O had that problem; when my female City Elf rogue looked identical to Leliana because they both had the same awful-looking leather armor equipped, I was tremendously aggravated.

 

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.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Lephys

[Sensuki]

 

 

No Westerosi woman (excluding some of the Dornish) wears armor in A Song of Ice and Fire besides Brienne of Tarth.

You forgot about the mother and daughter from Bear Island who wore chain and were slain at the Red Wedding (can't remember their names offhand).

 

 

The Mormonts. Yes I did. Although it was only Dacey that was slain. And I suppose there's Meera Reed and the Moon Clans as well such as Chella.

 

 

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2013/03/george-rr-martin-speaks-on-game-of-thrones-season-3-surprises-fr/

 

In this (and many others) interview GRRM note that he likes changes and added scenes in series and how actors make character to work, although he also metions that series will not effect how he writes the books as he has done it so long that series can't impact his vision of things. And I can't find any interview where GRRM speaks against how series does and shows the things. So I would say that series don't have done anything that GRRM is against. And you also get picture that he knows what will happen in season three, which speaks that he at least has before hand knowledge of things that have done with the series.

 

And in that interview the particular examples that he gives are scenes that are good and ones that add flavor from the original books, but not ones that change the book story in any way There are quite a few good scenes like that, but they are usually just one off short ones, not changes to the storyline.

 

I also know many of the changes to Season 3. To keep Theon in this season they are using some material from ADwD. Also a lot of the timings are going to be seriously messed up - such as Joffrey and Margaery's wedding, won't be as early etc.

 

You will not find an interview where he is negative about the series. Like I said before ... why would he do that? It's making him rich and famous

However, since it is because of the TV show that he has gained widespread mainstream popularity, and his books are now being sold in department stores, I'm sure he knows a lot better than to say anything negative about the show at all other than quips such as "Books are always better than film", because that only hurts him. He has also worked in TV before and he said during his audio commentary during S01E08 if 80% of what the writer submitted makes it into the final cut then he should be most pleased, because it's usually less than that.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Sensuki

[Tamerlane]

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.

Well obviously, we need codpieces to tell the men-folk apart so that we can avoid that sort of situation. We're a sexually dimorphic species; shouldn't have the fellas running around looking like ladies down below. Need to take advantage of every opportunity to make characters distinguishable, don't ya know? We need some giant

 

 

filigreed

 

 

bulging

 

 

ornate

 

 

gilded

 

 

engraved

 

 

codpieces.

 

 

 

wait no go back ****

Edited April 17, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Lephys]

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

[Ffordesoon]

@Lephys:

 

Ah. Fair enough, then.

[TrashMan]

 

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"

 

 

And I'd personally have no problem with that. If you equip people with exactly the same equipment and look at them from a distance they SHOULD look very, very similar. It's just common sense.

 

You do realise that some people playing RGP's want exactly that - the sense of military uniformity. None of that "Look! Look how unique and interesting I am because my armor has bweeebs!"

 

All of your character "uniqueness" is covered by armor? Lolno. Of you like the way your characters look, don't change his clothes. You can't have it both way.

 

Anyway, I dont' forsee that problem in PE. This isn't BG with just one sprite set for all plate armors. Each armor will be it's own model so there should be differences.

and, like I said, there's always all sorts of other visual cues.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think yes. For plate armors at least.

 

 

 

 

And I do agree that a generic avatar ain't exactly spiffy, either. DA:O had that problem; when my female City Elf rogue looked identical to Leliana because they both had the same awful-looking leather armor equipped, I was tremendously aggravated.

 

You wear exactly the same armor..with no different accesories to differentiate...you character has the same hair color...and then you complain your character look the same? Wut?

 

Excuse me if I have not a shread of simpathy for your..."plight"

Edited April 17, 2013 by TrashMan

[Tagaziel]

 

 

How would one compensate for different sized chests without losing the basic functionality?

 

She would wrap bandage around her torso, and then be able to fit into male armor.

Would that be financially feasable to produce bandages for half an army?  Discomfort wise, would it not be risking some grumbling among that half of you're army?

Why wouldn't it be? Assuming that the armies are standing armies funded by the state, not self-equipped (which was the norm in the period P:E draws inspiration from).

[Lephys]

@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."

[Diagoras]

I may have misread this thread, but are people still assuming that sex will be a helpful measure of body type? Despite the class and statistic ability differences no doubt informing body type far more?

[Jarmo]

are people still assuming that sex will be a helpful measure of body type?

 

Yes. That's why there are normal and ladyfit t-shirts.

[Augusta Corvina]

I'll admit I havent read through the entire thread so I'll just sum up my view on it like this... As long as they don't end up repeating say skyrims dwarven armour issue then I'm relatively satisfied.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

AHa. The fallacios "You loose nothing, but I do" argument. Never liked that one, because one group usually assumes too much.

Like that group 1 suffers no detriment to gameplay, but group 2 is somehow horribly inconvenienced and suffer greatly. "My suffering is greater then yours" will never fly by me.

 

Subjective artistic style is just that. Subjective. Therefore no ones takes precedence. Meaning any decision that favors group 2 makes group 1 "suffer", and vice-versa.

 

Secondly, the ability to intuitively select character is always there. It's a strawman argument that if armor doesn't have massive differences, that people won't be able to tell their characters apart. It is practicly never true... even in games that features an army of simple clone models it's rarely true.

 

Unless all of your people are equipped EXACTLY the same, you should be able to tell the difference. And if you equiped them exactly the same, you should expect them to look roughly the same from a distance.

 

And this is all of course, without taking into acount COLOR and FLOATING NAMES ABOVE CHARACTER HEADS or everything else for that matter.

 

 

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.

 

It's not a big issue (to me). I have more issue with the people and how they argue.

But for some people it would be a big issue. Subjective values and all that jazz.

 

 

 

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?

 

And yet I don't recall anyone making that actual argument.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Somebody here likes their Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I'm tempted to use that same logic against you, but it would amount to making fun of your positions and beating a strawmen...something that is a waste of time as it actually avoid the actual point.

 

Don't go down that road. It doesn't lead to nice places.

[Diagoras]

Yes. That's why there are normal and ladyfit t-shirts.

 

And you really think that generalizes to this case? More than class and ability scores? A female Fighter with 18 strength will have a wimpy little body, while the male Wizard with 8 strength will be buff and strong?

[Merlkir]

Jeebus flipping Chris. Yes, they're two scales from bone skinny to heavily muscular and they're overlapped, but not the same. Heavy big dudes will always be bigger than heavy muscular ladies.

 

What the flipping flip are you guys arguing in this thread about? Exactly? It's a bunch of people talking to themselves and quote picking others' posts without much direction. 

 

Ideally, both sex AND class+stats would be reflected in the player avatar. 

Edited April 18, 2013 by Merlkir

[BruceVC]

I still say Chainmail bikini Armour makes the most sense for the ladies, that way we can easily distinguish between our different party members?

 

Its the most applicable both logically and aesthetically.
 

[Gfted1]

^I agree. They should go full on Ivy Valentine.

[BruceVC]

^I agree. They should go full on Ivy Valentine.

 

Brilliant suggestion, as I tend to say "when you are right, you are right "

[Diagoras]

Jeebus flipping Chris. Yes, they're two scales from bone skinny to heavily muscular and they're overlapped, but not the same. Heavy big dudes will always be bigger than heavy muscular ladies.

 

Is this really the case? Because I've seen female bodybuilders in person, and I'd say that they have much more in common in physique with Arnold Schwarzenegger than myself. As far as I can tell, the idea that hyper-muscular men have more (in terms of physique) in common with weedy-looking guys then hyper-muscular women is wrong. Which sort of makes the argument for the past few posts nonsensical, if we take people's claims that they want special armor for women due to their inherently different physiques demanding it.

 

Personally, I feel all the realism discussion is a red herring and that the devs should differentiate armor types based solely on a combination of aesthetics, usability  and intuition. It just seems weird to insist that they do it because women's alien physiques demand unique armor, or something.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Diagoras

[Augusta Corvina]

^I agree. They should go full on Ivy Valentine.

It would certainly be far superior to them looking the exact damned same. I know I'd pretty much ditch armour altogether if my avatar ended up looking like a dude due to the armour in question.

 

Also which Ivy Valentine style? She's been switching back and forth between skimpy, covered and uber skimpy.

[Lephys]

AHa. The fallacios "You loose nothing, but I do" argument. Never liked that one, because one group usually assumes too much.

... Because I clearly stated that you don't lose anything.

 

Subjective artistic style is just that. Subjective. Therefore no ones takes precedence. Meaning any decision that favors group 2 makes group 1 "suffer", and vice-versa.

Actual difference vs. no difference is a quantifiable factor within discernibility, which is absolutely an important part of party control within gameplay. How pleasant no armor difference makes you feel is not quantifiable by any kind of standard, and therefore is subjective. For example, the specific color of two things that need to be distinguished from one another is subjective, and nowhere near as important as the resulting contrast of whatever two colors are chosen (distinguishability being objective). You might not like red and yellow, but they would be discernable from one another even to the colorblind (because of the lightness/darkness contrast of the two colors). It is why stop signs are red. You need to have your eye drawn to the stop sign to make sure you stop more than you need to enjoy the color of a stop sign. So, I really don't know what you're arguing here. For realsies.

 

Secondly, the ability to intuitively select character is always there. It's a strawman argument that if armor doesn't have massive differences, that people won't be able to tell their characters apart. It is practicly never true... even in games that features an army of simple clone models it's rarely true.

 

Unless all of your people are equipped EXACTLY the same, you should be able to tell the difference. And if you equiped them exactly the same, you should expect them to look roughly the same from a distance.

... Because I definitely said armor should have "massive differences."

 

Also, since you have no control over the perspective (it's an isometric game) or the size and detail level of your character models (they're pretty small, even when zoomed all the way in), your ability to intuitively discern between characters is constrained by the game's parameters. Therefore, it is up to the game to compensate for these factors. It's the same as with a company logo. If it's the size of a building and you can tell what it is, that's awesome. Maybe you can still tell what it is when it's on a T-shirt. When you print it on a pencil, however, you may not be able to tell it from several other logos. For this exact reason, many companies have a different logo specifically for very small instances of the logo.

 

Basically, the smaller things are, the more you have to exaggerate subtle details to keep them recognizable. That's pretty much design 101. And, since the game is suggesting that I'm SUPPOSED to be in full control of my characters, then ideally, I'd intuitively know who's who and just command them with my mind. However, since we're still limited to GUI interaction for commands and controls, I must rely upon an image on a 2D screen to figure out where a character is in the viewable area, then select them with my mouse (or other input device). There is absolutely no reason for this process to ever be infeasible or troublesome.

 

And this is all of course, without taking into acount COLOR and FLOATING NAMES ABOVE CHARACTER HEADS or everything else for that matter.

Of course! Let's make sure that people who happen to have a party full of Warriors and want them to all wear nice-quality plate armor have each character have a completely different color of armor, and that their names float mystically above their heads, all in the interest of preserving the immersion and verisimilitude provided by plate armor that is never proportioned any differently for different character body types! GENIUS!

 

I have more issue with the people and how they argue.

So it would seem. If only people would argue fallaciously, then all your counter-arguments would actually be applicable. Darn people!

 

And yet I don't recall anyone making that actual argument.

Point, missed. This game's armor designs are amongst the most realistic in the industry, and yet people are actually taken aback, in this thread, that they would stray from pure realism, as if they were the first to do it or weren't doing it to the least extent. It was merely an observation. Do with it as you please (except for suggesting it was calling out a specific argument, please...) 

 

Somebody here likes their Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I'm tempted to use that same logic against you, but it would amount to making fun of your positions and beating a strawmen...something that is a waste of time as it actually avoid the actual point.

 

Don't go down that road. It doesn't lead to nice places.

Wait, you're going to use sarcasm "logic" on me, while referring to it both by its fancy Latin name AND as a strawman? You do understand that sarcasm doesn't in any way allege the specifics of your stance, right? It simply parallels it with something blatantly absurd, so as to highlight a fault in the reasoning shared by both.

 

I love how internet forums have turned "sarcasm for emphasis" into "strawman." It's kinda like how Alanis Morrisette has everyone thinking that rain on your wedding day is irony. o_o

[centurionofprix]

... Because I clearly stated that you don't lose anything.

 

You did, but clearly we don't agree.

 

Actual difference vs. no difference is a quantifiable factor within discernibility, which is absolutely an important part of party control within gameplay. How pleasant no armor difference makes you feel is not quantifiable by any kind of standard, and therefore is subjective. For example, the specific color of two things that need to be distinguished from one another is subjective, and nowhere near as important as the resulting contrast of whatever two colors are chosen (distinguishability being objective). You might not like red and yellow, but they would be discernable from one another even to the colorblind (because of the lightness/darkness contrast of the two colors). It is why stop signs are red. You need to have your eye drawn to the stop sign to make sure you stop more than you need to enjoy the color of a stop sign. So, I really don't know what you're arguing here. For realsies.

 

A stop sign has a certain purpose: to draw one's attention and to get the message across. Graphics in games (certainly in P:E) represent a fictional world into which one is supposed to be immersed and in which one is to play a role. The graphical representation is part of the way the gameworld is presented to the player. How "pleasant" the graphics make one feel and, moreover, how interesting they make the world, is relevant in the context of a role-playing game.

 

Also, since you have no control over the perspective (it's an isometric game) or the size and detail level of your character models (they're pretty small, even when zoomed all the way in), your ability to intuitively discern between characters is constrained by the game's parameters. Therefore, it is up to the game to compensate for these factors. It's the same as with a company logo. If it's the size of a building and you can tell what it is, that's awesome. Maybe you can still tell what it is when it's on a T-shirt. When you print it on a pencil, however, you may not be able to tell it from several other logos. For this exact reason, many companies have a different logo specifically for very small instances of the logo.

 

Basically, the smaller things are, the more you have to exaggerate subtle details to keep them recognizable. That's pretty much design 101. And, since the game is suggesting that I'm SUPPOSED to be in full control of my characters, then ideally, I'd intuitively know who's who and just command them with my mind. However, since we're still limited to GUI interaction for commands and controls, I must rely upon an image on a 2D screen to figure out where a character is in the viewable area, then select them with my mouse (or other input device). There is absolutely no reason for this process to ever be infeasible or troublesome.

 

I think everyone agrees; the point is how much divergence between the sexes is needed to make the characters distinguishable from one another, and if this divergence needs to exceed what is decreed by realism/sense/good taste. It seems to me perfectly possible to make the characters distinguishable without sacrificing the aesthetic.

 

Of course! Let's make sure that people who happen to have a party full of Warriors and want them to all wear nice-quality plate armor have each character have a completely different color of armor, and that their names float mystically above their heads, all in the interest of preserving the immersion and verisimilitude provided by plate armor that is never proportioned any differently for different character body types! GENIUS!

 

So it would seem. If only people would argue fallaciously, then all your counter-arguments would actually be applicable. Darn people!

 

If only!

 

Now, the colour doesn't have to be the colour of the armour itself, but can come from tabards, clothes underneath the armour, etc. Characters even of the same sex and race, in the same armour, were perfectly distinguishable in the IE games through helmet styles and a rudimentary colour choice for clothes. The names don't float "mystically" (if at all) since the UI traditionally isn't taken to be part of the gameworld.

 

Wait, you're going to use sarcasm "logic" on me, while referring to it both by its fancy Latin name AND as a strawman? You do understand that sarcasm doesn't in any way allege the specifics of your stance, right? It simply parallels it with something blatantly absurd, so as to highlight a fault in the reasoning shared by both.

 

I love how internet forums have turned "sarcasm for emphasis" into "strawman." It's kinda like how Alanis Morrisette has everyone thinking that rain on your wedding day is irony. o_o

 

It's a strawman if the "sarcasm for emphasis" relies for its effect on misrepresenting the opposing argument.

Edited April 19, 2013 by centurionofprix

[Lephys]

You did, but clearly we don't agree.

Find the quote, and I'll birth your children.

A stop sign has a certain purpose: to draw one's attention and to get the message across. Graphics in games (certainly in P:E) represent a fictional world into which one is supposed to be immersed and in which one is to play a role. The graphical representation is part of the way the gameworld is presented to the player. How "pleasant" the graphics make one feel and, moreover, how interesting they make the world, is relevant in the context of a role-playing game.

Swing and a miss... I wasn't comparing a stop sign's function to the function of video game graphics. I was comparing the significance of the color of a stop sign as it pertains to the stop sign's functionality to the significance of the aesthetic pleasantry of a graphical armor model in a video game as it pertains to the graphical armor model's functionality. But, thanks for elaborating on how stop signs don't function like video game graphics.

I think everyone agrees; the point is how much divergence between the sexes is needed to make the characters distinguishable from one another, and if this divergence needs to exceed what is decreed by realism/sense/good taste. It seems to me perfectly possible to make the characters distinguishable without sacrificing the aesthetic.

Look, with all due respect, I haven't said otherwise. So, if you have no argument with me, there's no point in arguing against my rebuttal to someone else's argument against my stance -- a stance which aligns with your own on the matter. Basically, all I've done is thought about the matter, upon entering the thread, and decided "Hmm, yes, subtle differences in things like breastplate proportions, as opposed to extreme differences as in other games OR no difference at all (which could, potentially be problematic in character discernment, even though it's not the biggest of deals) is probably the way to go. There's value in this." Then, someone kindly posted the concepts that Obsidian's own art team already created of their own accord, before this thread even existed, which displayed exactly that: Subtle differences between a male and female plate armor set, which still adhere SO closely to realistic plate armor proportions and design that it's not even funny. Then, I said "Oooh, yes, like that. That's a good example of how I happen to feel the designs should be."

 

And yet, still, no one can simply acknowledge a reasonable perspective on a simple matter? No form-fitting bosom shapes in the plate? Awesome. I agree. Could both breastplates be identical, as they "would realistically be" (we'll ignore the fact that very few women ever fought in plate, in recorded history, which could be very different from the number of women who've fought in plate in P:E's world's history, which could drastically or hardly-at-all affect the consideration for various fittings of plate armor for women, since no one's gonna take their time with that when 7 out of 9,000,000,000 soldiers were ever women...)? Yes, yes they could. But, that could be a detriment to intuitively beholding one's monitor image and having no trouble whatsoever identifying their very own characters. That isn't my opinion, that's a fact I'm simply observing and mentioning. I don't lay claim to having invented the idea of visual discernment, or how the human eye functions, or how reality provides absolutely no reason whatsoever for there to be any amount of difficulty in figuring out who the hell is where in a game with heavily tactical combat. And pardon me, but I don't think that "Well, you should be forced to add optional decorations or color changes to various character's armors, or you could always just not purchase multiple sets of the same armor from a blacksmith and outfit several members of your party with that armor to avoid the problem" is somehow more reasonable than "Maybe there should be a subtle difference inherent to the form of the armor?", especially when Obsidian has already announced that their handling of armor models for various characters of various physiologies will have the armor "magically" fit itself to that character's physiology. So, I don't see why gender-based physiological differences should be any different from race-based physiological differences. I also understand that they are a development team with a limited budget, and that such a method of handling things easing their work load so that they can finish the rest of the game to the best of their ability is WELL worth the lack of uber realistic blacksmith armor-fitting services, and the existence of 73 different sizes and shapes of breastplate in the game that each only fit specific physiologies (even though that would seriously be cool, in a way, and I totally see the value in it... I simply don't see the value of that, under the circumstances, outweighing the time saved by not-doing that).

 

Now, the colour doesn't have to be the colour of the armour itself, but can come from tabards, clothes underneath the armour, etc. Characters even of the same sex and race, in the same armour, were perfectly distinguishable in the IE games through helmet styles and a rudimentary colour choice for clothes. The names don't float "mystically" (if at all) since the UI traditionally isn't taken to be part of the gameworld.

Thank you for the reasonable reply on this point. Seriously. I understand what you mean, but it seems to me that "I acknowledge that characters need to be distinguishable from one another, but I think all men and women should just have to wear different tabards or decorations at all times, instead of having a simple difference in armor form" is a bit... I dunno, self-defeating? I mean, if they have different helmet designs just because they're different genders, then why not the rest of the armor?

 

Also, I just want to clarify something here. I don't want artificial/forced differences in armor purely as a means of discerning males from females. I just want to maintain the aesthetic difference that already exists between male and female characters, even when they're wearing that armor, by subtly preventing the armor from completely negating it. In other words, you already could tell Suzy from Tom, but now you can't simply because they're both wearing plate... I simply think it's prudent to allow the plate to allow you to still maintain a difference between Suzy and Tom's aesthetic forms, which happens to benefit intuitive recognition/discernment (which only isn't benefitted when the armor negates it).

 

It's not like we're adding physiological differences to the game or something. "I know males and female appear identical, but when they're both wearing plate, I want them to look different!" THAT would, indeed, be ridiculous, and many in this thread are acting almost as if that's what we difference advocates are advocating.

It's a strawman if the "sarcasm for emphasis" relies for its effect on misrepresenting the opposing argument.

That's true, but it didn't misrepresent it, because it didn't represent it at all. It simply pointed out a flaw in the underlying reasoning of his argument, that he may not have noticed. Sarcasm simply seemed a faster way to make it known than to try to break down his argument and point out exactly what it was that was problematic in the reasoning behind it.

 

Example: "Metal isn't dangerous!

 

"Oh, so I guess knives aren't dangerous, u_u..."

 

You can't say "I didn't say anything about knives!", because you said something about the material out of which knives are made. Whether you were aware of it or not, your statement related to knives. If you didn't intend it to, then now's the time to clarify, not to toss the word "strawman" around and act like that person's an idiot for using sarcasm. Like I said, the point of sarcasm is that what you're saying is ridiculous, so as to point out that the basis for the ridiculous statement was problematic. Even if I used sarcasm incorrectly by mistakenly thinking the basis of my ridiculous statement was the same as the basis of the original argument, that STILL wouldn't be a strawman, because I am in no way alleging the specifics of the argument to be something else.

 

I just hate how often that term is tossed around, simply because someone misunderstood or failed to recognize sarcasm, and felt the need to clarify the difference.

[Tamerlane]

 

I will accept only the absolute finest in equipment based on primary and secondary sexual characteristics.