What should a female breastplate really look like

[teknoman2]

people lets not forget the most important part here: the game will have a 2d top down perspective with the camera at a fixed distance (with at most a 2 level zoom). do you really think you will be able to see the details of the armor, if it looks like a skintight plate or not?

[Adhin]

I agree with ya Lephys and folks are silly.

 

@Diagoras: ale and female have both different portion in bone structure and different muscle structures. This isn't a male is better then female or ladys beat dudes or any of that non-sense. On top of that you also got different body types with in either gender. But males have generally a larger percentage of muscle, most in there torso and arms. Women have a bit more in there hips and legs (for obvious reasons) and the way the hip-to-leg muscles wrap around at formed a bit differently.

 

Take a guy and a girl, same height and weight train them the male will weight more and generally have more muscle. Bulk up a lady and put her next to some skinny guy whos never weight trained and.. shes gonna be the goddamn hulk compared to him. But that's a bad comparison if that's what your trying to do. Keep in mind that means less in relation to actual combat. Massive body building nonsense doesn't translate to good fighting, it just translates to A LOT of muscles (which can get in the way of movement).

 

And either gender can get strong enough with good movement for any of this combat so... no major difference other then in the armor looks far as im concerned.

[TrashMan]

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

 

Unless class magicly alters your body, no.

 

If you have a priest, a mage and a fighter and you give all of them the same armor/robes, they should look the same - barign different weapons, capes and stuff.

 

You might see a fighter would be bigger and more muscular- but that's not necessarily the case. I know people from all walks of life with different body builds.

 

Would there even be different body builds? If there are, they should depend on character attributes and NOT class.

[Adhin]

Attributes and body type choice at character selection. Your kinda born with your structure/muscle makeup. You can work on it from that point but your gonna hit some plateau at some point. But I agree TrashMan Class really shouldn't effect armor look, never liked that about Diablo clone where your character changed how all the armor looks but I guess it kinda works for that game.

 

Race/Class had a change in the infinity engine games but that's cause it heavily limited what you had access to by class. The only actual change was in Leather armor, Thief vs non-thief classes in leather armor... and that difference was Thief had a hood heh. So yeah body type/size should alter it, not much else. Would love a height and width slider like NWN2 had but doubt we'll get one.

[TrashMan]

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

 

 

You did actually

 

 

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.

 

And yet there doesn't need to be difference between two armors to tell characters apart.

So your entire point FAILS.

 

 

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

 

Basically, the smaller things are, the more you have to exaggerate subtle details to keep them recognizable.

 

 

So..what is this if not exaggerated differences?

 

I reject your postulation that it has to be done that way or that it is even necessary.

Maybe it is neessary for you.

But it's not for me. Especially not given all the other factors and GUI elements - from portraits, selection circles, floating names, different equipment, COLOR CODING, etc..

 

 

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!

 

Names flot mysticly? And what about those giant heads that "float mysticly"? Or those strange green and red circles aroudn anyone? Or damage number or health bars?

 

Why is suddenly a name "mystical and intrusive" while every OTEHR GUI element isn't?

 

Also, while I didn't say "paint your armor" (I meant more in regard to things like cloaks, tabbards, plumes, armor engravings, etc..), in some historical instances armor was actually colored.

 

OH, do we even know if we are even going to have different body types to begin with? Old IE games had all humans look the same and no one had a problem.

 

 

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

 

Nice backpedaling.

"Oh, it was sarcam, not actually an argument".

 

Highlighting an inexisting fault by absurd comparisons. There is no parellel as the absurdity exists only in your example. It's crap debating. It's cheap. It is basicly RAA because that's what you are actually doing - not attacking the actual statement, but a fantasy version of it inflated to redicolous proportions to make it sound siller than it is.

 

I'll be as blunt as I can here - I don't give a damn about whatever justification you come up with for using it, nor how you define or calssify it. Call it whatever you want. I'll still hate it, I'll stil think it's crap and I'll still think you are for using it.

 

 

Sarcams for emphasis?

How about this:

Since we need to clearly tell party memebers apart, how about we add in bright, colorfull clown suits? Complete with those big shoes and noses in highly saturated colors. Also, highly fourescent colored paint so our party members light up like christmas light during those pesky night quests.

Oh, and sice we're at it no mystical GUI, since floting things and numbers don't exist.

Clearly a revolutionary move only a genius of your caliber could think of!!!

Edited April 19, 2013 by TrashMan

[GrumpyOldschooler]

In my opinion (whether it's worthy or not) there's no problem with boob-armor as long as normal breastplates don't automatically transform into it when worn by female characters. That is just bad design and cheap way to do it. Also chainmail or even plated bikinis sure could exist, but they shouldn't provide much armor at all and be probably some sort of curiosity or fetish items. Technically you should also be allowed to wear that stuff as male too, just because it's possible to do so. Same with crossdressing in general. Could also cause some funny dialog responses, kinda like being naked in Arcanum.

 

I really hope you can wear clothes under and maybe over your armor though. It has always bothered me why in most RPGs you have to wear armor over your naked body. Must get pretty cold and uncomfortable under that steel plate.

[Merlkir]

 

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

 

Unless class magicly alters your body, no.

 

If you have a priest, a mage and a fighter and you give all of them the same armor/robes, they should look the same - barign different weapons, capes and stuff.

 

You might see a fighter would be bigger and more muscular- but that's not necessarily the case. I know people from all walks of life with different body builds.

 

Would there even be different body builds? If there are, they should depend on character attributes and NOT class.

 

You misunderstand me here. It's no magic - a class simply offers context to your stats.

 

See, a strength of 19 is still a rather abstract description of the character's physical ability. He could be a stocky and even slightly pudgy gladiator, strong overall and good at punching, kicking and wrestling. Or he could be a longbowman who while otherwise thin has a massive chest and wide back from pulling the bow his entire life.

 

And I said ideally, that is if we were trying to have absolutely customizable characters and the ability to see them. Many of these differences won't be very visible from the iso view.

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

There are a number of big problems with all of your arguments against Lephys, but I'll just go over your retort to my point for the moment. There are enough issues with that as it is.

 

First off, the most obvious one: armors affect stats. I can't change my characters' armor without changing their stats. In Dragon Age specifically, the armors had a linear quality progression per class. You could enchant stuff, of course, but that was rarely as effective as simply upgrading to the next best armor. In addition, all the Light Armor sets (the only armor sets a Rogue in DA can ever wear, lest we forget) looked virtually identical to one another at a glance. Medium, Heavy, and Massive armors (the ones my character and Leliana didn't have access to) didn't have that problem.

 

So there was literally no way for my character or Leliana to look any different unless I gimped one of them, and no way at all for them to look different enough to tell apart unless I checked "Hide Helmets" in the options screen. That's a Band-Aid stuck over a glaring flaw in the armor system, not to mention immersion-breaking.

 

Secondly, Leliana and my character looked substantially different. She had red hair, no face tattoo, and human ears. My character had dark brown hair, a face tattoo, elf ears, and a very different facial structure from Leliana's. The light armor simply removed all those differences, and each race-gender combo had exactly one body type.

 

Oh, and I kind of needed to be able to tell them apart, because my character was a melee rogue and she was a ranged rogue. Sending the one who's crap at melee into a melee? Not the best idea.

 

Now, you might say there are solutions to those problems, and on that, we would agree. But you were responding to something I said about one game in particular, and that game did not have those features. My "plight," as you called it, was entirely due to poor design. If it had been as simple as customizing the characters to my aesthetic preferences, I wouldn't have complained about the issue in the first place, because that's not a real issue. This was something actively detrimental to skilled play.

[Lephys]

You did actually

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

And yet there doesn't need to be difference between two armors to tell characters apart.

So your entire point FAILS.

 

The ability to visually discern between characters is important (you admit that yourself), and armor that covers 90% of the character and is shaped exactly the same always negatively impacts the ability to do so. Put 3 characters in professional sports mascot suits and you'll have the same (albeit much more obvious) result. "Which giant humanoid eagle is my male warrior, and which is my female Paladin?!"

 

Also, you adamantly point out that inter-character armor variance is unnecessary, while agreeing that visual character distinction, even in form-covering-armor, is entirely important, then proposing equally un"necessary" methods of maintaining this distinction (such as "everyone always wears different colored/shaped/symbol'd tabards," or "everyone always has different embellishments on their armor!"

 

Do you truly not see the folly in suggesting that players always wear unique tabards and/or have their names floating above their heads, rather than simply fitting rigid armors to physiques, in the name of maintaining realism/immersion?

 

So..what is this if not exaggerated differences?

 

I took all that time to make it clear, contextually, that I was commenting on technical, graphical concerns/factors, and you go and take it out of context. Why do I bother...

 

Clearly, it is exaggerated differences. So, thanks for... agreeing with me, on this tidbit?

 

Missed point: the small character models aren't even going to very effectively convey the perfectly realistic subtle differences between armors on different characters. Even the physique difference between a lithe male Elf and a beefy male Elf is going to need to be exaggerated, because "His biceps are 5 inches bigger around than that other guy's" isn't going to show up worth a crap when scaled down to such a tiny character on-screen. So, I'm glad you agree that the visual exaggerations I speak of are, in fact, both exaggerations as well as differences. o_o

 

I reject your postulation that it has to be done that way or that it is even necessary.

Maybe it is neessary for you.

But it's not for me.

 

Heh... So you're gonna respond to my "this allows for intuitive character distinguishment" argument with "I don't mind a lesser level of inherent intuitiveness, so I don't see why anyone else should"? Maybe we shouldn't have different font size options, if you can clearly read 10pt dialogue font. Why on earth should anyone want to visually recognize their characters, but not want otherwise-arbitrarily multi-colored armor, tabards, and floating character names on-screen? For sooth!

 

Names flot mysticly? And what about those giant heads that "float mysticly"? Or those strange green and red circles aroudn anyone? Or damage number or health bars?

 

Why is suddenly a name "mystical and intrusive" while every OTEHR GUI element isn't?

 

I dunno. Why is an exclamation point above a person-with-a-dilemma's head intrusive, and the spell quickslots along the bottom of the screen isn't? Good question.

 

OH, do we even know if we are even going to have different body types to begin with? Old IE games had all humans look the same and no one had a problem.

 

Because we're going to have males and females. Unless, of course, they use the same character models for both, which I'm pretty sure the old IE games didn't do. *shrug*

 

Nice backpedaling.

"Oh, it was sarcam, not actually an argument".

 

Nice allegation, but it wasn't backpedaling, AND I didn't say that it was sarcasm but not an argument. It was both. What it wasn't was a direct representation of the words out of your mouth (aka your "argument"), but instead a parallel along your track of reasoning. To clarify, your reasoning was that armor color, armor decorations, and floating names (among other things) should handle visual character distinction just fine, ALONGSIDE the reasoning that there's absolutely no reason not to maintain realism in the appearance of equipment. Therefore, sarcastically suggesting that making sure armor ALWAYS bore some external, optional difference was a good idea in the interest of making sure two different sets of plate armor can always appear identical for the sake of realism was appropriate to your argument and reasoning. All I did was point out a collision between your two seemingly coexistent lines of reasoning.

 

I'll be as blunt as I can here - I don't give a damn about whatever justification you come up with for using it, nor how you define or calssify it. Call it whatever you want. I'll still hate it, I'll stil think it's crap and I'll still think you are for using it.

 

I'll be as blunt as I can here: Your dislike for sarcasm does not make it a strawman argument, and I have no interest in convincing you to stop disliking something.

 

Sarcams for emphasis?

How about this:

Since we need to clearly tell party memebers apart, how about we add in bright, colorfull clown suits? Complete with those big shoes and noses in highly saturated colors. Also, highly fourescent colored paint so our party members light up like christmas light during those pesky night quests.

Oh, and sice we're at it no mystical GUI, since floting things and numbers don't exist.

Clearly a revolutionary move only a genius of your caliber could think of!!!

 

See? Not a strawman argument. Just sarcasm. Although, I'm not sure what it's supposed to emphasize, other than your lack of reading comprehension (as I've specifically advocated subtlety countless times so far, and your sarcasm highlights only the folly of a complete lack of it), or maybe your pure frustration at this point with me, personally, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm trying to be reasonable when you've already decided you're not even going to consider my words before trying to figure out how to slice them up and make it sound like I haven't had a relevant point or ounce of logic since 1989.

 

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that this discussion is so frustrating to you, and I don't think it's ridiculous to want armor designs to be entirely true to history. What I do find ridiculous is the tenacity with which you fight to act as though the subtle difference between a male and female armor set (which the devs have already posted concepts for) is entirely and utterly nonsensical and purposeless, and the only possible way to not be a bunch of crazies is to go with your stance on the matter (perfectly realistic armor that we won't even know is perfectly realistic because of tiny character proportions and detail degradation).

 

How many representations in the game, I wonder, do you welcome the mild abstraction of, in the interest of increased functionality or decreased troublesomeness? And yet you act like the sheer idea of ever-so-slight abstraction (again, see Obsidian character miniature concepts) here is the most preposterous thing you've ever heard of?

 

I've said it countless times on these forums, and I'll say it again: "My preference is different from yours" is far different from "You, sir, are incapable of intelligent reasoning because I don't prefer your suggestion/stance."

Edited April 19, 2013 by Lephys

[BruceVC]

 

You did actually

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

>And yet there doesn't need to be difference between two armors to tell characters apart.

So your entire point FAILS.

 

The ability to visually discern between characters is important (you admit that yourself), and armor that covers 90% of the character and is shaped exactly the same always negatively impacts the ability to do so. Put 3 characters in professional sports mascot suits and you'll have the same (albeit much more obvious) result. "Which giant humanoid eagle is my male warrior, and which is my female Paladin?!"

 

Also, you adamantly point out that inter-character armor variance is unnecessary, while agreeing that visual character distinction, even in form-covering-armor, is entirely important, then proposing equally un"necessary" methods of maintaining this distinction (such as "everyone always wears different colored/shaped/symbol'd tabards," or "everyone always has different embellishments on their armor!"

 

Do you truly not see the folly in suggesting that players always wear unique tabards and/or have their names floating above their heads, rather than simply fitting rigid armors to physiques, in the name of maintaining realism/immersion?

 

So..what is this if not exaggerated differences?

 

I took all that time to make it clear, contextually, that I was commenting on technical, graphical concerns/factors, and you go and take it out of context. Why do I bother...

 

Clearly, it is exaggerated differences. So, thanks for... agreeing with me, on this tidbit?

 

Missed point: the small character models aren't even going to very effectively convey the perfectly realistic subtle differences between armors on different characters. Even the physique difference between a lithe male Elf and a beefy male Elf is going to need to be exaggerated, because "His biceps are 5 inches bigger around than that other guy's" isn't going to show up worth a crap when scaled down to such a tiny character on-screen. So, I'm glad you agree that the visual exaggerations I speak of are, in fact, both exaggerations as well as differences. o_o

 

I reject your postulation that it has to be done that way or that it is even necessary.

Maybe it is neessary for you.

But it's not for me.

 

Heh... So you're gonna respond to my "this allows for intuitive character distinguishment" argument with "I don't mind a lesser level of inherent intuitiveness, so I don't see why anyone else should"? Maybe we shouldn't have different font size options, if you can clearly read 10pt dialogue font. Why on earth should anyone want to visually recognize their characters, but not want otherwise-arbitrarily multi-colored armor, tabards, and floating character names on-screen? For sooth!

 

Names flot mysticly? And what about those giant heads that "float mysticly"? Or those strange green and red circles aroudn anyone? Or damage number or health bars?

 

Why is suddenly a name "mystical and intrusive" while every OTEHR GUI element isn't?

 

I dunno. Why is an exclamation point above a person-with-a-dilemma's head intrusive, and the spell quickslots along the bottom of the screen isn't? Good question.

 

OH, do we even know if we are even going to have different body types to begin with? Old IE games had all humans look the same and no one had a problem.

 

Because we're going to have males and females. Unless, of course, they use the same character models for both, which I'm pretty sure the old IE games didn't do. *shrug*

 

Nice backpedaling.

"Oh, it was sarcam, not actually an argument".

 

Nice allegation, but it wasn't backpedaling, AND I didn't say that it was sarcasm but not an argument. It was both. What it wasn't was a direct representation of the words out of your mouth (aka your "argument"), but instead a parallel along your track of reasoning. To clarify, your reasoning was that armor color, armor decorations, and floating names (among other things) should handle visual character distinction just fine, ALONGSIDE the reasoning that there's absolutely no reason not to maintain realism in the appearance of equipment. Therefore, sarcastically suggesting that making sure armor ALWAYS bore some external, optional difference was a good idea in the interest of making sure two different sets of plate armor can always appear identical for the sake of realism was appropriate to your argument and reasoning. All I did was point out a collision between your two seemingly coexistent lines of reasoning.

 

I'll be as blunt as I can here - I don't give a damn about whatever justification you come up with for using it, nor how you define or calssify it. Call it whatever you want. I'll still hate it, I'll stil think it's crap and I'll still think you are for using it.

 

I'll be as blunt as I can here: Your dislike for sarcasm does not make it a strawman argument, and I have no interest in convincing you to stop disliking something.

 

Sarcams for emphasis?

How about this:

Since we need to clearly tell party memebers apart, how about we add in bright, colorfull clown suits? Complete with those big shoes and noses in highly saturated colors. Also, highly fourescent colored paint so our party members light up like christmas light during those pesky night quests.

Oh, and sice we're at it no mystical GUI, since floting things and numbers don't exist.

Clearly a revolutionary move only a genius of your caliber could think of!!!

 

See? Not a strawman argument. Just sarcasm. Although, I'm not sure what it's supposed to emphasize, other than your lack of reading comprehension (as I've specifically advocated subtlety countless times so far, and your sarcasm highlights only the folly of a complete lack of it), or maybe your pure frustration at this point with me, personally, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm trying to be reasonable when you've already decided you're not even going to consider my words before trying to figure out how to slice them up and make it sound like I haven't had a relevant point or ounce of logic since 1989.

 

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that this discussion is so frustrating to you, and I don't think it's ridiculous to want armor designs to be entirely true to history. What I do find ridiculous is the tenacity with which you fight to act as though the subtle difference between a male and female armor set (which the devs have already posted concepts for) is entirely and utterly nonsensical and purposeless, and the only possible way to not be a bunch of crazies is to go with your stance on the matter (perfectly realistic armor that we won't even know is perfectly realistic because of tiny character proportions and detail degradation).

 

How many representations in the game, I wonder, do you welcome the mild abstraction of, in the interest of increased functionality or decreased troublesomeness? And yet you act like the sheer idea of ever-so-slight abstraction (again, see Obsidian character miniature concepts) here is the most preposterous thing you've ever heard of?

 

I've said it countless times on these forums, and I'll say it again: "My preference is different from yours" is far different from "You, sir, are incapable of intelligent reasoning because I don't prefer your suggestion/stance."

 

 

Geez Lephys I like you and your contribution on the forum but you can debate a point to death using a loads of logic and detail

 

Right now I'm glad I have never been on the opposite side of the debate from your opinion, but I imagine the day will come and we'll be debating until the cows come home

[Lephys]

^ *shrug*. I'm just not a fan of the whole "I can't believe you don't understand this, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it" position. So long as someone is willing to debate aspects of the topic at hand, I shall engage in that debate, in the interest of a greater understanding on both sides. It's only rude to waste all that typing they already did. 8P

[BruceVC]

^ *shrug*. I'm just not a fan of the whole "I can't believe you don't understand this, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it" position. So long as someone is willing to debate aspects of the topic at hand, I shall engage in that debate, in the interest of a greater understanding on both sides. It's only rude to waste all that typing they already did. 8P

 

Thats one of the things I admire about you. You take the time to comprehensively make your point, of that there is no doubt

[Ffordesoon]

^ *shrug*. I'm just not a fan of the whole "I can't believe you don't understand this, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it" position. So long as someone is willing to debate aspects of the topic at hand, I shall engage in that debate, in the interest of a greater understanding on both sides. It's only rude to waste all that typing they already did. 8P

Word. I totally agree.

 

That said, I also keep arguing just to annoy the other person sometimes.

[BruceVC]

 

^ *shrug*. I'm just not a fan of the whole "I can't believe you don't understand this, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it" position. So long as someone is willing to debate aspects of the topic at hand, I shall engage in that debate, in the interest of a greater understanding on both sides. It's only rude to waste all that typing they already did. 8P

Word. I totally agree.

 

That said, I also keep arguing just to annoy the other person sometimes.

 

 

Sorry but that just seems like a waste of time, and pointless.

[TrashMan]

@TrashMan:

First off, the most obvious one: armors affect stats. I can't change my characters' armor without changing their stats. In Dragon Age specifically, the armors had a linear quality progression per class. You could enchant stuff, of course, but that was rarely as effective as simply upgrading to the next best armor. In addition, all the Light Armor sets (the only armor sets a Rogue in DA can ever wear, lest we forget) looked virtually identical to one another at a glance. Medium, Heavy, and Massive armors (the ones my character and Leliana didn't have access to) didn't have that problem.

 

So there was literally no way for my character or Leliana to look any different unless I gimped one of them, and no way at all for them to look different enough to tell apart unless I checked "Hide Helmets" in the options screen. That's a Band-Aid stuck over a glaring flaw in the armor system, not to mention immersion-breaking.

 

Yes, armor affects stats. No one is arguing that, as its' to be expected. You deal with it.

 

Regarding DA - never had a problem with it.

Never had a problem in BG and if there is ever a game where every character looks the same, it's it, since you had one sprite for all armors of a tpye.

 

If all armors looked the same to you in DA and you couldn't tell peeple apart, I'd say you had problem with your eyes.

The only way for 2 characters to look completely the same is if you equip them completley the same.

 

Also, given the coloring and accesories, that problem really shouldnt' crop up, now should it?

 

 

 

 

Secondly, Leliana and my character looked substantially different. She had red hair, no face tattoo, and human ears. My character had dark brown hair, a face tattoo, elf ears, and a very different facial structure from Leliana's. The light armor simply removed all those differences, and each race-gender combo had exactly one body type.

 

How does armor remove that difference?

Possibly helments can - if they cover the whole face.

And again, if both wear EXACTLY THE SAME HELMETS.

 

And body tpes is a resource thing. It's just not worth spending resources on creating so many different models. Like I said - BG had even less in that department.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I kind of needed to be able to tell them apart, because my character was a melee rogue and she was a ranged rogue. Sending the one who's crap at melee into a melee? Not the best idea.

 

So I guess you were incapable of telling a bow apart from knives?

Nice...

 

 

 

 

 

Now, you might say there are solutions to those problems, and on that, we would agree. But you were responding to something I said about one game in particular, and that game did not have those features. My "plight," as you called it, was entirely due to poor design. If it had been as simple as customizing the characters to my aesthetic preferences, I wouldn't have complained about the issue in the first place, because that's not a real issue. This was something actively detrimental to skilled play.

 

Excuse me if I don't weep for you.

I don't consider your "plight" a plight at all, nor not having every armor being super-unique poor design.

Nor do I think aesthetic preferences of players are that important at all.

[TrashMan]

 

The ability to visually discern between characters is important (you admit that yourself), and armor that covers 90% of the character and is shaped exactly the same always negatively impacts the ability to do so. Put 3 characters in professional sports mascot suits and you'll have the same (albeit much more obvious) result. "Which giant humanoid eagle is my male warrior, and which is my female Paladin?!"

 

Disagree with you. Why? Kepp reading.

 

 

 

Also, you adamantly point out that inter-character armor variance is unnecessary, while agreeing that visual character distinction, even in form-covering-armor, is entirely important, then proposing equally un"necessary" methods of maintaining this distinction (such as "everyone always wears different colored/shaped/symbol'd tabards," or "everyone always has different embellishments on their armor!"

Do you truly not see the folly in suggesting that players always wear unique tabards and/or have their names floating above their heads, rather than simply fitting rigid armors to physiques, in the name of maintaining realism/immersion?

 

 

No, I don't see the folly. You know why? Becuase poeple in real life did use tabbards, insgnias, plumes and armor coloring/decoration for that exact same purpose...because a lot of people have similar body builds.

 

Unnecesary destinctions? No, if anything what I propose is far simpelr and BETTER. Why? Becaue of your next point.

 

 

 

Missed point: the small character models aren't even going to very effectively convey the perfectly realistic subtle differences between armors on different characters. Even the physique difference between a lithe male Elf and a beefy male Elf is going to need to be exaggerated, because "His biceps are 5 inches bigger around than that other guy's" isn't going to show up worth a crap when scaled down to such a tiny character on-screen. So, I'm glad you agree that the visual exaggerations I speak of are, in fact, both exaggerations as well as differences. o_o

 

 

Because it's so zoomed out you state that teh differences in physique will need to be exaggerated (becaue a slighly thinner waist is a 1-pixel difference that's barely noticable).

So in other words, you want ot turn inot a cartoony caricature world, wher everything is blown way out of proportion of emphasized for "visiblity"? Sure, we can get Warcraft graphics. Have all men be giant man-mountaints with massive arms and tiny heads. Have all women have D cups. Also oversized weapons because why not?

 

Well no. Frak no. A bajjilion times no. A pox on you and your kin for even suggesting it.

 

Things like colors, decorations, plumes, tabbards, cloaks, different OTEHR parts of equipment - all of those are far simpler, far more visible things.

 

So don't talk to me abotu immersion and then suggest walking carricatures.

 

 

 

Heh... So you're gonna respond to my "this allows for intuitive character distinguishment" argument with "I don't mind a lesser level of inherent intuitiveness, so I don't see why anyone else should"? Maybe we shouldn't have different font size options, if you can clearly read 10pt dialogue font. Why on earth should anyone want to visually recognize their characters, but not want otherwise-arbitrarily multi-colored armor, tabards, and floating character names on-screen? For sooth!

 

Well, what I mentioned ALSO allows for character distinguishment - while at the smae time being less retarded.

So where do you draw a line at visibiltiy BTW? Like I said, let's have pink, neon armors.

 

 

 

All I did was point out a collision between your two seemingly coexistent lines of reasoning.

 

There is no collision.

 

 

 

See? Not a strawman argument. Just sarcasm. Although, I'm not sure what it's supposed to emphasize, other than your lack of reading comprehension (as I've specifically advocated subtlety countless times so far, and your sarcasm highlights only the folly of a complete lack of it), or maybe your pure frustration at this point with me, personally, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm trying to be reasonable when you've already decided you're not even going to consider my words before trying to figure out how to slice them up and make it sound like I haven't had a relevant point or ounce of logic since 1989.

 

No.

My sarcams serves to highlight the folly of your sarcasm (because I also never argued the other extreeme, which you so nicely put into your sarcastic commnet), so I'm left wonder who is the one who doesn't bother considering and reading?

Also, nice job of going all "poor inocent opressed victim".

 

As for beign reasonable... everyone sez and thinks they are begin reasonable. So your statement is pretty much a given for everyone participating in any debate ever, only most people never actually say it.

 

 

 

What I do find ridiculous is the tenacity with which you fight to act as though the subtle difference between a male and female armor set (which the devs have already posted concepts for) is entirely and utterly nonsensical and purposeless, and the only possible way to not be a bunch of crazies is to go with your stance on the matter (perfectly realistic armor that we won't even know is perfectly realistic because of tiny character proportions and detail degradation).

 

What I find redicolous is the tenacity with which you fight to act as tough not having those exact specific differences is somehow horrible and everyone who disagrees is irrational.

 

Fun fact to note - I never argued for armor to be perfectly realistic. Go ahead, I dare you to find a quote of my arguing that or statignthat any departure is wrong or shouldnt' be done.

 

 

 

I've said it countless times on these forums, and I'll say it again: "My preference is different from yours" is far different from "You, sir, are incapable of intelligent reasoning because I don't prefer your suggestion/stance."

 

Then why don't you act out your words insted of subtly saiyng exact that (the second one)?

[TrashMan]

^ *shrug*. I'm just not a fan of the whole "I can't believe you don't understand this, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it" position. So long as someone is willing to debate aspects of the topic at hand, I shall engage in that debate, in the interest of a greater understanding on both sides. It's only rude to waste all that typing they already did. 8P

 

There's two side to look at anything.

Technicly it might be a waste of time to keep going. "I already invested half of my money poorly and lost it. Oh well, might as well loose all of it!"

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

I stand by my statements.

[TrashMan]

^

And?

It changes nothing for me.

Edited April 20, 2013 by TrashMan

[BruceVC]

^

And?

It changes nothing for me.

 

I don't always agree with you but you can be very funny sometimes when you say certain things in a certain way 

[Ffordesoon]

^

And?

It changes nothing for me.

I know. I'm just bored with this argument. Also, the last time I played the game was long enough ago that I'm starting to doubt my memories of it, particularly since I played it in third-person mode, which I'm sure most people here rightly ignored. And no, I'm not entirely sure why I chose to do that, though I recall it having something to do with being annoyed by the constant switching between teeny-tiny top-down people and ultra-close-up "cinematic" dialogue scenes filmed like Mass Effect's talky bits.

 

God knows why I stuck with third-person, though. Out of sheer stubbornness? Some weird sympathy for console players? It's absolutely not the best mode to play the game in, so I don't know what I was doing. I can promise you that the light armor issue is far, far more serious in third-person, though.

 

Don't have the same problem with NWN2, for some reason. It's just DA:O and Awakening (which was far better than DA:O, IMHO, and is probably my favorite DA campaign to date).

[Dream]

It should look like whatever the artist wants it to look like because it's a video game.

[Lephys]

No, I don't see the folly. You know why? Becuase poeple in real life did use tabbards, insgnias, plumes and armor coloring/decoration for that exact same purpose...because a lot of people have similar body builds.

A) I didn't say tabards/insignias/decorations shouldn't be available for use. I said they shouldn't be necessary, as in mandatory, as in "I can't distinguish between my plate-wearing characters without color-coding their armor and/or giving them different tabards."

 

B) You're grasping at exaggerations of everything I say. Do you comprehend how scaling works when dealing with artwork? If I draw a slightly wavy vertical line on a huge dry-erase board, then scale that down to a 3-inch-tall line, you're not even going to know it isn't a straight line, really. You're going to basically think it was a crappy attempt at producing a straight line, but you're not going to say "Oh, I see, it curves out a bit here, and in a bit here." So, you're also not comprehending that if you don't exaggerate the finer details of shapes and edges and proportions and such (to some degree, not to whatever extreme degree you'd like to use to counter this argument even though I didn't specify that extreme of a degree, nor am I even suggesting anything but subtlety in the slightest), the result is not realistic breastplate proportions and realistic subtle differences between male and female character shapes. The result is "now those two character models just look like 2 very bland, androgenous humanoid things." You see, what's subtle at tiny character model size becomes bad at blown-back-up-to-real-life size. So, IF you took the finished, subtly exaggerated character models and scaled them up to life-size, you would need to UN-exaggerate them or they'd look goofy.

 

Do me a favor, if you wouldn't mind... Open up Microsoft Paint, and draw some fancy symbol, like 8 inches tall, on the canvas. Then, go to Image -- Size -- and resize it down by 50%. Just keep doing that, and tell me that, when it gets down to like an inch tall, it maintains all the realism and detail of your original. THEN come back with your empirical evidence and tell me how stupid it is that I'm talking about the nuances of designing tiny people while keeping them detailed.

 

Or, you know... just respond with "Lolz! So all the wemenz should have like 7-foot wide hips and gigantic boobs, so that we can tell them apart from the manz?!" some more, in an effort to make my argument look that much more ridiculous via misrepresentation.

 

I grow weary of pointing out the difference between what I said and what you keep arguing against, simplybecause you'd rather read the cliff notes and bend them to make you seem that much more 110% correct than actually make a mental effort to comprehend my point in the midst of its surrounding context.

 

Then why don't you act out your words insted of subtly saiyng exact that (the second one)?

All I can figure you mean here is "I challenge you to word things in such a way that I cannot simply claim that it is YOU who is doing what you're accusing me of doing, then pretend that that's true."

 

In which case, I don't accept that challenge. I've been responding to you and re-clarifying umpteen times all because your taking the time to analyze my argument seemed to convey a desire to verify your understanding of my stance on this matter, when it seemed so crazy to you. But, I've done all I can.

 

If you still just think I'm a crazy moron who doesn't make a lick of sense, then I find it amusing that you'd waste so much of your own time rebutting every single quote of mine you could, knowing the whole time that I had no sense to present in return. For what it's worth, I don't think you're anything of the sort. I simply believe you're being awfully stubborn right now, and it's not in my power to cause you to be any less stubborn. So, if it helps you sleep at night, keep pretending everything I've said is ridiculous. At least maybe some other people got something out of our little breakdown of character-model-detailing tactics, and now we can stop flooding this topic with words that aren't serving any further purpose.

[TrashMan]

A) I didn't say tabards/insignias/decorations shouldn't be available for use. I said they shouldn't be necessary, as in mandatory, as in "I can't distinguish between my plate-wearing characters without color-coding their armor and/or giving them different tabards."

 

If you can't destinguish, then I'd say the problem lies with you. Is every piece of equipment they use exactly the same? No? Then you should have something to tell them apart.

 

ToEE had armor made of parts and two guy in plate could still be destinguished (even moreso because oyu had more than 1 model for plate) because one had plate gauntlets other had mail..one has brown boots, other had black.

 

And let's for a second assume that you do need something to tell them apart. SO WHAT? Why shouldn't it be necessary?

 

 

B) You're grasping at exaggerations of everything I say.

 

I could swear that's what you have been doing the whole time.

 

 

 

Do you comprehend how scaling works when dealing with artwork?

 

Yes. Because I've done artwork.

No scaling is necessary.

 

 

 

The result is "now those two character models just look like 2 very bland, androgenous humanoid things." You see, what's subtle at tiny character model size becomes bad at blown-back-up-to-real-life size. So, IF you took the finished, subtly exaggerated character models and scaled them up to life-size, you would need to UN-exaggerate them or they'd look goofy.

 

And people very far away should look like bland, androgenous things. It is expected.

 

If you want some super-easy-to-tell-them-apart-even-when-they-are-at-the-other-end-of-the-galaxy thing, then implement it as part of a GUI.

 

Not butcher the models or art.

 

 

 

 

Or, you know... just respond with "Lolz! So all the wemenz should have like 7-foot wide hips and gigantic boobs, so that we can tell them apart from the manz?!" some more, in an effort to make my argument look that much more ridiculous via misrepresentation.

 

Pot...kettle...black

 

 

 

 

I grow weary of pointing out the difference between what I said and what you keep arguing against, simplybecause you'd rather read the cliff notes and bend them to make you seem that much more 110% correct than actually make a mental effort to comprehend my point in the midst of its surrounding context.

 

^^

Same as above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you still just think I'm a crazy moron who doesn't make a lick of sense, then I find it amusing that you'd waste so much of your own time rebutting every single quote of mine you could, knowing the whole time that I had no sense to present in return.

 

Oh? Now where did I say that? Pick or it didin't happen.

 

No, I don't think you're crazy.

I just think that what you're asking for is completely unnecessary and there are better and more immersive ways of dealign with visibility "issues".

[Ulquiorra]

BEST POSSIBLE BOB PLATE :

 

 

 

Jokeing

 

I whoud like to see this type of armor on "Armor useing women"

 

 

 

NO- boob plate but still looks like women