What should a female breastplate really look like

[Ulquiorra]

Becouse those youngster don't know what is Xena ! hahaha

[TrashMan]

Wait... you made the Full Plate and Packing Steel mod?

 

 

No, I made my own, very similar mod.

I have tried FPaPS too and it's good.

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised there are no pictures of Xena in here.

 

 

That's becauise Xena has too much armor.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TrashMan

[HoonDing]

 

[Spiritofpower]

 

Wait... you made the Full Plate and Packing Steel mod?

 

 

No, I made my own, very similar mod.

I have tried FPaPS too and it's good.

I tried to install it, but for whatever reason I couldn't. I installed based on these instructions (and added in a mod that removed the XP cap and let you get all classes to level 40 but no higher, meaning you could totally dual-class 39 fighter/40 mage if you wanted to and had no life), but when I downloaded FPaPS and tried to install it didn't work.

 

...And I just tried again with a manual install and it worked o_O

 

In any case, do you know of any modding guides for BG2? I've got a couple ideas I'd like to try, but I don't know if any of them are possible.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Spiritofpower

[Lephys]

And this is where we disagree because I think that you SHOULD NEED it.

If you're zoomed out far and have everyone wearing the smae amor - yes, you damn well should need extras to tell them quickly apart.

That is one aspect where "player convenience" can take a back seat.

 

In other words, I rather the difference and visibiltiy be a product of my equipment choices and customization, rather than something intrinsic and "default"

 

All right, I just want to say that I'm truly not trying to suggest your words here are ridiculous, or anything of the sort (text may have conveyed otherwise here without the disclaimer), but you do seem to be contradicting yourself in a way.

 

Player convenience should "take a back seat" (in other words, who cares how easily the player can tell them apart without making sure to place specific distinctive "decorations," for lack of a better word, on the characters' armor?)

 

But then, we can't have 2 differently-proportioned breastplates for a male and a female because that would be something for player convenience, because really, in the game world, the characters would be able to tell each other apart up-close (because of little differences in their armors and proportions and such that aren't conveyed at such a distant view as the player's view of the gameplay action), correct?

 

So why even put in different armor colorings and plumes and helmet shapes and cloaks and insignias and tabards, if the characters don't actually need that stuff to tell each other apart? Why not just say to hell with things that purely serve player convenience and call it a day? Do you get my meaning? I'm not actually saying plumes and helmet shapes and equipment "accessories" are bad and shouldn't be in the game (the "why not remove them" question was to make a point). But, realistically (not for player convenience), the characters might be trying to blend in as much as possible (so they wouldn't have easily-identifiable markings all over them or distinctive helmets, etc.), OR they may simply be uniformed as a single unit (so they all get the same style and coloring and helmets and tabards, etc.), which is PERFECTLY reasonable. In which case, mixing and matching things would serve no other purpose than player convenience.

 

Does that not make sense? Even if you still don't want slightly differently-shaped breastplates, I just want to know if that makes sense. That's all.

  

 

 

 

Except I did exactly that in many other games with less customization and never had a problem.

Small psychological differences at a zoomed out level shouldn't even be noticable in 99% of cases.

 

Hah... small psychological differences? Look, I have absolutely no idea what the specifics were in the work you did in games, so citing that has absolutely zero impact on anything I just said (it simply isn't useful against the point I made, without any specific examples that counter my own).

 

Allow me to make another example, so that maybe you can say "Ohhh, yes, I get what you're saying. I still disagree on other points, but I'll stop claiming that you're making stuff up about designing tinily-represented things that are displayed on a pixel-grid.":

 

A glowing ring. If you want to visually represent a glowing ring, and you're playing a game that's like the Witcher or something, you can probably just apply a glow effect to the ring, itself. It'll be subtle, but easily noticeable whenever looking at the character's hand (when it's not happenstancically impeded from view). BUT, in an isometric game like P:E, you would probably want to either apply a glow effect to the character's entire hand (to signify that something worn on the hand was producing a glow), or just simply not even try to visually represent the ring as glowing from a specific part of the character model at all (because making just the ring glow would result in like... 1 pixel of blue "light," and you'd think "Erm... is that just a sapphire? Maybe it's just a blue ring? Maybe it's a Christmas light? A tiny LED bulb? I can't really tell if that's a glowing effect or not..."

 

Does that make sense? Just that. I'm not even directly applying any of this to any other point in the argument at this moment in time. You just keep acting as though the attributes of scaling I've described are non-existent, and that I'm a lunatic. Because, who goes into so much detail about things that are completely false? (Implying I'm a lunatic is not the same thing as calling me a lunatic, so please no "I didn't call you a lunatic" response. I know you didn't.)

 

 

Unless of course you have vast differences in height and physique of races.

But if your party consists of 6 humans all in the same plate? Yeah, they kinda should look the same.

Females are in general slighty shorter and less bulky, so even with completely identical armor you might be able to tell.

 

A point of reference! Yes! Okay, you acknowledge that you'd probably have a visual cue just from the difference in height/bulk between a male and female human wearing the same armor side-by-side. So, I ask this simple question:

 

If the female's torso proportions (shoulders-to-waist, hips-to-waist, etc... not simply "the thickness and height of her whole torso, as relative to the man's torso") are pretty different, why would it be so ridiculous for her to have a differently-proportioned piece of armor that also happened to produce a further minor difference in visual dinstinction? Hmm?

 

Everyone's made this SO powerfully about just "females should get a different breastplate for the simple, useless fact that they happen to be females," but how would this be ANY different from two differently proportioned men? If you took a breastplate from a huge, solid Dwarf whose waist was wider than his chest, then you gave it to a thin, extremely toned, v-shaped-torso (think Bruce Lee) Elf, you wouldn't just click a corner of the breastplate model and scale it down without changing the proportions. The Elf would surely need the bottom of the breastplate taken in quite a bit as compared to the top (the difference between his shoulders/chest and the Dwarf's would not be as great as the difference between their waists/hipbones. So, why would this be any different for someone with the same physiological difference who happened to be female?

 

Again, you've already said you'd like fitted armor to exist in the game, so we can argue about how to handle fitted armor all day long. But, how does anything suggest that a female should not have a distinguishably different breastplate than a dude, ever?

 

The only reason I went ahead and said "Yeah, it should probably just morph-change when you unequip a breastplate from a dude, then equip it on a female" is because (and I even stated this) that's already the approach Obsidian talked about in that race-modeling update (upper 40's?).

 

Whether or not you want it to morph on it's own is a completely different debate than "a female's breastplate should never, ever appear distinguishably different from a male's, u_u." It's not even about boobs (although, a female who happened to possess a considerable bosom -- I'm assuming the world isn't utterly devoid of curvy females who can't help the DNA they got and still want to wear plate armor -- would probably affect the proportions (again... NOT BOOB-FORM PROTRUSIONS IN THE ARMOR! Just overall breastplate proportions!) of the armor, just like a man's huge upper-body muscles would as compared to a scrawnier/differently-shaped man.

 

So, I find it difficult to see where I'm being unreasonable, and I would really like your thoughts on this, specifically.

 

 

They might look alike by default. We don't even know the physique of otehr races. What if elves have the same body build as humans? How do you tell them apart then?

 

Or what if you have a party of 6 human females? How do you tell them apart? Will we now blow up any differences between them too?

 

Why is it necessary to tell the difference between Bob and Sarah at a glance by default, but not between Bob and Joe? If visibility is that big of an issue than every party member should - by default, without player input - be a beacon of uniqunes that stands out like a black man on a KKK meeting.

 

A better question is "Why does the inability to tell the difference between Jim and Steve somehow mean that you should not be able to tell the difference between Jim and Sarah?"

 

Might as well ask "Why should I visually be able to tell the difference between Wizard abilities and Fighter abilities if I can't tell the difference between two Wizards' abilities?"

 

I never said "armor shape should ALWAYS let you tell the difference between ANY two entities in the game, EVER!", so I don't see your example as problematic to my stance in any way.

 

Although, since there will be a very limited number of companions (of various classes and races, I would imagine), I don't think it's really all that much trouble for even 2 of them to not be the exact same height, shape, size, skin color, hairstyle, footsize, etc. I don't think it's too much to ask that we don't have 5 companions who look identical, when there are only like 9 or 11 or so, total. I would dare say the art team was doing a poor respect in being creative, at that point.

 

If you go out of your way to make 5 identical companions in the... what is it, Hall of Adventurers? Then, at that point, the player has voluntarily created a lack of distinguishment in the world. Not to mention this goes back to the "I didn't ask for everything to always be distinguishable." I just think that, if 2 things are already distinguishable (i.e. different physiques/proportions), then there's no reason to completely negate that with generic armor shapes that are EXACTLY identical, THEN say "Oh, you wanted to tell the difference between those two characters that you could already tell the difference between before applying this armor to both of them? Well, you'd better use these entirely optional accessories and decorations that will make you stand out from a mile away to any NPCs who might be after you."

 

 

Having a different cloak or weapon or helemet or plume is far easier and more visible than some tiny bulge on the armor that you have to squint to see anyway.

 

When I suggest the use of tiny bulges for distinction, this will be relevant. Until then, I'll stick with overall physique differences throughout the entire character "silhouette," and tiny bulges will remain useless, along with separate from my argument.

 

 

 

Everything gets abstraced. The quesion is only where you draw the line and how much you abstract.

 

You kinda could mod this in BG2.. If you recall some charactes had personal items usable only by them. So you could use that usabiltiy flag to do it.

 

Personally I'd do it with 3 basic sizes - and you must be of proper size to use it at all. A dwarf won't be able to use elven plate.

 

Then you can fit it personally to you to get rid of any use penalty (or better yet, get a bonus)

This isn't a big issue, since plate usually had room to spare - which is why a woman could wear a mans plate..

 

How long would it take and how much would it cost as a issue of balance. You are free to assume it would take weeks and you'll find a far superior armor by then, but it's as accurate as my assumption that armor is done in a matter of hours and plate is so rare you likey won't find anything better for a long time.

 

But I like the little details that make the world feel real and that give me options and consequences.

And this is. Resource and time alocation. Choices.

Whom do I give that armor to? Do I fit it or not? Will I need that money later?

 

I love everything you just said. Even with that system in place (which is awesome, I think), it would still be Obsidian's prerogative to have the armor "automorph" itself to each individual character/race/physique (even if only subtly... I would hope subtly), as you'd still have an abstracted "this Dwarf is a foot-and-a-half shorter than that Dwarf, but is still twice as wide as a Gnome, so the Small armor doesn't really work, but the Medium armor is too tall." In other words, you'd still have instances where the 3 static sizes would just-plain not fit a character model without some visual abstraction (of a slight range of proportions within each size -- Small, Medium, and Large). That's the only reason I'm totally cool with auto-morphing armor (and because of resource-saving factors that I just have to take their word on, since they're the professional design team and I'm just some noob).

 

Like I said, I wouldn't be at all averse to a system in which there were 3 general sizes (or more, but still a small number) of armor, so that it would either fit or it wouldn't, PLUS a "fit this to this particular character, so that no one else can wear it, but that character gets further bonuses" option, and that only then would it visually fit that person's physique (still not talking skin-tight, here, just to clarify, but maybe "People in history didn't actually fit it like this very often because of economic factors, cost-versus-effectiveness-gain, etc., but it's still realistic and functional in design.")

 

Like you said: All things are abstracted a bit. And you have to draw the line somewhere. But, anything within that line is fair game, methinks, as there are benefits to things (such as the player's ability to distinguish, or sheer enjoyment of personalization/customization, etc.) that aren't even factors in real life. No floating battlefield commander cares that Cedric looks uniquely like Cedric in his armor and whatnot, and Galad looks uniquely his own style, as well. But that is the case in a game. And I don't think that should overrule realism/verisimilitude (when not dealing with actual realistic/historical items), but I also don't think it isn't worth considering, so that it can be appeased/benefitted when an abstraction is within reason.

 

 

 

 

And as for the whole graphical scaling thing... you're just not really getting my point there, I'm sorry to say. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough, but you're misunderstanding me, big time.

 

Stop apologizing for nothing already...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because, if it doesn't show up like it's supposed to, then it's wasted effort modeling it in the first place.

 

It shouldn't be a problem with high resolutions and monitors. Not to mention that models aren't 2D renders anymore. They are 3D models so detail gets preserved a lot better.

Also, you have zoom levels so it's harldy a waste.

 

It's more of a metter on the difference on what the devs should focus than an actual big diagreement.

 

Personally I feel the devs should make a model that looks good zoomed in and not waste time fiddling and blowing up differences for maximum distance, since the tools for great visibiltiy are already there.

[motorizer]

Hmmmm.... as a really old school gamer I remember a game called ishar, where male and female armours were separate items and you couldn't wear armour for the other gender...

more realistic, but probably a bit annoying if you find the super plate of awesome sexiness +2 and can't wear it,

 

but no morphing and no women looking like men.....

 

I'd be happy with this, but I suspect I'm in a minority there

[Elkiehirvi -WeremooseofSin]

Hi everyone! My first post on these forums, don't really know why I started on this topic, but here are my two cents anyways:

 

I study medicine, as in studying to be a doctor. I have to say that from purely anatomical point of view I actually really like the PE concept art of female plate armor shown in this thread, as they capture the biggest differences in female and male pshysiology. Shoulders and hips. Female shoulders and hips are actually very different from males, due to having to be able to give birth.

 

In the concept armor most of the weight would rest on the womans hips, as it should be. Female upperbody strength is normally about 40-50% of a man that is in the same size category. Having full plate armor, that didn't specifically take this in consideration would be extremely uncomfortable.

 

Also, the waist part should be pretty different, partly because the armor would be carried mainly on those hips, but also because female hips are wider, and hung differently (baby actually crawls out from between the pelvis bones).

 

So, yes, I think female armor should be different to be realistic. Lots of the required changes would probably be done with padding differences, but the hip and shoulder region would be quite different to make comfortable armor.

 

In closing, my opinion: PE concept armor GOOD some of the best in gaming I've seen, booby plates BAD :D

 

Cheers!

 

ps. I'm not english, so please pardon the clumsy language  

  

[Tamerlane]

... even then, dudes should be trying to put as much weight on to their hips as possible for carrying heavy loads over long periods of time, especially when they're active with their arms. We may be better suited to it by nature, but hauling around 50 pounds entirely on your shoulders for hours on end is still a dumb thing to do if you can distribute the weight better.

 

...

 

And never bend at the back when picking up heavy objects! Safety first, everyone!

Edited April 26, 2013 by Tamerlane

[ShadowTiger]

Women look perfectly fine wearing armor made for men. There is no reason for the armor to have the shape of breasts, or to curve at the waist more than for men. First of all, there are plenty of women with wide shoulders and narrow hips who have the same general shape as some men. Secondly, most women's breasts aren't so huge that they need that much room to breathe. Thirdly, there is no reason to make armor molded to the body, it defeats the purpose. 

My final thoughts are: Either have all armor be one-size fits all, or have all armor be customized to the individual person. There is no good reason to have gender-specific armor (besides letting the artists have free reign to express themselves).

[TMZuk]

Same as a suit of amour made for a man.

 

At any rate, a suit of plate, historically, had to be fitted to the person who would wear it, unlike chain and brigandine, which were more flexible.

 

Go to 3:45 on this video.

 

 

It's from a training-session in Hamburg, Germany a few years ago, and the smaller of the two is a woman.

[Diagoras]

 

At any rate, a suit of plate, historically, had to be fitted to the person who would wear it, unlike chain and brigandine, which were more flexible.

 

Only fancy plate for rich people. Munitions plate would have the previous Doppelsöldner scraped out of it and repaired so that someone else could get shoved in.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Wait... you made the Full Plate and Packing Steel mod?

 

 

No, I made my own, very similar mod.

I have tried FPaPS too and it's good.

I tried to install it, but for whatever reason I couldn't. I installed based on these instructions (and added in a mod that removed the XP cap and let you get all classes to level 40 but no higher, meaning you could totally dual-class 39 fighter/40 mage if you wanted to and had no life), but when I downloaded FPaPS and tried to install it didn't work.

 

...And I just tried again with a manual install and it worked o_O

 

In any case, do you know of any modding guides for BG2? I've got a couple ideas I'd like to try, but I don't know if any of them are possible.

 

 

Try the Gibberling Three or the Sorceres Palace.

 

Alas, that re-balance mod I made is long lost due to a HDD crash, but I do still have this tiny little mod:

http://www.shsforums.net/topic/42248-holy-avenger-kit-extra/

[TrashMan]

 

 

Player convenience should "take a back seat" (in other words, who cares how easily the player can tell them apart without making sure to place specific distinctive "decorations," for lack of a better word, on the characters' armor?)

But then, we can't have 2 differently-proportioned breastplates for a male and a female because that would be something for player convenience, because really, in the game world, the characters would be able to tell each other apart up-close (because of little differences in their armors and proportions and such that aren't conveyed at such a distant view as the player's view of the gameplay action), correct?

So why even put in different armor colorings and plumes and helmet shapes and cloaks and insignias and tabards, if the characters don't actually need that stuff to tell each other apart? Why not just say to hell with things that purely serve player convenience and call it a day? Do you get my meaning? I'm not actually saying plumes and helmet shapes and equipment "accessories" are bad and shouldn't be in the game (the "why not remove them" question was to make a point). But, realistically (not for player convenience), the characters might be trying to blend in as much as possible (so they wouldn't have easily-identifiable markings all over them or distinctive helmets, etc.), OR they may simply be uniformed as a single unit (so they all get the same style and coloring and helmets and tabards, etc.), which is PERFECTLY reasonable. In which case, mixing and matching things would serve no other purpose than player convenience.

 

Up close. Key word. If I walk right next to you I can recognize you by your face. How about if I'm 100m away? 200? 500? Slight changes in physique will also become indestinguishable after a certain distance mind you.

A man and woman in a same plate armor (as shown in many videos and images) are practicly only destinguishalbe by size. And you have short men and big women, soooo .... yeah.

 

If you want them to lock exactly the same (by equiping them completely the same), then why would you complain that they look exactly the same? And unlike the real world, you have the GUI to tell them apart.

 

If I, as a human being can tell people far away apart by size/shape, then I should be able to do it in game too without any "artificial" enhancments.

 

 

 

 

 

Hah... small psychological differences? Look, I have absolutely no idea what the specifics were in the work you did in games, so citing that has absolutely zero impact on anything I just said (it simply isn't useful against the point I made, without any specific examples that counter my own).

 

My bad. Physiological.

A glowing ring. If you want to visually represent a glowing ring, and you're playing a game that's like the Witcher or something, you can probably just apply a glow effect to the ring, itself. It'll be subtle, but easily noticeable whenever looking at the character's hand (when it's not happenstancically impeded from view). BUT, in an isometric game like P:E, you would probably want to either apply a glow effect to the character's entire hand (to signify that something worn on the hand was producing a glow), or just simply not even try to visually represent the ring as glowing from a specific part of the character model at all (because making just the ring glow would result in like... 1 pixel of blue "light," and you'd think "Erm... is that just a sapphire? Maybe it's just a blue ring? Maybe it's a Christmas light? A tiny LED bulb? I can't really tell if that's a glowing effect or not..."

 

You don't represnet it. Easy.

You can add some GUI element to signify it if it's really importnat (like an icon next to hte portrait), but otherwise, unnecessary.

 

 

 

Does that make sense? Just that. I'm not even directly applying any of this to any other point in the argument at this moment in time. You just keep acting as though the attributes of scaling I've described are non-existent, and that I'm a lunatic. Because, who goes into so much detail about things that are completely false? (Implying I'm a lunatic is not the same thing as calling me a lunatic, so please no "I didn't call you a lunatic" response. I know you didn't.)

 

You lost me here with all that lunacy talk.

 

 

 

 

If the female's torso proportions (shoulders-to-waist, hips-to-waist, etc... not simply "the thickness and height of her whole torso, as relative to the man's torso") are pretty different, why would it be so ridiculous for her to have a differently-proportioned piece of armor that also happened to produce a further minor difference in visual dinstinction? Hmm?

 

I'm not saying it would be redicolous. Fantasy armors come in all shapes and sizes.I'm saiynyg that any historical and Real World plate armors make it next to impossible to tell if you're fighting a short man or a woman.

 

 

 

Everyone's made this SO powerfully about just "females should get a different breastplate for the simple, useless fact that they happen to be females," but how would this be ANY different from two differently proportioned men? If you took a breastplate from a huge, solid Dwarf whose waist was wider than his chest, then you gave it to a thin, extremely toned, v-shaped-torso (think Bruce Lee) Elf, you wouldn't just click a corner of the breastplate model and scale it down without changing the proportions. The Elf would surely need the bottom of the breastplate taken in quite a bit as compared to the top (the difference between his shoulders/chest and the Dwarf's would not be as great as the difference between their waists/hipbones. So, why would this be any different for someone with the same physiological difference who happened to be female?

 

That depends completley on the scale of physiological difference. A dwarf and a human have a VERY different build.

And while a human male and female aren't identical, the very design of plate armor is mono-gendered (withn arrow waist and uniform, curved chest). In other words, both can wear the exact same piece of armor and there is no need to "shape" it differently.

 

 

 

Again, you've already said you'd like fitted armor to exist in the game, so we can argue about how to handle fitted armor all day long. But, how does anything suggest that a female should not have a distinguishably different breastplate than a dude, ever?

 

Fitting is tiny details (mostly adjustment of padding and straps) and in no way does it equate "distinguishably different from a distance".

You CAN wear an unfitted armor and fight in it, but it probably won't be comfortable.

 

 

 

 

 

I just think that, if 2 things are already distinguishable (i.e. different physiques/proportions), then there's no reason to completely negate that with generic armor shapes that are EXACTLY identical, THEN say "Oh, you wanted to tell the difference between those two characters that you could already tell the difference between before applying this armor to both of them? Well, you'd better use these entirely optional accessories and decorations that will make you stand out from a mile away to any NPCs who might be after you."

 

 

Unless of course, the armor really is pretty much identical?

The armor is shaped to deflect blows, matching the specific body shape is NOT a top priority.

 

If I can't tell a man from a woman in armor - in Real Life and up-close, then why should I demand that from a game?

[Lephys]

Up close. Key word.

Wow. You managed to take the words "up close" so far out of context that they needed a passport to reach your destination. I'd try to point out just how you did it, but I can see that this is an infinite loop of clarification and context-point splicing.

 

You don't represnet it. Easy.

Thanks for clearing that up. My point was absolutely the very powerful need to represent it, obviously, as can be seen here:

 

...BUT, in an isometric game like P:E, you would probably want to either apply a glow effect to the character's entire hand (to signify that something worn on the hand was producing a glow), or just simply not even try to visually represent the ring as glowing from a specific part of the character model at all...

Oh... wait.

 

What did pretending I didn't say that already accomplish? That's right... nothing. I literally am incapable of comprehending how you even come up with such responses, unless you just read like half of everything I say. Did you see "If you wanted to represent a glowing ring, for example," then just decide I was asking "But how do we represent a glowing ring on a tiny model? Because I have no idea, but we HAVE to represent it visually!"?

 

I don't know how to get on whatever wavelength you're operating on. I'm truly sorry.

 

If I can't tell a man from a woman in armor - in Real Life and up-close, then why should I demand that from a game?

Because in real life, you're IMMEDIATELY aware which "character" is you, and which is not you, because you're only controlling YOU. In a game, you have an interface, reliant HEAVILY upon visual representation, that functions as your control board for multiple different people.

 

How is that incomprehensible? You ONLY need to know who's who amongst those you're controlling because it's a game and you're simply interfacing with a set of characters you're supposed to have direct and intuitive control over.

 

I give up. You closed your mind to my reasoning a long time ago. I don't even know why you've been responding this long on this particular matter.

[TrashMan]

 

If I can't tell a man from a woman in armor - in Real Life and up-close, then why should I demand that from a game?

Because in real life, you're IMMEDIATELY aware which "character" is you, and which is not you, because you're only controlling YOU. In a game, you have an interface, reliant HEAVILY upon visual representation, that functions as your control board for multiple different people.

 

How is that incomprehensible? You ONLY need to know who's who amongst those you're controlling because it's a game and you're simply interfacing with a set of characters you're supposed to have direct and intuitive control over.

 

I give up. You closed your mind to my reasoning a long time ago. I don't even know why you've been responding this long on this particular matter.

 

 

 

And in a game you also have portraits, selection circles, floating names and about a dozen other indicators which makes aditional cues unnecessary.

 

So to answer your question - I rarely had any problem in any game - even those that use the exact same character model - to know which character is which. The few situation where I did were oh so easily solved by just checking...because...you know.. hold tab for floating names (or have them auto-displayed). Not like there's some time limit with there beign a pause bottun or anything.

 

The biggest point of conflict here seems to be that you think the game has to give a middle finger to realistic representation here.

But wether you can tell all of your characters apart visually at maximum zoom if all wear the same is such a non-issue, that I'm also wondering why this whole debate.

[Lephys]

So to answer your question - I rarely had any problem in any game - even those that use the exact same character model - to know which character is which.

I didn't ask that question, but thanks for answering "my question."

 

The biggest point of conflict here seems to be that you think the game has to give a middle finger to realistic representation here.

Keyword being "seems." See, the biggest point of conflict here has actually been your failure to comprehend the specifics of my argument in the first place, followed by your insistence that this initial misunderstanding was, indeed, my point from then on.

 

Point recap:

 

It's a game. Games have factors real life doesn't. Visual design decisions affect these factors. Being able to intuitively discern my characters is just one of the factors. Perfectly-realistic designs and details suffer integrity loss at small scales anyway. Women are shaped differently than men. Fitted armor is real. Armor that fits a character (no matter the gender) will provide enough distinction between that character and any other character who doesn't possess the exact same physique and proportions, easily, even though you can still use various other armor decorations if you so choose. It doesn't even matter if you're doing it specifically to distinguish between them or not. The perfectly reasonable difference in fitted armor size/proportions allows that distinction even without it being a goal.

 

In response to all that, your argument, thus far, has ranged from "female armor shouldn't have silly little boob humps in it" to "I don't have any problem telling people apart, and when I do (which I don't), I just use optional things like floating names and extraneous armor decorations, which are, of course, optional, but you should HAVE to use them, so long as you wish to distinguish between your characters, which you have the option of just not caring about, and then you don't HAVE to use the optional options. u_u"

 

Yup. I really need to stop being so unreasonable.

 

But wether you can tell all of your characters apart visually at maximum zoom if all wear the same is such a non-issue, that I'm also wondering why this whole debate.

I dunno. I've apparently been debating against myself this entire time, and pretending there was another person involved meeting me swordstroke for swordstroke. o_o

 

Also, I love that you feel the need to emphasize "maximum zoom," as if that's some super-distant abnormal viewpoint for an isometric game that's different from the default for most previous games in the genre. Makes me sound extra irrational, 8D. "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ZOOM OUT INTO SPACE, BUT STILL SEE ARMOR DIFFERENCES! BWAHHHHH!!!!" *giggle*

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

I'm being dumb even bothering to reply at this point, but:

 

Floating names are needless visual noise that makes it harder to see what's going on, and can easily blur together. They're basically an admission of failure by the art director, and in no way ideal anyway.

 

Look, I don't disagree that there aren't notable differences between plate armor worn by men and plate armor worn by women in real life, but your argument is all over the map. All you've done to explain that argument in the time I've been in this thread is say "Nuh-uh!" to Lephys (and me, a time or two) whenever Lephys says anything.

 

I've been reading this thread for a few pages, and I still have absolutely no idea what you want or what point you're attempting to prove. This weird, aggravating "If you have to ask, you'll never know!" attitude you exude just confuses me. I've seen you explain your position in a coherent way before, but here, the closest thing you've done is say "I like military uniformity!" The rest has been the conversational equivalent of saying "Too slow!" and sniggering at our attempts to figure out what the hell you even mean by that. So I'm just going to ask you directly (and if you've stated the answers to any of these questions, well, restate them):

 

What is your position on this issue? What do you hope to gain from arguing against Lephys' position? Why do you believe your positions are mutually exclusive? What is your ultimate aim here?

Edited April 27, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Dream]

Same as a suit of amour made for a man.

 

At any rate, a suit of plate, historically, had to be fitted to the person who would wear it, unlike chain and brigandine, which were more flexible.

 

Go to 3:45 on this video.

 

 

It's from a training-session in Hamburg, Germany a few years ago, and the smaller of the two is a woman.

 

That looks like it'd make for some super compelling gameplay bro.

 

So fun.

[Merlkir]

1. it's a course, they're doing the techniques very slowly and safely

2. good job douching and completely missing the point. As always.

[TMZuk]

 

Same as a suit of amour made for a man.

 

At any rate, a suit of plate, historically, had to be fitted to the person who would wear it, unlike chain and brigandine, which were more flexible.

 

Go to 3:45 on this video.

 

.....

 

It's from a training-session in Hamburg, Germany a few years ago, and the smaller of the two is a woman.

 

That looks like it'd make for some super compelling gameplay bro.

 

So fun.

 

Ehh..?

 

What has fun and gameplay got to do with it?

 

We are discussing women's plate armour. Troll somewhere else, please.

[TrashMan]

Floating names are needless visual noise that makes it harder to see what's going on, and can easily blur together. They're basically an admission of failure by the art director, and in no way ideal anyway.

 

 

Thne real life must have a crappy art director.

And what is visual clutter is also largely subjective, sin't it?

 

 

 

Look, I don't disagree that there aren't notable differences between plate armor worn by men and plate armor worn by women in real life, but your argument is all over the map. All you've done to explain that argument in the time I've been in this thread is say "Nuh-uh!" to Lephys (and me, a time or two) whenever Lephys says anything.

 

I've been reading this thread for a few pages, and I still have absolutely no idea what you want or what point you're attempting to prove. This weird, aggravating "If you have to ask, you'll never know!" attitude you exude just confuses me. I've seen you explain your position in a coherent way before, but here, the closest thing you've done is say "I like military uniformity!" The rest has been the conversational equivalent of saying "Too slow!" and sniggering at our attempts to figure out what the hell you even mean by that. So I'm just going to ask you directly (and if you've stated the answers to any of these questions, well, restate them):

 

What is your position on this issue? What do you hope to gain from arguing against Lephys' position? Why do you believe your positions are mutually exclusive? What is your ultimate aim here?

 

Oh? Is that what I've been "exuding"?

You know, attacking me like that (and these comments can certanly be viewed that way, just as my can aparently be seen as equalent of "Nu-Nuh" nad "Too Slow") isn't going to endear me to go into extra effort to explain things to you.

 

I have made my position clear - at least I belive I did - several times, and I really have little desire and energy to go over it again.

 

I have no aim really.

I like to challenge some preconceptions and notion that things have to be done like X or Y. 

What does anyone of you hope to goin by arguing agaisnt me? What does anyone hope to gain in this whole debate, period?

You're asking some very broad and loaded questions.

I want the game to be to my liking. Sometimes I like debating stuff (that may or may not be direclty linked ot my prefferences).

 

 

 

 

 

[Dream]

Ehh..?

 

 

What has fun and gameplay got to do with it?

 

We are discussing women's plate armour. Troll somewhere else, please.

 

Probably the fact that realistic combat (like realistic armor) looks boring as ****.

 

At the end of the day this is a fantasy video game and not a symposium on warfare during the middle ages; just go with whatever the artist thinks look cool and who cares if it doesn't agree with the laws of physics/realism/whatever (90% of the rest of the game sure as **** doesn't).

[TrashMan]

It's a game. Games have factors real life doesn't. Visual design decisions affect these factors. Being able to intuitively discern my characters is just one of the factors. Perfectly-realistic designs and details suffer integrity loss at small scales anyway. Women are shaped differently than men. Fitted armor is real. Armor that fits a character (no matter the gender) will provide enough distinction between that character and any other character who doesn't possess the exact same physique and proportions, easily, even though you can still use various other armor decorations if you so choose. It doesn't even matter if you're doing it specifically to distinguish between them or not. The perfectly reasonable difference in fitted armor size/proportions allows that distinction even without it being a goal.

 

And as I showed you, fitted armor beign real makes no differnece, because you sill can't tell them apart in realistic armor. In fantasy armor, yes. But then you have do decide what kind of armor you want, or do you want to make female armor differnet just for the sake of differnece.

What I am saying that being able to tell them visually apart at max zoom distance is *NOT* something that HAS to be there. If that is part of the reality of the setting (that male and female armors are practicly the same), then it's a part of the setting, period. No debates there.

 

Wht I am saiyng is that THERE ISN'T A ONE CORRECT WAY TO DO THIS. You can make armors compeltely different with overblown details so you can tell everyone apart. Or you can shoose not to. There is no "right" or "wrong"

 

 

 

 

In response to all that, your argument, thus far, has ranged from "female armor shouldn't have silly little boob humps in it" to "I don't have any problem telling people apart, and when I do (which I don't), I just use optional things like floating names and extraneous armor decorations, which are, of course, optional, but you should HAVE to use them, so long as you wish to distinguish between your characters, which you have the option of just not caring about, and then you don't HAVE to use the optional options. u_u"

 

And all your arguments are equalent to white noise that bores me to sleep. You so like to drag my arguments into extreemes and misinterpret them and then constantly complain that I'm doing that to you.

I get it you can't wrap your head around the concept of people appearing conflicting, when they actually aren't. Like for example, I'm playing a tennis match with my friend. I want to win, but at the same time I don't want my friend to loose. Yet it is perfectly normal. You seem to miss some subtile nuances and the "exceptions prove the rule" clause.

 

You say "This is what you said:" and then write something that sounds suspiciously like what I said, only a lot mroe sensless, and just differnet neough in all the importnat bits that it really isn't what I've said.

 

 

 

Yup. I really need to stop being so unreasonable.[/qutoeg

 

Sto being a douche. I never called you unreasonable.

But you seem to insist to imply I am.

 

 

 

Also, I love that you feel the need to emphasize "maximum zoom," as if that's some super-distant abnormal viewpoint for an isometric game that's different from the default for most previous games in the genre. Makes me sound extra irrational, 8D. "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ZOOM OUT INTO SPACE, BUT STILL SEE ARMOR DIFFERENCES! BWAHHHHH!!!!" *giggle*

 

No, I'm saying that because PE will have several leves of zoom apparenlty.

 

And that is basicly what you are asking. You want physical differences regarldess if it makes sense for that zoom level. As  Isaid before - if In real life I can't tell the difference at that distance wihout additional cues, there is no reason I *MUST* be able to se it in-game.

You can trot the "but it's a game! Visibility!" like all you like, but that's where the "additional cues" part comes in. If visibility is al lthat matters, then the method of achieving it isn't that importnat, now is it?

[TMZuk]

 

Ehh..?

 

 

What has fun and gameplay got to do with it?

 

We are discussing women's plate armour. Troll somewhere else, please.

 

Probably the fact that realistic combat (like realistic armor) looks boring as ****.

 

At the end of the day this is a fantasy video game and not a symposium on warfare during the middle ages; just go with whatever the artist thinks look cool and who cares if it doesn't agree with the laws of physics/realism/whatever (90% of the rest of the game sure as **** doesn't).

 

If you don't care, and will go with whatever the artists come up with, why are you here?

 

I don't personally want "realism". It's a silly term to apply to a fantasy RPG. But, neither do I enjoy hugely exaggerated arms and armour. The weapons in a game like Dragon Age: Origins and even worse, Dragon Age 2, really puts me off.

 

I like arms and armour to look "believable". And in my opinion medieval arms and armour looks cool. So get over yourself already. if you have nothing constructive to add, you are just wasting space!

[Merlkir]

He's just trolling every chance he gets. The only reason the video was posted was the lady wearing a suit of armour.