What should a female breastplate really look like

[TrashMan]

 

Except it does, because the armor doesn't COME WITH capes, tabards, etc., but it DOES come with an aesthetically-represented-on-your-screen physical form. Just like your characters already come with, and already look different. The dev team doesn't say "Hey, you can always put various tattoos on them, and maybe paint symbols on their backs to tell them apart, 8D!" No, they're different from the get-go, and that's not just a coincidence.

 

Except it does because it doesn't matter if it comes with it or not. (and technicly, if we are talking about a whole armor set, the helmet will probably have a plume)

 

 

 

 

And I'm sorry, but it IS a video game, and in a video game there is no reason not to have such intuitive visual distinction, along with other only-because-you're-a-player-viewing-a-screen aspects of character design and such, from the get-go, even when your characters are of similar general size and don the same armor (unless they happen to be twins). Why? Because there's plenty of freedom for it to not harm anything at all.

 

 

I don't care that it's a video game. I told you a million times before, that argument is null and void.

There is no reason to force that destinction there.

 

You are again forcing a priory distinction form orbit of everything as the ONLY acceptable way. Well frak that.

 

 

 

 

You really can't have it both ways. You either want a game with ABSOLUTELY ZERO abstractions in visual design or realistic physics-based factors, or you accept that there are going to be abstractions in things of that nature.

 

I can have it both ways. I already do. We all already do.

Unless you somehow missed it, game always use a specific level of abstraction, so some things will be realistic, others will be less so.

 

 

What I'm saying is, it's pretty silly to nitpick so hard about ever-so-slightly not perfectly realistic armor models, while simultaneously accepting

that magic works for magical reasons and just happens to get along with physics. Especially when the armor in-question is more similar to perfectly-realistic armor than in almost any other RPG we've ever gotten to play.

 

I'm not nitpicking the armor design, I'm nitpicking your downright fundamentalist stance on it.

 

 

 

 

So, a 3-foot-tall gnome just totes around like 75% of his body weight in plate armor, while a 10-foot-tall ogre only totes like 20% of his body weight in armor around? The scale of the armor never has any impact upon its thickness and/or effectiveness against the same weaponry? Ever? [/qutoe]

 

I think the strength and encumbrance difference already covers that.

Come to think of it, I dont' recall ever seeing an Ogre in armor.

And hte thickness of hte armor is however thick one makes it. Can it be thicker on an ogre? Yes. Will it be? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

What part of "The player controls the party, just to a slightly lesser degree than the player controls the main character" don't you understand? You can argue semantics all night long, and that still doesn't change the fact that you play as the party. That's why they JOIN your player-controlled party, and some NPCs just follow you around for a bit without actually "joining the party." Once they're in your party, they are marionette dolls for the player, even though some of them come with fewer strings. Whether or not that's an abstraction of their loyalty to the main character is not in question here. It still is what it is.

 

You play as the party, but you are NOT the party. The destinction exists and is important.

Either it's a moot point by now, since all of this is a by-prodcut of your whole "the player should know every character" point, that b.t.w. was compeltely flawed from the get-go, as it implies the player a moron that doesnt' know what his own characters are doing.

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

Would you say your philosophy is pretty much, "As long as I'm happy, everyone else can sit on it?" Because that's how it comes across most of the time.

[TrashMan]

No, but pray tell what makes you think it's the other way around? (as in, it's only your oppinion and tastes that matter?)

[Ffordesoon]

No, but pray tell what makes you think it's the other way around? (as in, it's only your oppinion and tastes that matter?)

I don't think that, though. I can see merit in both your arguments and Lephys'. In fact, as far as female breastplates are concerned, we're on the same side. I simply can't see any gameplay benefit to making characters look identical, whereas I can see plenty from being able to distinguish them from one another by whatever means is required - tabards, armor, portraits, what-the-eff-ever.

 

That's also my aesthetic preference, it's true, but I literally do not understand why you feel that making all the characters look identical has any gameplay benefits at all. It seems solely to be an aesthetic benefit. I, at least, am willing to change my mind, but you first have to make it clear how your aesthetic preference would help the game in a meaningful way.

 

By the way, you're actually wrong about the Xenonauts characters on three counts. First off, they can be customized, just as the characters in X-Com (not XCOM) could be customized. You can name them. As a player, I don't give a crap about Joe Schmoe on anything more than a tactical level, but I care deeply about the soldier I named after my dad.

 

Secondly, if I recall correctly, character customization of some type was a stretch goal during the Xenonauts Kickstarter campaign, and many backers pledged based solely on that information. That suggests to me that this is a feature people want. My memory could easily be failing me, however.

 

Thirdly, the most profound emotional reactions to any X-Com game I've ever heard about are the reactions to the deaths of characters in the new Firaxis game, precisely because you could sink a whole lot of time into customizing those characters. I'm not saying every decision they made in that game was a good one, but it's inarguable that the customization has been a very successful tool in getting players to invest in their characters. Are there other ways to do that? Sure. I'm not saying every game should be like that, but I am saying that mechanic served its purpose well.

 

That's the question, really: how does the implementation of your aesthetic preference serve PE as a whole? I understand how it serves you, but that's not a compelling argument for the inclusion of a given feature in a game that over 55,000 people have already purchased on the expectation that it will satisfy their gaming needs.

 

If I'm a dev assigned to PE, and one guy says he wants something in the game, I need to weigh that request against what I believe the majority of the backers will ultimately want in the game.

 

In fact, let's perform a little thought experiment: say I am a dev, and that I believe most people will ultimately want to be able to differentiate between their characters. Let's assume that both options are mutually exclusive. What would you say to me to sell me on implementing your preferred style of armor?

Edited May 6, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[TrashMan]

 

I don't think that, though. I can see merit in both your arguments and Lephys'. In fact, as far as female breastplates are concerned, we're on the same side. I simply can't see any gameplay benefit to making characters look identical, whereas I can see plenty from being able to distinguish them from one another by whatever means is required - tabards, armor, portraits, what-the-eff-ever.

 

That's also my aesthetic preference, it's true, but I literally do not understand why you feel that making all the characters look identical has any gameplay benefits at all. It seems solely to be an aesthetic benefit. I, at least, am willing to change my mind, but you first have to make it clear how your aesthetic preference would help the game in a meaningful way.

 

 

Characters looking identical (if they should look identical) and not looking identical (when they shouldn't) is neither a pro or a con. It just is.

What constitues as gameplay and what makes for "good gamepaly" is also up to a point subjective.

 

If atmosphere is part of gameplay, then aesthetics impacts my enjoyment and how I play too.

 

 

 

By the way, you're actually wrong about the Xenonauts characters on three counts. First off, they can be customized, just as the characters in X-Com (not XCOM) could be customized. You can name them. As a player, I don't give a crap about Joe Schmoe on anything more than a tactical level, but I care deeply about the soldier I named after my dad.

 

Yes, but the visually look exacly the same. Men and women - everyone. As long as they carry the same armor nad gun, they are like clones. And nobody is bothered by it.

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, the most profound emotional reactions to any X-Com game I've ever heard about are the reactions to the deaths of characters in the new Firaxis game, precisely because you could sink a whole lot of time into customizing those characters. I'm not saying every decision they made in that game was a good one, but it's inarguable that the customization has been a very successful tool in getting players to invest in their characters. Are there other ways to do that? Sure. I'm not saying every game should be like that, but I am saying that mechanic served its purpose well.

 

Except we are talking specificly about visual customization, not the overall meaning of the wrod "customize".

 

Sure, in all games characters were different. They had differet stats, names, roles/positions in the team, and different portraits. It's their history with the palyer that made them "unique" more than anything.

 

 

 

 

In fact, let's perform a little thought experiment: say I am a dev, and that I believe most people will ultimately want to be able to differentiate between their characters. Let's assume that both options are mutually exclusive. What would you say to me to sell me on implementing your preferred style of armor?

 

Nothing. Because I am quite happy with the way PE does things.

 

I neither require nor demand that plate armor be unisex - even tough I would love to see it done that way at least once - to satisfy the historical realist buffs and just becausen o one else did it.

 

Don't confuse me arguing aginst Lephyses point with me actually shunning the female form.

 

As to what most poeple would want - it's a guessing game. How can you tell what most people want? How can you tell if it's even important or how they will react? Ultimatively, there will always be things that are put in because tehy are expected to be there or because people expect that they will hate the game if it doesn't have them. And quite often it turns out to be false. And vice-versa.

The ironic truth is that often people don't really know what they want or will like.

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

 

You continue to puzzle me.

 

If you don't care how PE does things, and you aren't bothered by visually heterogeneous characters, then why are you arguing in the first place?

 

And why do you think I'm questioning your "appreciation of the female form?" I'm a fan of it, myself. What's your point? Where does that enter into this discussion at all?

[TrashMan]

@TrashMan:

 

 

You continue to puzzle me.

 

If you don't care how PE does things, and you aren't bothered by visually heterogeneous characters, then why are you arguing in the first place?

 

 

Becasue I can.

 

See, you can now post that 2+2=5. What does that have to do with PE? Not much (unless you start aplying it to PE directly)

 

Yet I'd still debate you till the end of forever over it.

[SharDarkness]

In a few lines without an explanation, i would very much like to see feminine and distiguisable armors for females. (leather, plate cloth etc).

 

Now for the explanation,

 

Fantasy settings don't have to follow reality so closely as all the aspects of the game be realistic to the highest form possible. Don't we play fantasy games to "escape" reality and transcend into a different world were certain things that don't exist in our world exist, dragons, spells, etc?

 

Also as far as i know two handed weapon fighting never existed historically but it's something you find in most fantasy games. (i'm not that certain on that, please forgive me if i'm wrong)

 

Realistic means keeping to the fantasy setting or setting you refer to in general. Examples follow:

 

Lightsabers don't make sense in medieval fantasy, but make sense in their setting.

 

Spells seem realistic in high fantasy settings but you don't see anyone blasting people in the streets with fireballs in reality or settings that supposedly take place in reality unless it makes sense in that setting.

 

So, with all that said, why keep female armors "close to real medieval" armors when this is a high fantasy setting not having to do that much with reality? It's not a combat simulator having to keep closely to real medieval armors. Sure you can draw inspiration but i don't see the need to be so precise and historically correct.

 

As someone said it's probably about the "boobies".

 

I really hope however that females get different aesthetics than the males in their armors and clothes or have a choice to wear different types of clothes and armor in an effort to please both people that want "less boob plates" and those that want to see more high fantasy less accurate and more flamboyant or skimpy designs.

[Ffordesoon]

@TrashMan:

 

So you're just being obstinate about this stuff for the sake of it? That's literally your whole reason for provoking people into arguments? That's your reason for turning multiple threads into frustrating debates over pointless minutiae? That's your reason for telling people their arguments are "crap" and "ludicrous" and "stupid?" Because you can?

 

I dunno, man. That seems spectacularly uncool to me, and kind of trollish.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Tsuga C]

Pretty sure he doesn't wear that because skulls give bonus armor vs bullets; people like to look cool.

And I'm equally sure that a simple mask won't interfere with his combat efficiency. Aesthetic touches in finish and color are all to the good; however, pauldrons the size of a kitchen sink and chainmail bikinis the size of a large postage stamp are decidedly not. Preposterous arms and panoplies on a mortal are just...preposterous. 

[Dream]

 

Pretty sure he doesn't wear that because skulls give bonus armor vs bullets; people like to look cool.

And I'm equally sure that a simple mask won't interfere with his combat efficiency. Aesthetic touches in finish and color are all to the good; however, pauldrons the size of a kitchen sink and chainmail bikinis the size of a large postage stamp are decidedly not. Preposterous arms and panoplies on a mortal are just...preposterous. 

 

A battle bikini won't interfere with combat efficiency either if it's enchanted to provide full body protection (which is what that conversation was about), but good try.

[Larkaloke]

Also as far as i know two handed weapon fighting never existed historically but it's something you find in most fantasy games. (i'm not that certain on that, please forgive me if i'm wrong)

You are most definitely wrong. There are a wide variety of historical two-handed weapons (longswords, spears, halberds, some battle axes, quarterstaffs, katanas, just to name a few). I think you may have meant two weapon fighting, but in that case you're still wrong; rapier/small sword/et cetera and parrying dagger was pretty common for a while, for instance. No, there was none of using a bastard sword in each hand, or any other pair of large weapons, but two weapon fighting definitely did exist -- and that's even without taking into account that most of the time, if one had a shield, they would be using it for offense as well as defense.

 

So, with all that said, why keep female armors "close to real medieval" armors when this is a high fantasy setting not having to do that much with reality? It's not a combat simulator having to keep closely to real medieval armors. Sure you can draw inspiration but i don't see the need to be so precise and historically correct.

And why not keep them close to real medieval armour? Particularly if the male armour is? No, it isn't necessary. Many people, however, would prefer it that way. I surely would.

 

I really hope however that females get different aesthetics than the males in their armors and clothes or have a choice to wear different types of clothes and armor in an effort to please both people that want "less boob plates" and those that want to see more high fantasy less accurate and more flamboyant or skimpy designs.

See, a choice is not a problem, although I do think the more ridiculous/fantastical armour should be the rarity and not the rule as it tends to be in games where is some of both. And, if there is such a choice, there should be an equivalent choice for male armour. If there is no choice, I strongly believe that it should land on the realistic side and not the ridiculous/fantastical side.

[TrashMan]

Fantasy settings don't have to follow reality so closely as all the aspects of the game be realistic to the highest form possible. Don't we play fantasy games to "escape" reality and transcend into a different world were certain things that don't exist in our world exist, dragons, spells, etc?

 

People have different prefferences where they want to "escape". And wanting ot be immersed in a story/setting doesn't mean it has to be far from reality or even that it has to be "fantastical" to begin with.

 

Obviously differnet people have different tastes and find it harder or easier to escape. Some poeple can shut off their brain and enjoy everything provided. Others can't. Sometimes our vast knowledge can work against our enjoment. Examples are many.

People who are into biology and anatomy might notice the dragon looks "wrong" (anatomicly broken/impossible) from a mile away. History buffs will notice how un-functional and redicolous some things are. Etc, etc...

Some will be bothered by it, others wont.

 

There are always ways to make things more or less believable. It has to do with common sense and knowledge of the underlaying working principles and goals. And you can only handwave so much before it starts smelling like S***.

 

The idea of wanting "realism" in "fantasy" might seem redicolous to some, but it's actually very normal.

 

 

 

 

Spells seem realistic in high fantasy settings but you don't see anyone blasting people in the streets with fireballs in reality or settings that supposedly take place in reality unless it makes sense in that setting.

 

Actually, a lot of the spells in high fantasy setting seem unrealistic. The "unintended consequences" clause.

[TrashMan]

@TrashMan:

 

So you're just being obstinate about this stuff for the sake of it? That's literally your whole reason for provoking people into arguments? That's your reason for turning multiple threads into frustrating debates over pointless minutiae? That's your reason for telling people their arguments are "crap" and "ludicrous" and "stupid?" Because you can?

 

I dunno, man. That seems spectacularly uncool to me, and kind of trollish.

 

 

Wait..so I am "obstinant" and "trollish" because I don't want to accept what someone else peddles as "objective truth"?

 

So tell me, is everyone that argues agaisnt you trollish? Is everoyne that doesn't agree wiht you "provoking" others? Exactly what makes you think that only I qualify for "provoking"? If you don't accept MY view, aren't you...ya know...provoking me? I know, it's a novel concept that there are two sides to any debate.

 

What kind of logic is this?

[TrashMan]

 

A battle bikini won't interfere with combat efficiency either if it's enchanted to provide full body protection (which is what that conversation was about), but good try.

 

 

 

If that was the case, we should also have males running around in chainmal speedos.

 

Wait..why chainmail? It would chaif. Let's just enchant a silk thong or a big codepiece.

 

Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective  any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords?

 

Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness..

 

Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot.

Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems.

[Maexi]

Never understood why people think female characters in video games have to look like the fantasy of a 13 year old boy and therefore wear as little as possible :/ That's also one of the reasons why I prefer western rpgs over jrpgs :D

Edited May 7, 2013 by Maexi

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

A battle bikini won't interfere with combat efficiency either if it's enchanted to provide full body protection (which is what that conversation was about), but good try.

 

 

If that was the case, we should also have males running around in chainmal speedos.

 

Wait..why chainmail? It would chaif. Let's just enchant a silk thong or a big codepiece.

 

Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords?

 

Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness..

 

Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot.

Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems.

I was going to post the exact same thing. If a chainmail bikini protects the same as a full suit why would anyone wear the latter, everyone would run around in chainmail bikinis and speedos! Your mighty warrior will stride into battle wearing nothing but a thong, his balls swaying free in the wind as nature intended!

 

As Minsc would say, thongs for everyone!

[Woldan]

Just one thing, if a small chain mail bikini gives my character good protection whats stops her from wearing plate over it for excellent protection?

[TrashMan]

MAGIC... also stacking rules.

 

I can already imagine a warrior who fashions a full-body armor out of magical thongs, panties and chainmail bikini's.

 

Helmet? Nah, I'll just wear several of this magical panties on my head. And I'll wrap myself up in other magical lingery like a mummy! +35680 armor save!!!!!

 

Oh no, I reached a critical mass of magic armor... I'm falling into the event horizon of total invincibilty!

[Merlkir]

Magical armour is usually somehow limited. In a book I read recently these steampunkish soldiers wore personal magic shields - vaguely body shaped bubbles of energy which deflected attacks, powered by disposable crystals. (depending on how it was set up, it either deflected or slowed them down, or stopped even bullets. The high level protection setting wasn't frequently used, because it depleted the power crystals rapidly and also made it a bit difficult to breath as air didn't get inside the bubble easily)

 

Magical armour could be powered by wearer's soul, will or something like that. It can have a number of charges based on the holy number of protective saints whose names are inscribed on the cuirass. Etc. etc.

[Spiritofpower]

LLet's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot.

Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems.

 

That would actually be a pretty interesting setting, IMO. I don't think I've ever seen someone write a book or something about a universe in which magic has literally rendered normal mundane weapons, armor, and clothing completely obsolete... They could even have illusionary clothes and magically-enchanted objects and constructs grow and cook all the food.

 

...Actually, the more I explore how a setting like that would work the more it sounds like a deep, philosophical novel exploring the depths of the human psyche o_O

[NerdBoner]

18 pages later...

 

 

the only real answer to this debate is:

Edited May 7, 2013 by NerdBoner

[Dream]

 

 

A battle bikini won't interfere with combat efficiency either if it's enchanted to provide full body protection (which is what that conversation was about), but good try.

 

 

 

If that was the case, we should also have males running around in chainmal speedos.

 

Wait..why chainmail? It would chaif. Let's just enchant a silk thong or a big codepiece.

 

Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective  any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords?

 

Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness..

 

Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot.

Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems.

 

 

You could have all those things, yes.

 

But I get your point; having an all powerful ring that grants amazing powers would be a pretty stupid... oh, wait.

[Lephys]

Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective  any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords?

 

Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness..

 

Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot.

Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems.

Because magic costs resources (when it's feasibly worked into a believable world). The same reason everyone in the world doesn't run around in bullet-proof vests and stealth suits, just because we've developed the technology.

 

Therefore, only those who place personal, overwhelming importance on obtaining a certain look would pay to have the magical enchanted chainmail bikini, just like people pay oodles of money for that mint-condition original #1 issue of a comic book, even though it's not any more functional to them than an old, used print of that comic book that they could get for 1/1000th of the price.

[Elerond]

 

Therefore, only those who place personal, overwhelming importance on obtaining a certain look would pay to have the magical enchanted chainmail bikini, just like people pay oodles of money for that mint-condition original #1 issue of a comic book, even though it's not any more functional to them than an old, used print of that comic book that they could get for 1/1000th of the price.

 

 

People don't buy (at least usually) those mint-condition orginal #1 issues to read them but own them because they are rare which gives them value over their normal price. So if we use this analog to magical enchanted bikinis, then they have value only because they are rare, not because they are good.

 

And if magic is costly resource one could think it would most likely be used more functional items than chainmail bikini, which would cause expotential price rise for those, without giving them any actual bonuses over "normal" magical armour.

 

And when we are speaking about PE, then magical bikinis lose lot of their usefulness, because of firearms, which magic can't stop (as is metioned in updates), so in PE world they would cost more and give less protection than even non-magical armours in some cases. But of course enchanting items could use some different magic than what wizards use to protect themselves.