What should a female breastplate really look like

[PrimeJunta]

I'm all for naked people in P:E. I just want the nakedness to make sense -- and I would prefer not to have nakedness for the sake of titillation only. There are circumstances where it makes sense to be naked or nearly so, and circumstances where it doesn't. There are even circumstances in which it makes sense to go into battle naked, or nearly so.

 

What doesn't make sense -- and, what's more, what's extremely threadbare, clichéd, and tired -- is the trope that mean wear full plate and women wear chainmail bikinis, or that men wear breastplate shaped to deflect blows, and women wear breastplate shaped to show off their breasts.

 

In short, I'm all for naked disembodied spirits, naked berserker warriors who paint themselves blue, hoplites who go into battle in a tightly-packed hot sweaty formation carrying nothing but their shields and spears, naked wild dancing witchy rituals invoking spirits, deities, or other powers, naked orgies, naked baths, cultures where people go more or less naked in their everyday life, and Cap d'Agde.

 

Just no boobplate, chainmail bikinis, or no-ladies-over-21-allowed. That is all.

[JFSOCC]

I'll admit, I pick women characters in games because, hey, why not? If I have to look at my character the whole time, I'd rather have a good looking woman to look at than a gritty short bearded brown haired rugged man. Blegh. So I have a high enjoyment tolerance for naked armour.

 

That said, there are other ways to make characters Aesthetically pleasing without making them look like dress-up dolls.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

As long as women don't go around dressed like Red Sonja, I'm good.

 

Couldn't care less about form fitting armor.

[Lurky]

Wow, that lady is smoking hot . I hope one of my party members looks like that

 

 

Hey, I saw you liking my post.

 

Just as a clarification: I was talking in general terms there. PE does take realism seriously (look at the art style, defined here), which means that, in this setting, the criterion of "sensible female clothing" (that is, clothing appropiate to the circumstances) is a little more absolute than in other cases In the case of PE, PrimeJunta's criteria would be the most fitting.

 

(Cool Scandinavia and the World avatar, by the way )

[Walsingham]

I liked the Dragon Age concept, although the helmet designs were so awful I refused to use them. Effectiveness be damned!

[PrimeJunta]

I take it you really, REALLY like pauldrons?

[Rostere]

I don't mind nakedness, as long as it's appropriate and realistic.

[Walsingham]

 

Where are all the white knights to protest the topless Cean Gula? Its totally unrealistic that any monster would go into battle topless and I can clearly see the breast shape. HORROR!

Only evil and/or not-human characters are allowed to be topless, y'know. And tribal women in National Geographic.

 

 

If I may say so you're taking a rather 19th century view of female sexuality. . Only evil women can go topless?

 

Didn't NYC approve topless women roaming around just this week?

 

In Southern Africa maidens quite unselfconsciously go about topless. With spears.

 

Indeed for men also in hot climates, wearing armour is either inappropriate for fatigue or is considered weakness. A shield suffices. Maybe a lack of armour could be compensated for by perks?

[Micamo]

How about this?
 

 

 

[PsychoBlonde]

 

Would you guys consider this a good middle ground between realism and a fantasy feel? Personally I've always liked the plate armours in DA:O I felt that to the layman's eye (like...mine) they had a pretty realistic feel.

 

 

The shoulder plates on Dragon Age armor are absurd--if you raised your arms even to be level with your shoulders, you would squish your own head, and, in fact, in many of the animations the shoulder plates visibly clip through the wearer's head even though they aren't prone to make lots of gestures.  Medium armor for women also has huge, absurd boob-plates projecting out of it.

 

So, no, I wouldn't consider Dragon Age to be a good example for armor design.

[FlintlockJazz]

How about this?

 

 

 

I like it. The shoulder pads are a bit much but not too bad and isn't a woman-only problem. Pretty damn good in fact.

[Merlkir]

How about this?

 

 

 

 

I suppose it's not offensive, but while reasonably ok for art, the design doesn't look entirely functional. (or better - the artist isn't quite sure how all the pieces of armour work together. It's a quite typical armour in fantasy art - not wrong, but not quite right either. Why doesn't she have protection on her right arm, when she does on her left? Why are her pauldrons different? (one being sort of ok, despite the wrongly placed deflection ridge, the other huge and too loose, offering convenient gaps for swords to slide into.)

 

It's alright.

[Lephys]

I suppose it's not offensive, but while reasonably ok for art, the design doesn't look entirely functional. (or better - the artist isn't quite sure how all the pieces of armour work together. It's a quite typical armour in fantasy art - not wrong, but not quite right either. Why doesn't she have protection on her right arm, when she does on her left? Why are her pauldrons different? (one being sort of ok, despite the wrongly placed deflection ridge, the other huge and too loose, offering convenient gaps for swords to slide into.)

 

It's alright.

I'm merely asking, here, since I'm no expert and am actually quite curious, but... isn't asymmetrical armor a real thing? I'm not sure what purpose it would serve, exactly, but aren't there actually lighter versions of armor/fighting in which it you don't have armor (or as much) on one shoulder/arm while you do on the other? And/or, one pauldron has a large deflection ridge for ultra-protection, while the other simply protects your shoulder?

 

Maybe it was so that one side of you could properly use a shield (which needs less range of motion for defense, maybe), while the other arm/side can enjoy more freedom from less-bulky armor to provide a greater range of weapon-arm motion?

 

That's all speculation, which is why I'm asking. 8P

[Woldan]

A lot of the late armors were indeed asymmetrical, when the full plates became so protective that shields weren't needed anymore knights used two handed swords and weapons.  When you're right handed and wield a two-handed weapon you are standing slightly sideways, your left side is facing your enemy, like the stance of a right handed boxer.

Thats why some armors were made with a slightly better protected left side, beefed up at the shoulder, armpit and elbow area. The right side, especially the arm was not as well protected to give the wielder more movement so he could wield his weapon more effectively. 

Edited May 21, 2013 by Woldan

[Elerond]

Jousting armours also have stronger protection in shield side than lance side, as it was the side where jousters aim. 

[Lephys]

Thanks, guys! Jousting! I KNEW I remembered some form of asymmetrical armor design. Of course, that's pretty specialized, and I knew nothing regarding actual on-foot combat.

 

And yeah, that's just what I was thinking. If you're wielding a weapon, even with both hands, you're going to typically have a right-handed or left-handed stance, unless you're just an UBER ambidexterous BAMF. So, it's a tradeoff... less armor, for less bulk and movement-inhibition. Interesting.

[Merlkir]

The assymetry and shield substitutes were indeed present mostly in jousting armours, pretty specialized stuff. Your common combat suits were far more plain and "ordinary" looking.

 

Another thing is - despite manuals teaching various stances and martial arts of today teaching one sided stances, you'd never stand only (or even mostly) one side towads the enemy. Even in longsword duels you'd go through various stances with each leg being the leading one sometime.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Merlkir

[Lephys]

Well, for realism's sake, I'm curious to know if there are ANY fighting styles during that era (even if lesser-used) and/or styles of armor design that support the idea of assymetrical armor.

[Ffordesoon]

YEAH, ASS-SYMMETRICAL ARMOR

 

WOOOOOOOO

[BruceVC]

 

How about this?

 

 

 

I like it. The shoulder pads are a bit much but not too bad and isn't a woman-only problem. Pretty damn good in fact.

 

 

 

I don't really like it, it does nothing to accentuate the aesthetics of the female form

[Merlkir]

Well, for realism's sake, I'm curious to know if there are ANY fighting styles during that era (even if lesser-used) and/or styles of armor design that support the idea of assymetrical armor.

 

I can't really think of any. Once you reach a certain standard of protection technology, it makes little sense to go assymetrical. 

[Woldan]

I don't really like it, it does nothing to accentuate the aesthetics of the female form

Thats not the purpose of armor.

 

I like the artwork, the proportions are a little off and as someone already mentioned the shoulder pads are way too big, but overall a lot better than what I've seen in in most fantasy games.

[BruceVC]

 

I don't really like it, it does nothing to accentuate the aesthetics of the female form

Thats not the purpose of armor.

 

I like the artwork, the proportions are a little off and as someone already mentioned the shoulder pads are way too big, but overall a lot better than what I've seen in in most fantasy games.

 

 

You are right, but my understanding of this topic is what should female armour look like in PE.

 

Not what is realistic, I guess we need to find a balance so that my female party members don't look like walking tin cans..

I like the armour that Isabella used in DA2.

[Woldan]

 

You are right, but my understanding of this topic is what should female armour look like in PE.

I want it to look realistic! Believability increases beauty, well, at least in my opinion.

 

I like the armour that Isabella used in DA2.

 

Female armor should look like this:

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2013 by Woldan

[Micamo]

What's important to me with character design (of EITHER gender) is visual storytelling: I should be able to look at the character, the way they carry themselves, and be able to tell something about them. The appearance should match the character's personality. Either that, or ironically clash with the character's personality, which is just visual storytelling of a different sort.

From this perspective, I think that Isabella's DA2 design was (mostly) effective: When I look at her, I see someone who wants to appear much more confident than she actually is, who's down on her luck and wants to cling to an idealized past of semi-luxury (hence all of her tacky jewelry). As a character, this clicks. Isabella the character is an ex-pirate who wants nothing more to get back on a ship and go back to pirating. She uses her sexuality (both in her outfit and in her dialogue) to deflect others away from serious discussion with her whenever possible, but when the serious stuff can't be avoided she reduces to a little child begging Hawke to solve her problems for her. That's not to say I don't have any problems with her as a character: I think her dependence on Hawke was too much, considering Varric is the only companion who isn't Hawke-dependent; Even though he does get your help several times it feels like the relationship is one of mutual friendship and respect. Well, Aveline gets better at being independent in Act 3 but this is also where she basically becomes a non-character. In DA2 I felt less like the capable leader of a group of badass adventurers and more like the Only Sane Woman trying to drag around a bunch of psychotic man-children.

My bigger problem with oversexualized female designs in games is that Isabella's the exception, not the rule: The only visual storytelling these designs usually deliver is "Boobies!" And even when there is a decent character underneath their sexualized design distracts from this character rather than enhancing and informing it.

Like, I love Tali to death as a character, but honestly, what can you tell about her just by looking at her besides:

- She's a quarian.

- She's a female with the proportions of a human supermodel (besides, you know, the deformed hands and feet).
 

Compare Liara's brilliant design:

 

- She's an Asari.

 

- She's a female with the proportions of a human supermodel (besides, you know, the blue skin and the tentacle-hair).

 

And Ashley's brilliant design:

 

- She's a human.

 

- She's a female with the proportions of a supermodel (besides, you know, the terrible hair and weird pink armor).

 

Unlike Isabella Tali's character has nothing to do with her sexuality. Well, except for that awful "Tee-hee Imma Virgin" crap from Mass Effect 2. Neither does Ashley's character, yet they're both visually designed with their attractiveness to teenage boys first and with visual storytelling second. Not Liara though. Her attractiveness to teenage boys was the only consideration in any part of her character.