What should a female breastplate really look like

[Dream]

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!

So let me get this straight: you want arms and armor to look believable (by not breaking the laws of physics, I assume), but all the other crap in video games that is completely unbelievable you're a-okay with? Who cares about all the **** they get wrong with chemistry, biology, physics, economics, and a half dozen other fields of study; it's boob plates where you draw the line in the sand. Really?

 

As for why I'm posting here: it's so the devs don't think that all the backers are renaissance fair nerds.

 

 

 

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

You know what I love about you? How much of a hypocrite you are. You talk all this talk about realistic armor, but your own art is chock-full of fantasy tropes (including, gasp, boob armor). I guess your stringent guidelines for what makes art awful only apply to OTHER artists, right?

[Merlkir]

:D oh yeah, you went there. Classy.

 

I paint for a living, the client is my boss, it's as simple as that. I think I know which boobplate you mean and that's a pre-existing character, which I obviously couldn't have redesigned. You might also notice that I put real historical stuff in my art as often as I'm able.

 

And once again, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of this thread. The guy asked what a real female plate armour would've looked like, that's why we're talking in terms of boring realism.

[Lephys]

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?

 

There actually is a reason, that you keep ignoring (you're not even addressing it and arguing why it isn't a reason, you're just pretending it doesn't exist), and that's that, in real life, you don't control 2 different people who could be confused with one another, and in a game, you do. That is, factually, A reason for visual distinction between characters. Additional cues being inherently all optional things is A reason why you shouldn't have to use them to achieve some semblance of visual distinction.

 

You see, subjectively believing that pure realistic design is better than an abstraction in this case AND acknowledging that the above is objectively true are not mutually exclusive things. Yet you seem to argue against my objective observations with subjective arguments.

 

And I'm sorry, but "I didn't call you unreasonable" doesn't fly when you're literally arguing that my statements and observations are completely devoid of reason. If you hold a sword at a man's throat, and he claims you threatened him, do you say "I never said I was going to hurt him!"?

 

And, for the record, the only way in which you're being unreasonable is in your insistence that the things I'm saying are unreasonable.

 

Also, if my words are white noise that bores you, why are you even responding? "I don't really care about this discussion, but I'm going to adamantly keep 'discussing' it." I'm genuinely asking. Your words are pure frustration for me, but I'm actually responding to them as if you're simply missing a few specifics of mine, here and there, and trying my best to make those things more clear to you. I've even asked you for clarification on many points, and yet you prefer to tell me what I meant, what you didn't miss, and how silly what I'm saying is.

 

I just... I don't even comprehend what you want at this point. I understand your stance, and still subjectively disagree with it (even though it is not nonsense, or objectively wrong or flawed). Why can't you at least understand the objectivity of my stance, even if you subjectively disagree with it? Ask me anything, and I'll clarify. But, if you don't even acknowledge that you've misunderstood a point of mine, even SLIGHTLY, then I don't know what to do other than attempt to clarify everything I've said thus far, or rudely say "Well, you probably just are incapable of comprehending this matter, u_u" and simply avoid a response all-together and end the discussion there.

[Spiritofpower]

Also, if my words are white noise that bores you, why are you even responding?

Just popping in to point out that I don't believe he ever called your words "white noise" that "bores him". And, while I'm at it, may I ask why, to use an example of yours, it is necessary to distinguish between Bob and Suzy at a glance without any other factors while they're in homogenous armor, but not Bob and John? As in, why do you feel male/female distinction is necessary, but not male/male and female/female? Assuming your party is made up entirely of humans or something.

[Dream]

:D oh yeah, you went there. Classy.

 

I paint for a living, the client is my boss, it's as simple as that. I think I know which boobplate you mean and that's a pre-existing character, which I obviously couldn't have redesigned. You might also notice that I put real historical stuff in my art as often as I'm able.

 

And once again, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of this thread. The guy asked what a real female plate armour would've looked like, that's why we're talking in terms of boring realism.

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right?

[Spiritofpower]

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right?

I know you're a troll, but my god, is that seriously the best you can do? There's a reason the phrase "The customer is always right," exists, you know.

[TMZuk]

 

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!

So let me get this straight: you want arms and armor to look believable (by not breaking the laws of physics, I assume), but all the other crap in video games that is completely unbelievable you're a-okay with? Who cares about all the **** they get wrong with chemistry, biology, physics, economics, and a half dozen other fields of study; it's boob plates where you draw the line in the sand. Really?

 

As for why I'm posting here: it's so the devs don't think that all the backers are renaissance fair nerds.

You are quite a piece of work. If there was a possibility that a price could be won for trolling, you'd be ahead by a mile or more. Well done, sir.

 

Since you now have ~proven~ that you have nothing constructive to add, I have an offer for you: You refrain from commenting on my posts, and since you consider them nonsense, that shouldn't put to much of a strain on you. I shall then return the favour.

[Dream]

 

You are quite a piece of work. If there was a possibility that a price could be won for trolling, you'd be ahead by a mile or more. Well done, sir.

 

Since you now have ~proven~ that you have nothing constructive to add, I have an offer for you: You refrain from commenting on my posts, and since you consider them nonsense, that shouldn't put to much of a strain on you. I shall then return the favour.

 

I don't consider your posts nonsense; I just disagree with you, but I can see how you'd think that since in your mind anyone who disagrees with you must be trolling.

 

It was a legit question by the way; why are boob plates so high on your list of priorities compared to everything else that video games get "wrong?"

[Lephys]

Just popping in to point out that I don't believe he ever called your words "white noise" that "bores him".

 

Let's test this hypothesis of yours...

 

And all your arguments are equalent to white noise that bores me to sleep.

 

It IS possible that I'm imagining this quote right now. 8P

 

And, while I'm at it, may I ask why, to use an example of yours, it is necessary to distinguish between Bob and Suzy at a glance without any other factors while they're in homogenous armor, but not Bob and John? As in, why do you feel male/female distinction is necessary, but not male/male and female/female? Assuming your party is made up entirely of humans or something.

 

A) I've already addressed this (this is why threads are 17 pages long... no one reads anything and just jumps into a debate with their gloves off).

 

B) Let me use your exact same line of reasoning to ask another question: "If Dwarf Bill and Dwarf Steve look super similar, then why the hell should Dwarf Bill and Beholder Sam look any different?" The fact that we happen to be talking about the male/female difference is pure circumstance. Whether or not you can tell the difference between two things that happen to already look the same, once you cover them in armor, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not two things that already aren't twins should suddenly become "homogenous," as you said, once they've donned armor.

 

The "that doesn't fix every problem in the world, so it therefore is useless" argument doesn't really fly.

 

Look, are the Obsidian concepts BAD or something? Do they look terribly stupid and infeasible? Because, I don't think they do, not even SLIGHTLY, and I can easily tell the difference between Tom and Suzy (whom I could already tell the difference between before they ever put bulky, rigid armor on).

 

I don't comprehend how "Take away all their visual distinctions, but then don't worry, because you can always optionally give the armor some visual distinctions to undo the removal of visual distinction" is supposed to make more sense than "Just leave some visual distinction in place to begin with."

 

Notice that I didn't say the former makes NO sense. I just don't see how people are baffled by my thinking the latter makes oodles of sense.

 

How silly is it to preserve 100% realism in the armor design at the cost of extremely simple, intuitive visual distinction between already-visually-distinct entities, THEN be totally fine with the Full Plate Power Rangers walking about in identically-formed-yet-variably-colored/decorated suits of armor? Either the world and story are devoid of anyone who's ever going to be discreetly trying to find and murder you (which is a lame slap-in-the-face to realism) OR everyone who's ever even mildly curious as to where you are can find you in a heartbeat, and you'll be ambushed left-and-right, 24/7 by people who look at your vibrantly-distinguished-from-one-another characters and say "A blue one, a green one, a yellow one, a red one, and a pink one, all in plate... yep, that's them all right." That's horribly unrealistic in that your characters would never agree to do that.

 

So, I'm all for realism, but I also understand that certain things are better off abstracted. So, get with the program. If slightly altering armor to fit the character in question is too much, then so is allowing them to have all kind of distinguishable-to-assassins markings and accessories all over their armor as they travel about. But we allow that. Why? Because it's a friggin' game, and the satisfaction of making your party uniquely your own FAR outweighs the notion that "Oh no! Everyone will know who and where they are, because I chose red armor instead of camouflage armor! BLAST!" So, we say "You know what? You get to customize your character, and you won't suffer for it simply because you chose your favorite color for that helmet plume.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Lephys

[Spiritofpower]

 

Just popping in to point out that I don't believe he ever called your words "white noise" that "bores him".

 

Let's test this hypothesis of yours...

 

And all your arguments are equalent to white noise that bores me to sleep.

 

It IS possible that I'm imagining this quote right now. 8P

 

Okay. Just wanted to be sure you weren't going around saying he said stuff he didn't actually say.

 

 

And, while I'm at it, may I ask why, to use an example of yours, it is necessary to distinguish between Bob and Suzy at a glance without any other factors while they're in homogenous armor, but not Bob and John? As in, why do you feel male/female distinction is necessary, but not male/male and female/female? Assuming your party is made up entirely of humans or something.

 

A) I've already addressed this (this is why threads are 17 pages long... no one reads anything and just jumps into a debate with their gloves off).

 

B) Let me use your exact same line of reasoning to ask another question: "If Dwarf Bill and Dwarf Steve look super similar, then why the hell should Dwarf Bill and Beholder Sam look any different?" The fact that we happen to be talking about the male/female difference is pure circumstance. Whether or not you can tell the difference between two things that happen to already look the same, once you cover them in armor, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not two things that already aren't twins should suddenly become "homogenous," as you said, once they've donned armor.

 

The "that doesn't fix every problem in the world, so it therefore is useless" argument doesn't really fly.

 

Look, are the Obsidian concepts BAD or something? Do they look terribly stupid and infeasible? Because, I don't think they do, not even SLIGHTLY, and I can easily tell the difference between Tom and Suzy (whom I could already tell the difference between before they ever put bulky, rigid armor on).

 

I don't comprehend how "Take away all their visual distinctions, but then don't worry, because you can always optionally give the armor some visual distinctions to undo the removal of visual distinction" is supposed to make more sense than "Just leave some visual distinction in place to begin with."

 

Notice that I didn't say the former makes NO sense. I just don't see how people are baffled by my thinking the latter makes oodles of sense.

 

How silly is it to preserve 100% realism in the armor design at the cost of extremely simple, intuitive visual distinction between already-visually-distinct entities, THEN be totally fine with the Full Plate Power Rangers walking about in identically-formed-yet-variably-colored/decorated suits of armor? Either the world and story are devoid of anyone who's ever going to be discreetly trying to find and murder you (which is a lame slap-in-the-face to realism) OR everyone who's ever even mildly curious as to where you are can find you in a heartbeat, and you'll be ambushed left-and-right, 24/7 by people who look at your vibrantly-distinguished-from-one-another characters and say "A blue one, a green one, a yellow one, a red one, and a pink one, all in plate... yep, that's them all right." That's horribly unrealistic in that your characters would never agree to do that.

 

So, I'm all for realism, but I also understand that certain things are better off abstracted. So, get with the program. If slightly altering armor to fit the character in question is too much, then so is allowing them to have all kind of distinguishable-to-assassins markings and accessories all over their armor as they travel about. But we allow that. Why? Because it's a friggin' game, and the satisfaction of making your party uniquely your own FAR outweighs the notion that "Oh no! Everyone will know who and where they are, because I chose red armor instead of camouflage armor! BLAST!" So, we say "You know what? You get to customize your character, and you won't suffer for it simply because you chose your favorite color for that helmet plume.

I didn't say most of that. I asked why you wanted visual difference between Tom and Suzy but not Dwarf Bill and Dwarf Steve. From what I was able to pick out of that rather confusing rant, you want people who look different without plate to look different with plate? Okay, you know what, I can understand that, even if I personally disagree.

[Lephys]

I didn't say most of that. I asked why you wanted visual difference between Tom and Suzy but not Dwarf Bill and Dwarf Steve. From what I was able to pick out of that rather confusing rant, you want people who look different without plate to look different with plate? Okay, you know what, I can understand that, even if I personally disagree.

 

Sorry. I left it up to possible inferral that maybe you advocated some of that. You're just like the 17th person who's questioned this in exactly the same way, and so many others keep advocating such things.

 

Also, I'm really being serious here: Would that "rather confusing rant" have been better if I had refrained from elaborating my point? It would have looked something like this:

 

"Bob and Suzy already look different, while Bob and John already look very similar."

 

? Because, when I JUST say a one-liner like that, I get asked 92 questions. But, when I attempt to elaborate, I get told I shouldn't have explained so much. Seems like a lose-lose, and if I'm gonna lose, I'd rather have explained than been vague. That's just me. *shrug*

[Spiritofpower]

Sorry. I left it up to possible inferral that maybe you advocated some of that. You're just like the 17th person who's questioned this in exactly the same way, and so many others keep advocating such things.

 

Also, I'm really being serious here: Would that "rather confusing rant" have been better if I had refrained from elaborating my point? It would have looked something like this:

 

"Bob and Suzy already look different, while Bob and John already look very similar."

 

? Because, when I JUST say a one-liner like that, I get asked 92 questions. But, when I attempt to elaborate, I get told I shouldn't have explained so much. Seems like a lose-lose, and if I'm gonna lose, I'd rather have explained than been vague. That's just me. *shrug*

I asked mainly because you kept on talking about distinguishing between characters (without anything such as color customization, plumes, etc.) and how you want male/female difference because of that, but don't appear to address male/male and female/female difference as well, which doesn't make sense. You make it sound as if the reason you want to tell Tom and Suzy apart in full plate is not because they look different without plate, but that you feel there needs to be a difference between them for gameplay purposes and such, which doesn't mesh with the fact that Bill and Steve would be indistinguishable under those circumstances. That might be why 17 people have all asked the same thing, seeing as that's why I asked...

 

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm not saying that you actually said any of that, just that you appeared to, which is where I believe the confusion comes from.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Spiritofpower

[Merlkir]

 

:D oh yeah, you went there. Classy.

 

I paint for a living, the client is my boss, it's as simple as that. I think I know which boobplate you mean and that's a pre-existing character, which I obviously couldn't have redesigned. You might also notice that I put real historical stuff in my art as often as I'm able.

 

And once again, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of this thread. The guy asked what a real female plate armour would've looked like, that's why we're talking in terms of boring realism.

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right?

 

 

I did not. If the client doesn't hire me to design, it's not my place. I am a whore, but a professional whore at least.  When I criticize Dragon Age, or any other game, I'm not necessarily criticizing the artist who made the model, maybe not even the concept artist who drew the design. Often it's the art director or an equivalent, who decided this was a good design direction. (similarly to how I don't always get to design everything in my illustrations)

I try and choose jobs that allow me to do historical or historical-ish designs, but even if I've been lucky to do this a lot, it doesn't always happen. Beggars can't be choosers.

[Dream]

 

 

:D oh yeah, you went there. Classy.

 

I paint for a living, the client is my boss, it's as simple as that. I think I know which boobplate you mean and that's a pre-existing character, which I obviously couldn't have redesigned. You might also notice that I put real historical stuff in my art as often as I'm able.

 

And once again, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of this thread. The guy asked what a real female plate armour would've looked like, that's why we're talking in terms of boring realism.

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right?

 

 

I did not. If the client doesn't hire me to design, it's not my place. I am a whore, but a professional whore at least.  When I criticize Dragon Age, or any other game, I'm not necessarily criticizing the artist who made the model, maybe not even the concept artist who drew the design. Often it's the art director or an equivalent, who decided this was a good design direction. (similarly to how I don't always get to design everything in my illustrations)

I try and choose jobs that allow me to do historical or historical-ish designs, but even if I've been lucky to do this a lot, it doesn't always happen. Beggars can't be choosers.

 

Ever think there's a reason those people are art directors for multi-million dollar properties and you're, well, not. Hating on them for having "bad taste" just makes you seem bitter.

[TrashMan]

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).

 

 

Spoken by a man who doesn't even know what realistic combat even looks like....

 

Boring? Quite the contrary.

 

[TrashMan]

 

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?

 

There actually is a reason, that you keep ignoring (you're not even addressing it and arguing why it isn't a reason, you're just pretending it doesn't exist), and that's that, in real life, you don't control 2 different people who could be confused with one another, and in a game, you do. That is, factually, A reason for visual distinction between characters. Additional cues being inherently all optional things is A reason why you shouldn't have to use them to achieve some semblance of visual distinction.

 

In real life you are "not" 6 people.

Technicly neither are you in the game. You control the PC and have a party of 5 NPC's..you are the PC, but are not hte NPC...if that makes sense.

 

But also, in real life poeple worked together and went int obattles together, facing the same problems you describe. Visibility.

Generals and commanders also had a group of people under their command.  And they went around it with armor decorations, tabbads, plumes, fancy hats, colorfull garb and stuff.

You insist that visual destinction *must* ALWAYS exist a-priory without player intervention. I say it doesn't.

 

If similar poeple in similar armor look similar, then you SHOULD have to use aditional cues. That's what they are for.

 

Note that this is redicolously overblown issue to begin with, because it's highly unlikely you're gonna have 2 members of the same race in your party in the exact same armor anyway. Especially plate - since I understand it's supposed to be very rare and expensive in PE.

 

 

 

You see, subjectively believing that pure realistic design is better than an abstraction in this case AND acknowledging that the above is objectively true are not mutually exclusive things. Yet you seem to argue against my objective observations with subjective arguments.

 

Subjective objectivism apparenlty exists. Because you subjectively belive that abstraction is better and that whatever you declare as "objectively true" is.

 

 

 

And I'm sorry, but "I didn't call you unreasonable" doesn't fly when you're literally arguing that my statements and observations are completely devoid of reason. If you hold a sword at a man's throat, and he claims you threatened him, do you say "I never said I was going to hurt him!"?

 

.... what? Stop playing the poor victim here. No, I never called you unreasonable and disagreeing with you isnt' an attack against you. By your logic, you have been callign me unreasonable since this debate started. Plan on apalogizing? No? Didnt' think so....

 

 

 

I just... I don't even comprehend what you want at this point. I understand your stance, and still subjectively disagree with it (even though it is not nonsense, or objectively wrong or flawed). Why can't you at least understand the objectivity of my stance, even if you subjectively disagree with it? Ask me anything, and I'll clarify. But, if you don't even acknowledge that you've misunderstood a point of mine, even SLIGHTLY, then I don't know what to do other than attempt to clarify everything I've said thus far, or rudely say "Well, you probably just are incapable of comprehending this matter, u_u" and simply avoid a response all-together and end the discussion there.

 

I guess you didn't understand my points at all.

Because I didnt' call your stance "wrong", I called it "not right". You are starting with some assumptions and deriving logical conclusions from them. So from an objective/logical point of view, those are fine. Except that those aren't the only possible starting assumptions.

[TrashMan]

So, I'm all for realism, but I also understand that certain things are better off abstracted. So, get with the program. If slightly altering armor to fit the character in question is too much, then so is allowing them to have all kind of distinguishable-to-assassins markings and accessories all over their armor as they travel about. But we allow that. Why? Because it's a friggin' game, and the satisfaction of making your party uniquely your own FAR outweighs the notion that "Oh no! Everyone will know who and where they are, because I chose red armor instead of camouflage armor! BLAST!" So, we say "You know what? You get to customize your character, and you won't suffer for it simply because you chose your favorite color for that helmet plume.

 

 

You are asking for a cake and eating it too.

You want your characters to travel makes as bland and generic, so they don't attract attention, but don't want them to look bland and generic?

Or is maybe  "a guy in plate with a red cape" so incredibly unique that all the assasins in the world witll immediately poin-point your loaciton?

 

Your own examples are undermining your poision with how redicolous they are.

[Merlkir]

Ever think there's a reason those people are art directors for multi-million dollar properties and you're, well, not. Hating on them for having "bad taste" just makes you seem bitter.

 

:D You're funny. Because the big companies always do things right and there's no need to change anything.

 

I'm not bitter, I don't want to be an art director at Bioware. I'm pretty happy as an illustrator. You're funny.

[Elerond]

Intresting point to bring up when we are talking about game that those owners of those multi-million dollar properties don't see worth their time or money. (And maybe should I point out that some of their best selling procts like Battlefield and Call of Duty aim towards realism in their art style).

 

Of course world best selling (or at least most downloaded) game products Angry Birds which have quite fantastic graphics style (Angry Birds titles have now over 1.7 billion downloads), so maybe all games should look like them.

[Bradr]

I'll admit laziness in not reading through everything.

 

But this game needs male/female versions of breastplates and armor.  The main reasoning is quick and easy discernment of each character.  While historical accuracy would probably dictate similar styles, this is a game.  And a game such as this needs to give the player the ability to quickly and easily discern each individual character.  And male/female armor anatomy, while not historical, gives the player more visual cues to know exactly who each character is.

 

So put a few boobs in those armors guys.  And make sure we can still customize armor colors, just like old IE.

[Merlkir]

[Lurky]

But... we already know how male/female armors are going to look like in PE.

    

They're sensible, and they look functional and realistic, but they're also good-looking, varied and easily distinguishable.

 

We already have armor that meet all the necessary criteria. What are you arguing for, exactly?

[Elerond]

Its an argument for argument's sake, as most of the people (my estimate) think that choosen approach is excelent one.

[Dream]

 

:D You're funny. Because the big companies always do things right and there's no need to change anything.

 

I'm not bitter, I don't want to be an art director at Bioware. I'm pretty happy as an illustrator. You're funny.

 

 

You're right you're not bitter; you just take everyone opportunity you can to mock people more successful than you at your own profession because they have bad taste and awful art sense. Not bitter. At all.

[Merlkir]

 

 

:D You're funny. Because the big companies always do things right and there's no need to change anything.

 

I'm not bitter, I don't want to be an art director at Bioware. I'm pretty happy as an illustrator. You're funny.

 

 

You're right you're not bitter; you just take everyone opportunity you can to mock people more successful than you at your own profession because they have bad taste and awful art sense. Not bitter. At all.

 

Not so funny. Look, you're not shaming me, you're not exposing me.

 

1.) Art directors are not in my profession.

2.) I take every opportunity to talk about realistic depiction of swords and armour in ALL media, not just games or art. It has nothing to do with the author being more successful than me.

3.) It's not "Your taste and art sense are awful!", it's critique of functionality, accuracy and sometimes aesthetics of the design.

 

I do this, because it's a thing I've been interested in for a long time and that I care about. I can't not look at things this way, I'm sure gun fans are rolling their eyes just as often while watching movies.