What should a female breastplate really look like

[Ffordesoon]

 

 

The last couple of pages of this thread make me want to put a gun in my mouth.

In a good way or a bad way?

There's a good way?

[Dream]

It's still inexplicable (in a serious setting at least) why a character would choose to wear such an item, and why it should be made of mail or in the shape of a bikini rather than, for example, a pair of socks or a normal bikini to be worn *underneath* clothes or another layer of actual armour. Or why they would forego the additional protection afforded by the armour itself (which usually amounts to the bulk of the protection granted by enchanted items anyway).

The same reasons people wear high heels in real life?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Dream

[Merlkir]

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

[Ffordesoon]

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

Well...

 

 

(I know, but I had to. )

[Lephys]

Nope. Everything matters. And nothing matters.

Well, now that you're no longer being irrational...

 

I though we already established that "objective" is a highly nebulous term.

Nope. You established that you don't like it when I use it, and you like to pretend it doesn't exist, and simply argue the subjective. "I don't THINK there's a boost to visual distinction when 2 armor models are rendered differently than when they are rendered identically, and therefore THERE ISN'T!". But then you like to ask me why I keep talking about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, like it's not even pertinent to what's going on here. Fun times. ^_^

 

I already told you "it's a game, so who gives a f****" is not an argument worth a damn.

Now I'm all the more glad that isn't my argument, but even sadder that you still think it is. Because you keep reading like 7 words (when we all know how many I type), then just drawing lines around them and calling them my main point.

 

See, here's a counter-example of me doing what you're doing to me:

 

"Because it's not realistic" isn't a valid argument, and that's you're entire argument because I just concluded it was!

 

Observe how crappily that works in constructive discussion, as I'm well aware that your stance is more complex than that, but above, I failed to address more than a tiny snippet of it, completely out of context, even though you have argued that a lack of realism is AN aspect of your stance/argument.

 

Yes, if in the setting/lore it is SPECIFICLY stated that shape has no impact, it would make sense for any designs...BUT...if a setting/lore were to say that it acutomaticly looses credibility.

You can't have it both ways.

And what about when it doesn't specifically state that the physical properties have no impact, then a tiny gnome helmet isn't any easier to crush than an ogre helmet because the game didn't actually represent the physical properties and differences for whatever reason? That's fine, but then it's not fine to take advantage of that when they're not going to be represented in a purely abstraction-free way anyway? You can't have it both ways.

 

 

No one. I already told you. Why do you keep pretending that I didn't?

It's more a matter of which prons and cons you like more.

Exactly. Which is why it's pointless to argue the subjective. And I didn't pretend you didn't already tell me. I wasn't even asking you a question. You just snippeted out a rhetorical question and acted like I'm actually asking you to answer it (as if I didn't type anything after that and answer the question myself), which is yet another reason this whole "discussion" is getting us nowhere rather swiftly.

 

Abstraction son...Abstraction.

The player is meant to be one guy whos'e personality and actions he controls. He can INFLUENCE other party memebers, but their personality is their own.

Man... he's got some amazing Charisma if he can "influence" Steve the Wizard to stop attacking, mid-swing, and instead begin casting a spell, all within the span of a fraction of a second, all while your main character is lying unconscious upon the ground. Gotta love subconscious telepathy.

 

As long as you don't bother reading then this debate WILL continue forever. Becasue that's exactly wha I have ben saying from the start. There are reasons for and agaisnt both approaches.

So, lemme get this straight... part of what you've been saying, "from the start," has included the fact that there are legitimate reasons for "my" approach?

 

Because all I've seen from you so far is essentially the following quote from Billy Madison:

 

"... Mr. Madison... Nowhere, in ANY of that... did you even come CLOSE... to ANYTHING... that could even be conSIdered a rational thought... I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[Dream]

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

[Ffordesoon]

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

What, they want to look sexy for the orcs they're murdering? Give me a break.

 

That said, the idea of a character whose power in battle is directly proportionate to how sexy she (or he!) thinks she looks is kind of awesome.

[marelooke]

 

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

What, they want to look sexy for the orcs they're murdering? Give me a break.

 

That said, the idea of a character whose power in battle is directly proportionate to how sexy she (or he!) thinks she looks is kind of awesome.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Dream was referring to why women wear high heals irl.

 

For bystanders it provides added hilarity, we have a lot of cobblestones over here, I'll leave the rest to your imagination...

Edited May 2, 2013 by marelooke

[Lephys]

What, they want to look sexy for the orcs they're murdering? Give me a break.

Plate-wearing knights want to look cool with their lions and dragons and custom-shaped helmets in battle. So, why not?

 

Hell, current military folk still paint personalized logos on their planes and such. I'm sure if they had the benefit of enchantment that made the plane no-less camouflaged for being painted to look like a huge eagle all over, they'd do it.

 

You don't don armor so that you can look a certain way for the orcs you're slaughtering (you put it on because it protects you, and not-putting-it-on doesn't protect you), so how you want to look, regardless of whether or not your in battle, shouldn't really change in that respect.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Lephys

[Dream]

What, they want to look sexy for the orcs they're murdering? Give me a break.

 

That said, the idea of a character whose power in battle is directly proportionate to how sexy she (or he!) thinks she looks is kind of awesome.

 

 

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

[Ffordesoon]

Cool is different from sexy, but I suppose I take your point.

[Jarmo]

I'd just like to share that every time I see the post I first read it as "what should female breast really look like" and kind of get flashbacks to how/what the rpg scene looked like a few years back. Guess it's not all different and great even now, but I digress for the digression. No point here, move along...

[TrashMan]

 

I though we already established that "objective" is a highly nebulous term.

Nope. You established that you don't like it when I use it, and you like to pretend it doesn't exist, and simply argue the subjective. "I don't THINK there's a boost to visual distinction when 2 armor models are rendered differently than when they are rendered identically, and therefore THERE ISN'T!". But then you like to ask me why I keep talking about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, like it's not even pertinent to what's going on here. Fun times. ^_^

 

Nope.

What I established is that if visibiltiy is the goal and purpose, then it OBJECTIVELY does not matter if that visibiltiy is achieved by capes, tabbards of color, or by having bumps and differences.

 

 

The question isn't about the existence or non-existence of visibility, but rather the method of achieving it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, if in the setting/lore it is SPECIFICLY stated that shape has no impact, it would make sense for any designs...BUT...if a setting/lore were to say that it acutomaticly looses credibility.

You can't have it both ways.

And what about when it doesn't specifically state that the physical properties have no impact, then a tiny gnome helmet isn't any easier to crush than an ogre helmet because the game didn't actually represent the physical properties and differences for whatever reason? That's fine, but then it's not fine to take advantage of that when they're not going to be represented in a purely abstraction-free way anyway? You can't have it both ways.

 

It's fine? When have I said that?

Altough there is actually no reason why a gnome helmet would be thinner mind you. Same thickness, different size.

There is also the matter of material quality and other factors.

 

 

 

Abstraction son...Abstraction.

The player is meant to be one guy whos'e personality and actions he controls. He can INFLUENCE other party memebers, but their personality is their own.

Man... he's got some amazing Charisma if he can "influence" Steve the Wizard to stop attacking, mid-swing, and instead begin casting a spell, all within the span of a fraction of a second, all while your main character is lying unconscious upon the ground. Gotta love subconscious telepathy.

 

 

What part of "abstraction" is not getting trough to you?

 

You, the player, controls the movements of the party directly, but the character doesn't.

Would you rather that every time you give an order or any kind, your PC barks that order out, and only then does a NPC move?

 

 

 

As long as you don't bother reading then this debate WILL continue forever. Becasue that's exactly wha I have ben saying from the start. There are reasons for and agaisnt both approaches.

So, lemme get this straight... part of what you've been saying, "from the start," has included the fact that there are legitimate reasons for "my" approach?

 

Because all I've seen from you so far is essentially the following quote from Billy Madison:

 

"... Mr. Madison... Nowhere, in ANY of that... did you even come CLOSE... to ANYTHING... that could even be conSIdered a rational thought... I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

 

Yeah, and all I've seen from you is essentialy this quote:

"crap".

[Ulquiorra]

Cool is different from sexy, but I suppose I take your point.

 

Yeah and nowadays nobody wants to be sexy ...

[Merlkir]

 

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

 

 

It doesn't sound very likely, but I'd accept that. Sexuality (especially female sexuality) wasn't historically tied to warfare very often, but I could imagine a weird universe where some women do that with magical armour.

[Dream]

 

 

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

 

 

It doesn't sound very likely, but I'd accept that. Sexuality (especially female sexuality) wasn't historically tied to warfare very often, but I could imagine a weird universe where some women do that with magical armour.

 

Did... did we just almost sort of agree on something? It's like the twilight zone

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

 

 

It doesn't sound very likely, but I'd accept that. Sexuality (especially female sexuality) wasn't historically tied to warfare very often, but I could imagine a weird universe where some women do that with magical armour.

 

 

No it was. Men often raped women after the battle.

[Merlkir]

Errrr, not at all what I meant and not at all relevant to armour design.

[Lephys]

Nope.

What I established is that if visibiltiy is the goal and purpose, then it OBJECTIVELY does not matter if that visibiltiy is achieved by capes, tabbards of color, or by having bumps and differences.

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.

 

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. It's no different from putting in magic. Are the world's physics shattered by the existence of magic? The lore team probably doesn't write an entire Advanced Particle Physics book for the game world, in which magic is fully incorporated and explained. And yet, we just go "Hey, that's cool, because the benefit of experiencing a world in which magic exists is better than having a fireball be 100% realistic and destroying entire rooms thanks to physics."

 

Same thing, but on SUCH a smaller scale it's not even funny. "Oh, hey I see everyone has nicely fitted armor that's maybe 10% less effective than REAL armor, and people wouldn't really fit armor quite that way in REAL life, but it's quite aesthetically pleasing in a video game, which is designed for human entertainment and utilizes literary and aesthetic artistic license."

 

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. And before you say it, no, that doesn't mean "literally put in as much abstraction as you want." 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.

 

It's fine? When have I said that?

I don't think you did. The question mark makes the sentence interrogative, which means that I was asking.

 

Altough there is actually no reason why a gnome helmet would be thinner mind you. Same thickness, different size.

There is also the matter of material quality and other factors.

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?

 

You miss my point yet again, Starscream. I'm not trying to claim I know all the factors involved in helmet effectiveness. I was simply trying to point out ONE factor that isn't typically represented in video games. I'm aware I'm no expert on this, which is why I'm not claiming to be one. I just figured a Human-sized maul would more easily crush a tiny Gnome helmet than it would a huge Ogre helmet (or vice versa... different surface area shapes as compared to the exact same-sized weapon). Or, you'd at least think that, at some size, the metal would need to become thicker/thinner than a differently-sized set of armor, as a breastplate 5 feet across is probably going to be easier to crush in the middle section than one that's only 2 feet across, without it being thicker.

 

Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

What part of "abstraction" is not getting trough to you?

 

You, the player, controls the movements of the party directly, but the character doesn't.

Would you rather that every time you give an order or any kind, your PC barks that order out, and only then does a NPC move?

ENCHANTMENT! Sorry, I thought we were emphasizing words for the sake of word emphasis. 8P

 

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.

 

Yeah, and all I've seen from you is essentialy this quote:

"crap".

I'm fairly certain that's way too few words to represent what I'm saying.

[Lurky]

 

Yeah, lots of high heels worn in battle these days.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

 

You know, some women might like heels or really short clothes a lot, and some of them are willing to sacrifice some comfort and practicality to wear them, but none of the girls I know are willing to sacrifice too much of either for the sake of their looks.

 

 

For example, all girls I know that wear high heels only do so when they know that they won't need much mobility when they wear them. If it looks like they'll go to a place that has uneven terrain, or if they'll need more mobility than just walking around, most of them ditch the high heels real fast. Which means that any warrior lady worth her salt would not wear heels, if it looked like they could hinder her. Nobody wants to sprain an ankle in the middle of a fight.

 

Additionally, even if they're in a place where they know that they'll be able to wear high heels comfortably, many girls I know also carry a spare pair of flat shoes in their purse, because high heels make your feet sore after a while. Sorry, but I can't imagine a warrior lady that stops mid-fight to change her shoes because her feet are starting to hurt

 

The same applies to clothes that show a lot of skin. Many women I know like to show the goods, but only if they find it appropiate. If they're going to need good mobility, they'll wear clothes that allow proper transpiration and keep everything in its place (so, no outrageous cleavages or skin exposure that can catch you a cold). If the place they're going has a temperature less than adequate for exposing a lot of skin, they'll bring extra clothes, and they'll put them on as soon as they can (or they'll spend their time trying to look like they're not shivering, and then complain on Facebook about how cold they were and curse their lack of prevision). A combat situation would tick a lot of "inappropiate" checkboxes, so I can't imagine a warrior lady worth her salt that chooses to wear such outfits in such an inadequate situation.

 

 

So yeah, that's a reason why I'm not a fan of chainmail bikini or high heels in combat. Forget about your usual arguments, I find them unrealistic because I can't imagine any sane woman that would ever willingly wear them, much less a woman that sees a lot of fighting every day

 

 

That said, I understand why they exist, and I understand that these reasons are deep-rooted enough that they're not going away anytime soon. But seriously guys, you could at least be more original if you want to handwave the ridiculousness of these outfits! You say things like "the warrior lady wears heels because she can fight just as well with them, which makes her badass instead of a moron for hindering herself and risking her ankles so stupidly", or "the chainmail bikini is enchanted so that it protects just as well as real armor, and it also somehow offers a termic bubble so that the woman isn't cold for having her skin exposed, and it also doesn't look inappropiate at all, for real", but it's so much easier to turn it around and say, for example, that the outfits are actually protective, realistic armor that has been enchanted to only look ridiculous, in the chance that it makes your enemies try to attack parts that look exposed but are actually well protected.

 

In fact, that seems easy enough to do. You could find, as a rare item, an enchantment scroll that lets the player learn how to make realistic looking armor look like the armored bikini of their choice (with some flavor text that says something like "the scroll claims that the purpose of this enchantment is to trick the enemies into hitting well protected spots, but looking at the armors it can produce you think the wizard who wrote this might have had other intentions in mind"). That way, if you like this kind of thing, you can learn the scroll and apply it on regular armor (and if the game has good reactivity, female warriors would likely have something to say about having to wear that!), but if you don't like it you can sell the scroll for a good load of cash. Make the rest of the armor of the world look believably practical and well suited for combat, and you'll also avoid the brunt of the criticism related to the oversexualization debate. Why whine about how the politically correct people are ruining your fun (maybe they're just people like you, who also have the right to defend their own form of fun!) when a little inventiveness can make more people happy?

[Lephys]

^ Maybe the chainmail-bikini-wearing female in question is a magicky female, and she wears heals because she just phase shifts around to dodge things (and her physical dexterity is quite average), and she regulates her body temperature via magic.

 

I'm not one to advocate these things throughout an entire game, but I'm just saying... in a fantasy world, it's not completely out-of-the-question for believable characters to simply desire to dress in impractical ways.

 

Now, the type of thing you'd generally see that would be more reasonable wouldn't be high heels and chainmail bikinis. It would be slightly stylish leather armor, or scant Barbarian hide with those strategically-placed bits of metal (bracer, single pauldron for your defensive shoulder/side, etc) that, while less functional than full-on armor, would be a decent compromise between style and armor (for that crazy character who actually cares enough about how they look to want to sacrifice a bit of functionality).

 

Also, though, the types who typically don't rely on lots of armor (casters, ultra-dexterous rogues, Barbarians, etc.) would have more leeway. You know, "this tunic is hardly meant to stop blades anyway, so I can fashion it to my crazy heart's content."

[Auxilius]

I just can't believe 17 pages have been written on the matter.

[Lephys]

I can't believe that, after 17 pages of disbelief, you just made the thread longer. 8P

[Auxilius]

Hey, I'm proud of my 5 stars posts.

Still, it's just armors, dudes and dudettes. The women will wear armors, end of story. At least, according to how I see it.

 

I guess the real matter behind this are the boobies the armor hide. It's always about the boobies. It's the only valid explanation. Will we see pixellated boobies in P:E? I hope so.

[Lephys]

Hey, I'm proud of my 5 stars posts.

Still, it's just armors, dudes and dudettes. The women will wear armors, end of story. At least, according to how I see it.

Applying that line of reasoning to the entire forum, we get:

 

"Hey, it's just game aspects, people... they're going to be how they're going to be in the game. End of story. No sense in typing words about things."

 

8P. Not very productive. Not that this thread has been overly productive, but that's not discussion's fault.