Jump to content
Shadowmant

What should a female breastplate really look like

Recommended Posts

Exactly the same as a male breastplate, because it IS a male breastplate.  The Peascod Cuirass is seriously the best shape for deflecting blows, so that's what it is.  There isn't 'female' or 'male' breastplates... it's all the same.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the same as a male breastplate, because it IS a male breastplate.  The Peascod Cuirass is seriously the best shape for deflecting blows, so that's what it is.  There isn't 'female' or 'male' breastplates... it's all the same.

 

And when fit in frame of wearer we have practical looking armors and you usually even have distinct styles for men and women. Similar what we see in PE's consepts about breastplates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRM works as consultant and producer for the series and has writen some of the episodes, and has said that he himself has instigated most of character changes as series has made him look characters in new light.

 

Cersei Lannister can wear anything what she wants as queen regant, and court would follow her suit, as no-one questions decisions of sovereigns public. So ridicule would be only in back rooms and even then only in circles of highest trust, as we speak sovering that deal death penalty quite open-handed.

 

And if one reads about Caterina Sforza, one would see that The Borgias draws quite accurate picture about her and her resistance against Borgia family. Although in things that historians argue series goes usually with option that picture her more manipulative. And stable boy incident has also historical merits as Borgias family said that Lucrezia had affair outside of marriage and her child is not her first husband's (Giovanni Sforza).

 

I used to read WIC.net (but I have now abandoned that site due to an influx of showfags) and I read Westeros.

 

GRRM is indeed a co-executive producer on the show and he had something to do with the re-writing of The Bloody Mummers and Vargo Hoat, it was he who chose the name Locke for the character that replaces Hoat & Faithful Urswyck, he also chose the name Yara as a replacement for Asha.

 

However GRRM has not visited the set since Season 1 and outside of writing his own episode per season, providing names for character re-writes and contributing to some of the casting decisions, he has had little to do with the TV series. He has said many times that it is David and Dan's baby and he is leaving how to adapt the series up to them. He is ultimately too busy with his many other commitments such as finishing TWoW, his various other writing and editing projects and doing appearances,signings and speeches for his publishers to promote his work.

In his audio commentaries of his episodes, he points out all of the changes that he was not aware of that were made to his episodes after he submitted his final drafts.

 

I have little to no doubt that he had absolutely nothing to do with the Robb and Jeyne storyline, as that was likely Vanessa Taylor's work as she was given the episode where 'Talisa' is introduced.

However, since it is because of the TV show that he has gained widespread mainstream popularity, and his books are now being sold in department stores, I'm sure he knows a lot better than to say anything negative about the show at all other than quips such as "Books are always better than film", because that only hurts him. He has also worked in TV before and he said during his audio commentary during S01E08 if 80% of what the writer submitted makes it into the final cut then he should be most pleased, because it's usually less than that.

 

The book character Cersei Lannister would not dare wear armor like Brienne of Tarth. Brienne is openly ridiculed by most highborn she encounters. Cersei wishes she was born a man, absolutely. GRRM writes very good strong female characters, within the bounds of the gender inequality of his fantasy middle ages. Cersei would not wear amor and would never need to, she has the City Watch, the Lannister Household Guard, The Kingsguard, Ser Ilyn Payne and the Kettleblacks and their Sellsword Retinue to protect her.

 

In the TV show The Borgias, Caterina Sforza wears Platemail, this is a modernization.

Edited by Sensuki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument, short of Game of Thrones interludes, has appeared to move to whether plate should be customized to the proportions and sex of the wearer after everyone accepted my tabard suggestion. This is good, because tabards are awesome, and I will not suffer the presence of those who think otherwise. ;)

 

My answer to this new question would be: yes if it's expense, no if it's cheap. Milanese/Gothic full plate harness and anything else near that ungodly level of protection and cost would obviously be carefully matched to the wearer's form, as would the various layers of padding and mechanical connections that hook the power armor-esque suit together. Munitions plate, on the other hand, would be slapped on you so long as it had the head hole in the right place. Stuff in between could be more customized or less.

 

In reality, I'm not seeing this being a big male/female identifier for the purposes of this game. The type of adventurer likely to wear serious amounts of high quality plate is probably going to be big, buff and drawn from the top 1% of the human population when it comes to physical ability no matter their gender. Even if not, it's far more likely that the weedy wizard/brawny barbarian divide will say much more about their body type than the male/female one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...A breastplate?

 

Yes, no boobplate.

 

Caterina-Sforza-the-borgias-32797202-128

Edited by Sensuki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

GRRM works as consultant and producer for the series and has writen some of the episodes, and has said that he himself has instigated most of character changes as series has made him look characters in new light.

 

Cersei Lannister can wear anything what she wants as queen regant, and court would follow her suit, as no-one questions decisions of sovereigns public. So ridicule would be only in back rooms and even then only in circles of highest trust, as we speak sovering that deal death penalty quite open-handed.

 

And if one reads about Caterina Sforza, one would see that The Borgias draws quite accurate picture about her and her resistance against Borgia family. Although in things that historians argue series goes usually with option that picture her more manipulative. And stable boy incident has also historical merits as Borgias family said that Lucrezia had affair outside of marriage and her child is not her first husband's (Giovanni Sforza).

 

I used to read WIC.net (but I have now abandoned that site due to an influx of showfags) and I read Westeros.

 

GRRM is indeed a co-executive producer on the show and he had something to do with the re-writing of The Bloody Mummers and Vargo Hoat, it was he who chose the name Locke for the character that replaces Hoat & Faithful Urswyck, he also chose the name Yara as a replacement for Asha.

 

However GRRM has not visited the set since Season 1 and outside of writing his own episode per season, providing names for character re-writes and contributing to some of the casting decisions, he has had little to do with the TV series. He has said many times that it is David and Dan's baby and he is leaving how to adapt the series up to them. He is ultimately too busy with his many other commitments such as finishing TWoW, his various other writing and editing projects and doing appearances,signings and speeches for his publishers to promote his work.

In his audio commentaries of his episodes, he points out all of the changes that he was not aware of that were made to his episodes after he submitted his final drafts.

 

I have little to no doubt that he had absolutely nothing to do with the Robb and Jeyne storyline, as that was likely Vanessa Taylor's work as she was given the episode where 'Talisa' is introduced.

However, since it is because of the TV show that he has gained widespread mainstream popularity, and his books are now being sold in department stores, I'm sure he knows a lot better than to say anything negative about the show at all other than quips such as "Books are always better than film", because that only hurts him. He has also worked in TV before and he said during his audio commentary during S01E08 if 80% of what the writer submitted makes it into the final cut then he should be most pleased, because it's usually less than that.

 

The book character Cersei Lannister would not dare wear armor like Brienne of Tarth. Brienne is openly ridiculed by most highborn she encounters. Cersei wishes she was born a man, absolutely. GRRM writes very good strong female characters, within the bounds of the gender inequality of his fantasy middle ages. Cersei would not wear amor and would never need to, she has the City Watch, the Lannister Household Guard, The Kingsguard, Ser Ilyn Payne and the Kettleblacks and their Sellsword Retinue to protect her.

 

In the TV show The Borgias, Caterina Sforza wears Platemail, this is a modernization.

 

I have such notion that GRRM, gets to see all scripts and visual designs before hand and tell if they go against his vision. My opinion about book's Cersei is that she would wear decorative corset armor if she wants and if she sees that such would futher her agenda. And I don't see her court to ridicule her of such stylish choice as she don't try to portayl herself as warrior or such.

 

I think that platemail and front line military leading was more about dramatization than modernization. As without those there would not have been such scenes like Sforza's sons public torturing (which is also modernization or dramatisation as it don't have any historical merits). But I think that if Caterina Sforza, would have made herself armor and she would have lead her armies if she had had skills for such things. Because we speak about woman who didn't flinch to torture men to dead and throw their families in dried well to strave to death and try to assassinate pope and etc. things. So I don't think that her choice of wardrobe was very high issue for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that, aside from properly fitting the armor to the person in question, there would be few, if any, differences between male and female plate armor. Keep in mind, plate exists not to absorb blows, but to deflect them. Sufficiently high-quality plate armor is shaped such that it can deflect practically any blow from practically any angle, with the only real weakness being the eye-slits and possibly the breathing holes, which really aren't much of a weakness at all. Modifying the armor's shape (such as adding boobs to it) would only compromise this goal.

 

So in short, a female breastplate should look basically identical to a male one, albeit fitted to a female character, from a realism perspective. And from the perspective of telling party members apart, the tabard/armor paint/other decoration idea brought up by Diagoras fills this role perfectly well, and makes sense in-universe.

 

I think that basically covers everything this topic was originally made to determine. If I'm wrong on any points, or if anyone has any legitimate objections to these proposals, please tell me.

Edited by Spiritofpower
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have such notion that GRRM, gets to see all scripts and visual designs before hand and tell if they go against his vision.

 

Believe what you like, I'm sure in a perfect world he would like to do that ... but he does not have time. GRRM participates via correspondence. Having him editing submissions would seriously slow down the writing process. Half the time he's doing a book launch tour or a signing tour, and doesn't get a chance to even use the net during travels.

 

GRRM has no creative control over the show. Bryan Cogman is their story editor, but he's really David Benioff's housekeeper along for the ride.

 

You will find many sources of GRRM quotes and interviews on the internet that state otherwise, including what Elio and Linda of Westeros tell us, they have a very close relationship to GRRM and are also collaborating for The World of Ice and Fire cofee table book. They also appeared on Sky Atlantic's Thronecast but I believe they lost their spot due to their rather negative review of Season 2 (and kudos to them for not selling out).

 

You are of course allowed to have your own opinion of what book Cersei would do, but I think your vision goes against what GRRM stated in that interview I linked you.

 

I don't have an issue with Caterina Sforza's wardrobe, my sole point was that in reality she would not have worn armor (alongside my point with Cersei in GoT). Despite The Borgias modernizations I am able to enjoy that show more than GoT because I am not as invested in the material. Season 3 has been very good so far.

Edited by Sensuki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2013/03/george-rr-martin-speaks-on-game-of-thrones-season-3-surprises-fr/

 

In this (and many others) interview GRRM note that he likes changes and added scenes in series and how actors make character to work, although he also metions that series will not effect how he writes the books as he has done it so long that series can't impact his vision of things. And I can't find any interview where GRRM speaks against how series does and shows the things. So I would say that series don't have done anything that GRRM is against. And you also get picture that he knows what will happen in season three, which speaks that he at least has before hand knowledge of things that have done with the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...A breastplate?

..."That" region is also called the "breast" on males.

 

I think he referes that "a breastplate" implicates that this conversation is about one breastplate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Westerosi woman (excluding some of the Dornish) wears armor in A Song of Ice and Fire besides Brienne of Tarth.

You forgot about the mother and daughter from Bear Island who wore chain and were slain at the Red Wedding (can't remember their names offhand).

http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but it seems like having more physique-fitted armor and being able to go "Oh, okay, that's Suzy, and that's Tom" with absolutely no effort is entirely worth the miniscule cost of the realism of "Because of economical reasons and time constraints, Suzy's plate armor wouldn't actually be any different from Tom's." And that in no way means "There should be metallic bosoms sculpted into the female breastplates, in fine detail."

 

See previously posted character model concepts from recent update for details. Simply put, the female armor is different from the male armor. Note that the difference is subtle, and that it allows you to tell, at a glance, who is who when you happen to have a male character near a female character. The gender difference isn't any more important than any other aesthetic difference that should make characters easily discernible.

 

And, with the straying-from-realism bit, it's no different from things like "That's not really how narrow a Rapier would be in proportion to people, but we need it to show up for what it is on these small character models," or "that engagement radius is actually 3 feet too large for that weapon's reach and that character's height, but it works perfectly fine for the purposes of mechanics/gameplay and isn't hurting anyone."


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that, aside from properly fitting the armor to the person in question, there would be few, if any, differences between male and female plate armor. Keep in mind, plate exists not to absorb blows, but to deflect them. Sufficiently high-quality plate armor is shaped such that it can deflect practically any blow from practically any angle, with the only real weakness being the eye-slits and possibly the breathing holes, which really aren't much of a weakness at all. Modifying the armor's shape (such as adding boobs to it) would only compromise this goal.

 

So in short, a female breastplate should look basically identical to a male one, albeit fitted to a female character, from a realism perspective. And from the perspective of telling party members apart, the tabard/armor paint/other decoration idea brought up by Diagoras fills this role perfectly well, and makes sense in-universe.

 

I think that basically covers everything this topic was originally made to determine. If I'm wrong on any points, or if anyone has any legitimate objections to these proposals, please tell me.

 

I'm sort of amazed nobody brought this game up (or pretty much any "real" game armors):

  

94104517-4.jpg

 

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but it seems like having more physique-fitted armor and being able to go "Oh, okay, that's Suzy, and that's Tom" with absolutely no effort is entirely worth the miniscule cost of the realism of "Because of economical reasons and time constraints, Suzy's plate armor wouldn't actually be any different from Tom's." And that in no way means "There should be metallic bosoms sculpted into the female breastplates, in fine detail."

 

See previously posted character model concepts from recent update for details. Simply put, the female armor is different from the male armor. Note that the difference is subtle, and that it allows you to tell, at a glance, who is who when you happen to have a male character near a female character. The gender difference isn't any more important than any other aesthetic difference that should make characters easily discernible.

 

And, with the straying-from-realism bit, it's no different from things like "That's not really how narrow a Rapier would be in proportion to people, but we need it to show up for what it is on these small character models," or "that engagement radius is actually 3 feet too large for that weapon's reach and that character's height, but it works perfectly fine for the purposes of mechanics/gameplay and isn't hurting anyone."

 

The concept art is exactly what I meant by "properly fitting the armor"; though one might argue that the waist is unrealistically narrow comparative to the legs, as she appears to be wearing a heavily modified metal corset. I'd like it if Obsidian removed that. And why does the armor need to be like that anyway? It's not as if you, the player, will be ridiculed for accidentally mistaking a girl in plate for a guy. And I have no problem with straying from realism - as long as there is sufficient reason to do so. Deliberately adding elements to armor for the sole purpose of distinguishing between male and female when there are other, better ways to do it without said elements is not sufficient reason.

 

Edit: Oh, and let me make this clear: I'm fine with the current concept art. I would be satisfied with it if it didn't change. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved and that doesn't mean I can't point out what parts I'd prefer be changed.

Edited by Spiritofpower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read this whole thread, to be clear, nor am I going to, because I want to read whinging about the differences between the TV and book versions of Game Of Thrones about as much as I want to fall down a mine shaft. Possibly less. But if I'm misrepresenting what's going on here, do let me know.

 

@AGX-17:

 

Which was, um, kind of my point?

 

@Elerond:

 

No, Sensuki had the right of it. I was answering the question posed in the thread title, and also subtly pointing out how ridiculous that question was. A woman's breastplate is, in ninety-nine percent of cases if not one hundred, a man's breastplate. The suggestion that women need some sort of special breastplate is simply not correct.

 

Boobplate - as it's usually portrayed on the cover of fantasy novels, anyway - is and will always be impractical for combat, simply because the whole point of plate armor (all armor, really) is to provide a buffer zone of protection against physical harm. If the armor is shaped to your contours, there's no buffer. It would be like a man having armor sculpted to fit his junk. It might protect against actual penetration by a blade, but the force of the impact is still going to be transferred almost one-to-one. It's pointless.

 

Does that mean I have a problem with boobplate being in PE? Not necessarily. Some armor I would technically class as "boobplate" looks rather cool from a purely aesthetic perspective. But the question "What would a female breastplate look like?" - the question asked in the title of the thread - is based on a ridiculously false premise. You might as well ask what a "female" top hat looks like. It looks like a top hat. Because it is a top hat.

 

Oh, and if I may preempt a dumb retort to this point I'm making: yes, men are taller on average than women, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a woman's breastplate would be functionally identical to a man's breastplate, because the design is identical. So any "But women are shorter than men so their armor would technically be slightly different than men's so NYEHH!" wiseacres can go ahead and keep that idiotic little argument to themselves.

 

See also: this.

 

EDIT: All of which has very little to do with PE as a game, to be clear. This is simply an elaboration on my response to the thread title.

Edited by Ffordesoon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept art is exactly what I meant by "properly fitting the armor"; though one might argue that the waist is unrealistically narrow comparative to the legs, as she appears to be wearing a heavily modified metal corset. I'd like it if Obsidian removed that. And why does the armor need to be like that anyway? It's not as if you, the player, will be ridiculed for accidentally mistaking a girl in plate for a guy. And I have no problem with straying from realism - as long as there is sufficient reason to do so. Deliberately adding elements to armor for the sole purpose of distinguishing between male and female when there are other, better ways to do it without said elements is not sufficient reason.

 

Edit: Oh, and let me make this clear: I'm fine with the current concept art. I would be satisfied with it if it didn't change. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved and that doesn't mean I can't point out what parts I'd prefer be changed.

 

Fair enough. I simply maintain that, objectively, I don't see an actual problem with the style of the concepts, and I really don't see another, objectively "better" way of doing it.

 

You have no problem with straying from realism, as long as there is reason, right? Okay, well then forget about discerning between characters (who happen to be of different genders, who happen to possess different physical forms and proportions) as the reason, and go with "ideally, everyone would have properly-fitting armor, but, realistically, that would be quite expensive and time-consuming," and how about we just say "Well, then in this world, it's not as expensive and is more commonplace, so pretty much everyone gets decently-fitted armor."

 

If that is true, then a male Orlan gets a different (albeit subtly different) set of armor from a male Human. And guess who gets a different set of armor from BOTH of them? A human female. Is it because she's female? No. Is it because her torso and shoulders and hips are shaped differently from both the Human male AND the Orlan male? Yes. The simple fact that she is female is completely irrelevant. If she was a genderless Rock Golem, and she happened to exist in the form that a Human Female happens to have, and she wanted to wear armor for some reason, then we would give her armor that fits that form realistically, because that's the static rule we decided, because, realistically, armor could and was actually fitted like that when the resources were available, so the only factor we're fudging a little is the resource requirements to do such a thing.

 

Everyone keeps calling out the whole gender thing, when all the different races wouldn't be able to wear the same breastplates without obvious trouble, anyway. If you're going to go with "Oh, well the armor's resized for this Orlan or Godlike," then why is it resized for them? That's correct: because of the differences in their physical form/proportions. But then, I guess that's silly of us "different breastplate" advocates to be so in favor of breaking that rule in some special way for gender, because I totally want all female breastplates to be shaped like dragons instead of breastplates that fit the person who's wearing them.

 

So in response to the still-put-forth question of "Why are we singling out gender as some special thing?", I would ask that same question in return, because all I'm advocating is armor tailored to form. So, either don't tailor any of the armor to ANY form, or tailor it to all forms. Why would you tailor it to SOME forms, then just assume "Oh, well, you see, I want to make sure all FEMALE characters actually just have to wear the MALE-fitted armor, and we'll just, for the sake of realism, assume that they use some memory foam and wear like 5 extra padded coats underneath to make it fit their non-v-shaped-and-broad-shouldered torsos, u_u"

 

Next thread: "Helmets should not be fitted to character heads! If they're too big, then, for the sake of realism, your character should simply be unable to see! And if they're too small, you wear them like hats! We wouldn't want to compromise the quality of gameplay and realism aesthetics or anything!"

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helmet Hats! yes! I can use a mouse-like-races shield as a Monocle as well!

 

Joking aside I agree in general that if your gonna scale things and form fit for races, it's silly to not do that for gender as well. The important part, for me at least, is that they don't make the female variants grossly different. It should be fitted not get turned into a bikini and we already know Obsidian wont bikini up this nonsense. Just make a male and female version of plate, make there designs identical but more properly fitted for both and fit that to all the races. Problem solved, yeah?


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I simply maintain that, objectively, I don't see an actual problem with the style of the concepts, and I really don't see another, objectively "better" way of doing it.

 

You have no problem with straying from realism, as long as there is reason, right? Okay, well then forget about discerning between characters (who happen to be of different genders, who happen to possess different physical forms and proportions) as the reason, and go with "ideally, everyone would have properly-fitting armor, but, realistically, that would be quite expensive and time-consuming," and how about we just say "Well, then in this world, it's not as expensive and is more commonplace, so pretty much everyone gets decently-fitted armor."

 

If that is true, then a male Orlan gets a different (albeit subtly different) set of armor from a male Human. And guess who gets a different set of armor from BOTH of them? A human female. Is it because she's female? No. Is it because her torso and shoulders and hips are shaped differently from both the Human male AND the Orlan male? Yes. The simple fact that she is female is completely irrelevant. If she was a genderless Rock Golem, and she happened to exist in the form that a Human Female happens to have, and she wanted to wear armor for some reason, then we would give her armor that fits that form realistically, because that's the static rule we decided, because, realistically, armor could and was actually fitted like that when the resources were available, so the only factor we're fudging a little is the resource requirements to do such a thing.

 

Everyone keeps calling out the whole gender thing, when all the different races wouldn't be able to wear the same breastplates without obvious trouble, anyway. If you're going to go with "Oh, well the armor's resized for this Orlan or Godlike," then why is it resized for them? That's correct: because of the differences in their physical form/proportions. But then, I guess that's silly of us "different breastplate" advocates to be so in favor of breaking that rule in some special way for gender, because I totally want all female breastplates to be shaped like dragons instead of breastplates that fit the person who's wearing them.

 

So in response to the still-put-forth question of "Why are we singling out gender as some special thing?", I would ask that same question in return, because all I'm advocating is armor tailored to form. So, either don't tailor any of the armor to ANY form, or tailor it to all forms. Why would you tailor it to SOME forms, then just assume "Oh, well, you see, I want to make sure all FEMALE characters actually just have to wear the MALE-fitted armor, and we'll just, for the sake of realism, assume that they use some memory foam and wear like 5 extra padded coats underneath to make it fit their non-v-shaped-and-broad-shouldered torsos, u_u"

 

Next thread: "Helmets should not be fitted to character heads! If they're too big, then, for the sake of realism, your character should simply be unable to see! And if they're too small, you wear them like hats! We wouldn't want to compromise the quality of gameplay and realism aesthetics or anything!"

No, I agree; There should be size difference because, well, there's size difference. I may have misinterpreted you as saying we needed something besides the armor being properly sized. And I probably could've phrased that better... We don't need any other distinction besides armor size because of the armor decoration idea brought up by Diagoras (I don't want to keep mentioning it again and again and again, but it is a really good, really simple idea that solves all the problems distinguishing between party members in homogenous armor). The armor should, of course, be adjusted to fit the being in question, but that's all. And said adjusting really doesn't qualify as an entirely separate breastplate, at least in my book.

 

...On a slightly different subject, though, what about Godlikes? I mean, there's a difference between resizing an armor and full-on putting holes in the thing to accommodate horns. I also remember hearing that Godlikes could have wings, which would obviously require a radically altered backplate. And then there's the concept art of a godlike with his head on fire, which I imagine would make it rather hard to wear a hat made out of regular, flammable materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they said godlikes can't even ware helmets due to things like that. Which if they take the DnD approach of 'helmets don't do ****' then its not a big deal really. Always wondered why Helmets didn't do anything in DnD... they could come with some kinda 'effect' but it was always extremely minor and didn't allow for a lot of magical enchantment for the most part. I mean in comparison belts and rings did far more but then anyone could ware those I guess.

 

Wing though yeah, that would require some breastplate modification but the overall look would remain the same yeah? Back would ultimately need a big hole or 2. I think for the most part they could keep the armor all looking the same between race/gender with just proportion shifting to fit said forms and heights.

 

Didn't read the customization post yet, but pretty sure they're going with the infinity engine of certain parts of the armor having a color swap you can do on a per-character basis to make it easier to pick out specific ones.


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I agree; There should be size difference because, well, there's size difference. I may have misinterpreted you as saying we needed something besides the armor being properly sized. And I probably could've phrased that better... We don't need any other distinction besides armor size because of the armor decoration idea brought up by Diagoras (I don't want to keep mentioning it again and again and again, but it is a really good, really simple idea that solves all the problems distinguishing between party members in homogenous armor). The armor should, of course, be adjusted to fit the being in question, but that's all. And said adjusting really doesn't qualify as an entirely separate breastplate, at least in my book.

 

 

 

...On a slightly different subject, though, what about Godlikes? I mean, there's a difference between resizing an armor and full-on putting holes in the thing to accommodate horns. I also remember hearing that Godlikes could have wings, which would obviously require a radically altered backplate. And then there's the concept art of a godlike with his head on fire, which I imagine would make it rather hard to wear a hat made out of regular, flammable materials.

 

I have nothing against the decoration idea. I simply also have nothing against... well, I'll call it "reproportioning," to be accurate. Take helmets. Some helmets are narrower, some are wider, some taller, some shorter. It's not always just going to be a 1:! slider you drag to scale down or up the size of the armor piece in question.

 

And yes, I realize that, even with no-expense-spared fitting of armor, the difference for a male torso and female torso wouldn't be that noticeable, but that comes back to the whole "We've gotta make these stilettos and estocs slightly exaggerated in their proportions, otherwise the blades wouldn't show up" thing. The problem of the character models being rather small on-screen. It's like 16-bit sprites of old, where you had to do things like "Well, the boot wouldn't actually come up THAT high, but if I don't put a contrasty pixel here, there won't be a top-of-boot ANYwhere on the sprite!", only in HD now. Haha.

 

Anywho, I think you could have quite subtle difference (again, I know boobplate has been mentioned in this thread, but the thread is titled "What should a female breastplate really look like?" and not "BOOBPLATE -- DISCUSS!") -- albeit slightly exaggerated so as to only be roughly 80% true to real female armor proportions, rather than a full 100% (accuracy you wouldn't be able to verify or benefit from, anyway, on such a small model) -- and achieve that "Oh, cool, I picked a female main character instead of a male, and I like how my armor actually fits me and I can easily tell I'm not just another, slight-different-sized character model in full-plate!" effect without making the armor utterly ridiculous and torturing anyone with an extreme awareness of real, historical plate armor proportions.

 

To bring up something I haven't even brought up yet because I've been too busy fending off outright silly attacks against a simple point/advocation (not so much from you, Spiritofpower), this is a game. Obvious though that may be, we RPG players value the specifics of our character aesthetics. It's part of our own, unique style and experience of the game. So, when you give someone a female character that looks a certain way, and they play through the game, and one day they acquire some full plate armor, and then *poof*, all their character uniqueness is covered up by some armor that's exactly the same armor model as everyone else's plate armor models, that doesn't do anyone any favors. It basically says "Yay! Annnnd now you look generic! 8D"

 

Which is yet another reason they're doing things like having literally the exact same piece of armor appear differently when equipped by an Aumaua than it does when unequipped, passed to a Dwarf, then equipped by that Dwarf. Realistic? No. Would the game be more fun if you had to have every piece of armor manually fitted to every single character? I think not.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they said godlikes can't even ware helmets due to things like that. Which if they take the DnD approach of 'helmets don't do ****' then its not a big deal really. Always wondered why Helmets didn't do anything in DnD... they could come with some kinda 'effect' but it was always extremely minor and didn't allow for a lot of magical enchantment for the most part. I mean in comparison belts and rings did far more but then anyone could ware those I guess.

Supposedly, helmets were the big reason for the Qunari redesign between DAO and DA2. They had originally planned to give them horns, but they wanted Sten to be able to wear helmets, so they just dropped the whole "horn" thing from the original game.


jcod0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against the decoration idea. I simply also have nothing against... well, I'll call it "reproportioning," to be accurate. Take helmets. Some helmets are narrower, some are wider, some taller, some shorter. It's not always just going to be a 1:! slider you drag to scale down or up the size of the armor piece in question.

 

And yes, I realize that, even with no-expense-spared fitting of armor, the difference for a male torso and female torso wouldn't be that noticeable, but that comes back to the whole "We've gotta make these stilettos and estocs slightly exaggerated in their proportions, otherwise the blades wouldn't show up" thing. The problem of the character models being rather small on-screen. It's like 16-bit sprites of old, where you had to do things like "Well, the boot wouldn't actually come up THAT high, but if I don't put a contrasty pixel here, there won't be a top-of-boot ANYwhere on the sprite!", only in HD now. Haha.

 

Anywho, I think you could have quite subtle difference (again, I know boobplate has been mentioned in this thread, but the thread is titled "What should a female breastplate really look like?" and not "BOOBPLATE -- DISCUSS!") -- albeit slightly exaggerated so as to only be roughly 80% true to real female armor proportions, rather than a full 100% (accuracy you wouldn't be able to verify or benefit from, anyway, on such a small model) -- and achieve that "Oh, cool, I picked a female main character instead of a male, and I like how my armor actually fits me and I can easily tell I'm not just another, slight-different-sized character model in full-plate!" effect without making the armor utterly ridiculous and torturing anyone with an extreme awareness of real, historical plate armor proportions.

 

To bring up something I haven't even brought up yet because I've been too busy fending off outright silly attacks against a simple point/advocation (not so much from you, Spiritofpower), this is a game. Obvious though that may be, we RPG players value the specifics of our character aesthetics. It's part of our own, unique style and experience of the game. So, when you give someone a female character that looks a certain way, and they play through the game, and one day they acquire some full plate armor, and then *poof*, all their character uniqueness is covered up by some armor that's exactly the same armor model as everyone else's plate armor models, that doesn't do anyone any favors. It basically says "Yay! Annnnd now you look generic! 8D"

 

Which is yet another reason they're doing things like having literally the exact same piece of armor appear differently when equipped by an Aumaua than it does when unequipped, passed to a Dwarf, then equipped by that Dwarf. Realistic? No. Would the game be more fun if you had to have every piece of armor manually fitted to every single character? I think not.

I wasn't saying the armor should have to be taken to an armorer's so you can wear it, just FYI. I was sort of assuming it would automatically resize itself to whoever it's being equipped to.

 

Anyways, I think I see where you're coming from, and, while I may not personally agree, I can understand your viewpoint. And I personally hope Obsidian includes at least the option to zoom in until you can actually see your characters in good detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...