My first attempt to write about girls and sin resulted in a cold shower and a lie-down. One question remained though: when we armor plate our heroin, is it protection? Or a cover-up?



Follow the discussion on the Divinity Original Sin Facebook page, or discuss in the comments below!

Discussion on Facebook? Hah, no thanks.


Now on topic: why such exaggeration?

A mixture of both, of course.

I suggest 2 of you guys just go hunting, looting, gathering, survining, arena fighting for a week in the woods near the studio. One dressed in bikini and one in tank armour.

The first realist in me says:
None of them are functional. The second one too heavy, too slow, the first is more agilde yes but still does'nt cover enough. To gain agility I guess leather should be the preferable armour material, metal is not suited for adventuring. But you can't go running in the woods/sun/cold with a naked abdomen. Could work well in dialogs though (charm+10p, armour-10p).

Perhaps that's interesting for another topic, in what ways may clothing influence dialogs?
There could be npc's that disgust bikini armour and treat anyone wearing it as a **** while others are much more talkative to more seducive clothing. And are there male equivalents to this?

The second realist in me says:
The first one will sell better. Definitely. Given that the second one would be charmed to have little weight, it still won't sell.

It's clearly just the old question of (in-game-sexism / sales-with-male-public = c)
Perhaps you can avoid the negative talk : just let the npc's themselves discuss the topic. And the players as well.

My own answer to this isn't easy. It consists of several parts.

First, my "RPG Snippets" entry (in this forum here) which can be found here : http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=456346#Post456346

Second, this (it's a scientific study) : http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?miami1146539391

Third (rather on-topic than the pevious 2 links above) : More seriously, look here : http://madartlab.com/2011/12/14/fantasy-armor-and-lady-bits/

And fourth and last, this comic : http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/57/68/449a24f4488de31e54e2f80fc61d7843.jpg

Come to think about it, the only game where people actually cared for your avatar's appearance that I remember is Fable. But nothing stopped the player from wearing a chicken costume while fighting undead at the graveyard of course.

I do hope appearance (clothing) will influence Rivellon's inhabitants in Original Sin. That could be a new quest: "The town's painter has asked me to equip the bikini armour around the graveyard. I must find a secret way in, for the guards won't let me enter with it. (they're the fellows at the freaking fcc)"

Is this a bit exaggerated?

Maybe the armor/clothing can be dependent on class. Like in D&D where you have clothing for mages/shadowdancers etc. and heavy armor for tanks.

TBH, I won't mind having a scantily clad mage if the character is supposed to fry enemies from a distance. On top of that, if the mage class has protective spells then actual armor is unnecessary. I mean spells like "mage armor", "shadow shield", "stone skin" etc.

Call me old fashioned:

Warrior armor: ring, plate armor. Can be gender based but it's still armor!
Ranger armor: Leather armor. Must be gender bases since it's tight fitting but covers everything.
Mage armor: Clothing with magical "armor" (silk, cotton ...). Yes this could be the 'armor bikini' but class it up a bit and have a nice outfit.

ps: If you do want to implement the 'armor bikini' please have it increase the charisma or reputation stat of the woman. (eg: males give discounts and are distracted, females give you the stink eye.

I strongly disagree with making them have differences. I guess this purely depends on what you're looking for in a game. If you're looking for realism then you will hate the bikini armour, and that's fair enough.

Personally I like looking at the bikini armour, when I play a third person RPG as a female, I like to be attracted to my character, I like her to have sex appeal and admire the female form, not for other NPCs to admire her, but for my own perverted reasons. If this was a first person RPG however, I would not care as I wouldn't see my character but I do rather third person. In Neverwinter Nights I always edit the texture of the armour my character is wearing to make it more attractive to me. This is one aspect I personally like in fantasy games. I like some elements of realism, and some of sheer fantasy.

I think the only solution game developers can do to remedy this is have an option like the way you often have options for violence levels; have an option for armour revealing-ness. That way people who want to realistic armour on their female characters can have them entirely plated, and people who like to perve on their characters like me can have bikini armour.

Because we wanted to exaggerate. It was on purpose. We thought it was funny. It's actually the heroin wearing a certain NPC's armor and it looked hilarious. We know the way to go lies somewhere in the middle.

Remember "Ian Livingstone's Deathtrap Dungeon" ? I mean the PC game. Pretty much meets this "exaggeration" / cliché as well.

Nice, thank for the new info :3 Altho, I already assumed that since you wasted some time of fleshing out this concept it probably end up in the game. Really looking forward to see how it looks in the game haha.

P.S. My vote for bikini, ofc. Due to obvious reasons. You know what I mean...

How about no armour at all? Heck, you've already made a game without any normal clothes - I think a game without armour, just with standard clothes, could both be more challenging and more interesting. It wouldn't be the first RPG without armour, though: Jade Empire also didn't have any armour, just amulets.

And looting armour-clad enemy corpses wouldn't necessarily help ... size does matter, after all, and it isn't very logical that you can put on a slain goblin's plate mail as a human.

If there is armour in the game, however, NPCs who can change armour size might be an interesting addition. You might need two goblin-sized sets of armour to create one human-sized set, or there might even be a quest to find some rare materials if you want to re-size a valuable set without making it lose its magical properties.

Armor bikini, please.

In April's Fool day, the game should give the male character an Armor Bikini, too. And the female character a "tank bikini" ... err ...

Damn.
Just get rid of all the clothes and that is. End of discussion :p

I thought the compromise in Divinity 2 was good. It had the unrealistic aspects of not always covering the legs, and the breast-shaped molds that wouldn't be present on real armour (because it would deflect blows TOWARDS the face), but it was closer to real-looking armour than the usual chainmail-bikini style of most RPG's.

I, personally, don't care. i can appreciate artistic value and aesthetics of "bikini armor" and at the same time appreciate realistic approach. Never had any issues with either.

Yes, I like the armors like they're in Divnity II : well-crafted for the female heroes, especially for the female very nice done ! I like them more than the male armors, but that's of course a subjective preference of me
So to say, I like to play with a female hero more than ever now ! In the past I take almost always a male hero because I'm a man, but today I love the looks, feels and the pleasures to be & play a female hero

I hope we can choose in D:OS between both armors : tank or bikini.
But not the hilarious big tank ... but it's a good joke the Larian Team did with placing afemale hero into an Armor of a giant NPC

Is it possible to get this picture a bit bigger ? Until Joram's post I had thought that the person standing in the "tank armor" was the male protagonist !

But still - yes, I definitively believe now that this "female tank armor" should be in the game ! - No-one is forced to use it, though.

What the female D:OS character (what's her name, btw?) wears is just a slightly more revealing version of the already revealing rogue armour from Divinity 2.

I could imagine making an even more exaggerating joke out of it : "The infamous horde of naked female Amazonian Warriors !"

You really should read the "Chicks in Chainmail" anthologies (edited by Esther Friesner), especially her comments about the background that started it (and the following books, too ;)) This whole discussion reminded me heavily of those books.
Do you want a girl dressed up as tank? Or a Tank Girl ?

By the way, Alrik, the naked female Amazonian Warriors would probably be very successful in hands-on combat with every traditional male army (as long as they don't meet the Ultimate Gay Legion). And then they would simply put on their magically enhanced +500 AC Plate Microkini..

Dragon Age Origins did it right.

Heavy:



Medium:



Of course if you want a mix then Dragon's Dogma is the game is check out which actually featured exposing lingerie for female characters and other similar clothing and yet if you wanted to make a realistic female warrior then you could.

Yes, but the tiny swords around the knees look a bit illy.

Elven light armour in Dragon Age was exactly bikini armour.

Wading in a little late on this, and I'll be brief as it's getting late.

Bikini armour is outdated, pointless and serves no purpose beyond titillation. It is impractical, it doesn't cover nor protect, and is an aesthetic choice. The only character who can ever really, truly carry off bikini armour (or anything like it) is Red Sonja, and that's pushing it at best.

As for the exaggerated armour? Obviously a joke, as Larian have stated, but isn't far from the truth. If the female character is putting on plate armour, it needs to be big, bulky and covering. Female variations on armour tend to really not be all that different. Perhaps made, typically, for a shorter person with wider hips/narrower shoulders, but aesthetically and functionally they're the same. No allowance needs to be made for the breasts, either, as they do a thing called "squishing" (and the female in question would likely have them 'strapped down' anyway).

Boob cups on armour are dangerous. They don't deflect blows, instead they draw them into the centre of the rib cage (i.e. towards the heart), and if a blade goes that way then it's much easier for the assailant to simply push upwards and hey presto, the defendant has a sword sticking up out of the top of their head. On top of that, if the person with boob armour should fall over onto their chest, it's likely that the centre of their ribcage would be cracked open along the 'ridge' in the middle of the armour.

Divinity II was probably the 'limit' in terms of what you could get away with for female armour, but even then it was undoubtedly a case of aesthetics above practicality. Male armour was, for the most part, fully covering. Female armour had boob cups, exposed cleavage (in other words: Pointy Bit Goes Through Here signs), skirts, bare legs and so on. I won't say "sexist" (though, truthfully, it is), but it was problematic.

However, I think it's less problematic if you also work for the 'female gaze', i.e. you have armours where men go topless or otherwise are 'Conan-esque'.

This link should provide even the casual reader with quite a lot of information about feminine armour. Here you go!. I disagree when he talks about Mass Effect's armour (it's unnecessarily different), though, but the point remains.

It does not really matter in videogames, because it is abstract level of experience. In order for realistically designed armor to work, you need to take into account real, full-fledged physic system - body coverage, the density of the tissue/material, its state (worn/perfect), the precise hit landing system, the actual force, the density and surface of the weapon, etc, etc,etc. That's why videogames does not bother - in most cases it just aesthetics, even with "realistic" outfit - it just supposed to give false feeling and impression.

I literally see no point to waste precious time thinking of such questions for ISOMETRIC classic RPG. I understand if we were talking about some full 3D games like TES or Mount&Blade or Sui Genesis but for tactical DOS? Really? Tactical battle already a big set off for me from realism so adding realistic environment/outfits won't really make a big difference. I'd say it would make perfect sense to achieve some points by working on original aesthetics and designs.

While I do understand that actual point of discussion "armored bikini vs real armor" make sense in general, it us actual appliance and reason for consideration is under a big question in the section "why the hell we even bother with it".

But... the realism argument really, really doesn't apply here. At all. If you have male characters in full, covering armour then it stands to reason that women - as defined by the laws of that game - would require the same protection, especially as melée and ranged combat are part of the game. People are shooting at you, people are running at you with close-combat weaponry.

What you're arguing, Kein, is that it's pointless to discuss because it's a game. Fine, I'll concede it's not reality, and that's hard going considering there's walking skeletons. But it is a taste and a balance issue. The attitudes towards men and women are not balanced if the men are in practical outfits (including armour) and the women are wearing sexualised or more revealing costumes. The female armour in Divinity 2 (as an example) was not as protective as the male armour. It left critical points exposed or carried a danger of its own.

You also imply it doesn't matter to you. Well... so what? Why bother arguing if it doesn't bother you? It bothers me, it bothers a whole group of people even, and it's not something that's going away at any real speed because developers/designers don't realise that it's even a problem. I like to give Larian some leeway with it because they're typically mocking fantasy games as a whole, but I still wish they would stop with it.

It's not just an issue with Divinity though, it's an issue with *gaming*. It's an opportunity for Larian to rise above the rank-and-file and do things right, and it can still do that whilst mocking other fantasy games/the genre itself.

Overly big armor can just be too heavy to wear, and then the metal overlapping parts might sound "screeech" meanwhile fighting ...

I agree with Dwagginz.
I'd rather have both types of armor, regardless of sex of the character, so I can use different armors depending on my mood.

Male armour is as impractical as female armour in , just in a different way. All those spikes and massive shoulder parts only serve one purpose: to impress. If one of two equally able fighters actually wore such a set of armour and the other one wore a suit of plate armour from the Middle Ages, the former would be at a great disadvantage. By the way, that also applies to helmets and weapons in most fantasy games. They might partly even be based on items that have really existed, but were purely ornamental, not designed to actually be used in combat. The main aspect of male armour in most fantasy games is to show off (you could also call that "aesthetics").

Both male and female armour are usually impractical, so that's not a valid argument for just making female armour more realistic. If you want male armour that is as revealing as female armour usually is, you've got a point, though - that would only be fair.

I don't know, I think there's still a difference between "exaggerated" armour and "form-fitting/exposing" armour. I think your point is valid, yes, but we're talking how much your disbelief can be suspended.

I think most people find it easier to accept spiked/flamboyant armour as practical than they can exposed armour. Why? Well, even Divinity's daftest armours still covered the male player. He was still fully protected. It's also why we can accept ridiculously big hammers, light-as-air two-handers and so on. They're exaggerated for the sake of style and flair.

But 'female armour' isn't the same thing. It's deliberately exposing for, well... no purpose beyond a bit of excitement. Phwoar, look at 'er legs and all that. It's so much easier to accept armour with spiked shoulders than it is armour which leaves a woman's cleavage exposed. You're still right to say it's not entirely realistic to have spiked armours and so on, but it's less realistic to have exposing and form-fitting armours.

And, really... non-flamboyant armour would be pretty dull

I wouldn't call The Witcher's armours "flamboyant" - they were pretty realistic - but Geralt still looked stylish in them.

You're right, having only "exaggerated" armour is not the same as having only "form-fitting/exposing" armour. It's not that different, though: All female characters are beautiful temptresses who sacrifice protection for sexy looks, all male characters are muscular, brainless braggers who sacrifice mobility for showing off. If you look at it that way, it's both sexist.

Of course, you can also find in-character arguments if you want. Impressive armour might intimidate opponents, making combat easier that way. Revealing armour might distract opponents, making combat easier that way. Some characters could ask an armoursmith for exaggerated or revealing armour just for that reason. It's not very credible if every single (armoured) character in the game world apparently did that, however.

Realistic armour is all good and well, but what would a warrior woman with a DD cup (like 90% of women in video games ) do? Full plate would be quite uncomfortable, I imagine.

Plus realistically, full plate would not be practical for adventurer types who tend to trek through swamps, sewers, forests, dungeons and what not. Leather or chainmail armour would be the way to go.

Platemail should definitely have some disadvantages in games, just like in real life. I'm curious what effects lightning spells will have on metal armour in Original Sin ... some designs might increase damage for the wearer, while others might work like a Faraday cage. Good thing Larian has testers to find out

No it wasn't but it was revealing. The stomach and legs were exposed but so were the legs on a male character if they wore the armor. It was light armor in any case and that meant that it was suitable for rogues who need versatility. Although warriors and even mages (if trained) could wear them.

I don't think the armor made the wearer look sexy though so I think we can rule it out as bikini armor...





Yeah they do. Didn't even notice them before but I was referring to how the armor covered the entire body in any case.

Well, the average cup size is a B or a C, I believe, and that's increased in recent years (likely due to improved health, nutrition, etc.) So a DD cup is very unlikely, but even then it's a case of boobs go squish. They can easily be bound (i.e. strapped down) to the chest to restrict their movement and to make them appear smaller.

But even if there was some discomfort, all that would need to be done would be to make the chest cavity slightly larger (or to go for a chestpiece that's a bit bigger and wear extra padding), neither of which would really have any negative effect.

No, you completely ignored my main point:



Developers asked community for their opinion on the topic, I say - don't waste your time on this old question and better invest it into environment and story interactivity. After playing Scribblenauts I really want to see more choices.


There is completely no reason for meta discussion about forum users here. Please refrain from it.


This issue is more than 10yo, you plan to solve it right here and right now or what? Just curious why did you even mentioned that in a first place.

Why? The story is written by the writers, the environment is designed by concept artists and a level design team. The armour? It's typically not the same people. If anything, it *saves* development time/resources as it's a case of adjusting models/textures, not creating completely separate ones.

If we don't "waste" our time on it, then we'll never see it improve. And I don't think it's a waste of time at all.


It's not going to get solved if we don't speak out about it. I don't plan to solve it, I think that would take years and a lot of time spent on developer forums, etc. I don't have the patience, the time nor the inclination to do that.

Larian asked for input and opinions. I have given my opinions, explanations and so on. I do not expect the art team to suddenly go "Oh shi-, yeah! We need to do this!". What I hope, however, is that members of Larian will at least read my points and think about them.

I could have easily come here and stamped my foot and cried Larian down as sexist and that they perpetuate the sexual objectification of women by sexualising their armours. I could have claimed they view women as objects for sex (this is a pretty common theme within Divinity 2, it must be said). But no, I don't. Because I don't believe that, and I know the Divinity series has never been entirely serious. I choose to accept the design choices as being tongue-in-cheek.

However, that does not stop the gender-based armour being ridiculous, pointless and - above all - bad. It is well past time that developers, whether they're Bethesda, Larian, Runic Games, Blizzard, or any other, moved on from overly-feminised armour. You cannot claim on any level that it doesn't matter due to a lack of realism, but as I've said before, that is completely irrelevant as male characters are always fully-covered/protected, even in the most ludicrous armours.

The fact that Larian brought up this issue suggests that there is time to consider it (or someone in their team has the time to consider it). They opened the door for discussion. Whatever opinion is posted here, they freakin asked for it.

I don't agree with Dwagginz but it would be quite imprudent to keep slamming the door when Larian actually asked for opinions in the first place.

Indeed. It's not like I've come in uninvited. Larian have asked for feedback, and as such I've given it.

I might be a little bit... how shall I put this... extreme than some others, but I feel it's better to not really beat around the bush.

One thing is to came up with the design and concept - another - implement it. It requires more than the concept-artist in the end - it requires programmers,3d-modelers, additional work, testing etc. Team work as whole, after all, and Larian is relatively small dev. group. I understand your intention to explain who is responsible for the concept-developing, but it has nothing to do with actual production.



Because there is nothing to solve? Do you consider this a serious question that needs a particular answer? Does the question "what is better coffee or tea" make sense and requires such particular and ultimate answer? No, because it is a matter of opinion and current requirements/conditions. Same with our topic - "aesthetics and art-style/artistic design choice VS realistic approach/representation". There is no question or issue in a first place, it just makes no sense to bring up this question at all. Two sides of one coin.

Coffee and tea? That's a strawman argument if there ever was one. That is, truly, a matter of opinion.

The 'feminised' armour argument is much deeper. It ties into many problems in society, such as the objectification of women and a male-dominated view point. Don't believe me? Well, then, why aren't men wearing armour that highlights attributes of theirs? Why aren't they walking around all buff, oiled and so on? Feminised armour, however, emphasises the breasts, and often leaves parts of the wearer exposed.

Do you truly think the armours of the main characters in the Original Sin art work are in any way equal? The guy is covered from neck-to-toe in plate, mail and cloth. The woman? She's wearing a metal bikini, some boots, gauntlets and a few other bits of armour. Her cleavage is exposed, her bikini follows the outline of her breasts, her waist and legs are also visible, and her upper arms are largely bare. She is wearing very little protection, whereas the guy is in lightly-exaggerated full protection.

If you don't see an issue, well... bully for you. But there is an issue, one that has been part of gaming for many years. It will not stop being an issue unless people start to speak up about it. I'm speaking up about it. I'm doing my bit to try and stop it being so common.

And as for your first bit about the production - they're designing the armour anyway. They're creating the female models, the female textures and so on. It isn't going to cost them any more (will actually probably cost them less, as I've stated before, as the female versions will just need to be tweaked from the male ones) to implement 'proper' armour for women.

The man might be a fighter, the woman a rogue or mage. In that case, I don't see a reason why their armours should be equal. In many fantasy RPGs, some character classes tend to avoid close combat and don't need to be as heavily armoured as the melee fighters.

There would be an issue if this was Larian's idea of equal protection for the two characters, but I guess it isn't.

If the male protagonist was a mage and the female one a fighter, they'd probably not be equally protected either. Agreed, a male mage would presumably not wear belly-free clothes (though with Larian, one never knows), but that just mirrors real life.

If what the woman is wearing is supposed to be a metal bikini top, it is ridiculous, yes ... it could just be ornamented, though. And I think the giant shoulder pieces that needlessly encumber the characters as well as the man's shoulder belt look even more ridiculous. I guess that's just for making the characters more easily recognizable, however, and will look very different in the game when you can put on various armours and (hopefully) clothes.

If that distinction was made, that's fair enough. But the distinction hasn't been made, and it still must be said that a rogue or a mage would still have to be prepared for melée combat. It wouldn't take much for someone in that armour (or lack thereof) to be cut down, whereas even just some padded armour or lighter leather/mail could easily make the difference between life or death.

You can look to, say, Dragon Age 2 to compare the clothing mages are depicted in. It's fairly gender-neutral for mages (and rogues), in that in most cases both classes are covered in a robe. There might be some differences in the patterning and the cut, but both are roughly equally covered. But then compare two of the mage followers - Anders and Bethany. Anders wears clothes that cover him. Bethany has an exposed chest, which is made more ridiculous by the chain mail covering her stomach (any competent archer would aim for the upper chest in that scenario - a lot of exposed veins, arteries and so on). Merrill, on the other hand, is fully-covered in a mixture of clothing and armour (her 'romance' armour set being even more feminised, but still with a lot of protection). Both she and Anders are not directly exposing anything particularly vulnerable (except their heads, but that's games for you), whereas Bethany basically has - in real world terms - a giant bulls-eye painted on her chest.

They might not necessarily engage in close-combat, but any sensible warrior would be protected, at least lightly, just in case. Heck, you just need to look at our real-world history to see that even archers wore protection. Helmets, light/medium armour and so on.

My point is more this. Having men protected/covered and women not so is, really, nothing short of stupid. It doesn't make sense. Do women have some sort of innate magical protection that means they don't need armour? Well... in that case, why would they be wearing partial armour? It would just weigh them down, be uncomfortable, restrict their combat abilities and so on. They'd be much better served even in just a tunic and trousers. If you don't have that system in place (let's be honest, no-one does because it's a steaming pile of rubbish), then why have this difference? You can feminise armour without reducing its practicality, its ability to protect and its safety. Boob cups on armour are a potentially fatal choice to make. They reduce the safety, they reduce its ability to protect. It directs blows into the centre of the chest or, if the wearer falls onto their chest, it can crack the centre. In other words, any blow to the chest will be amplified as the pressure will be directed to a soft spot.

The real life argument (i.e. more revealing female clothing/lighter armour mirrors real life) isn't quite there. You have characters running around for hours in full plate. Realism has a stopping point, and there is a level artistic license that can be exploited. That's why we can accept exaggerated flourishes on armour, ease of movement within plate, the wearing of no helmets. But it doesn't - or, I dare say shouldn't - cover the revealing feminine armours. They are, without a doubt, impractical, pointless and *stupid*. When you put armour on, you do so to be protected. If the armour that is displayed on your character exposes key weak spots (neck, thighs, waist, chest, etc.) then it is not doing its job. That is a fact of any system - fantastical or realistic.

We are in the year 2012 now, Original Sin looks to be coming out in 2013 or thereabouts. We should be moving on from things like "boob armour" and into more serious and egalitarian depictions of characters. We should not still be having the debate about whether revealing armour should be included in games - it's either revealing for all, or it's not revealing at all. Any other system is unbalanced, and at worst it's sexist, objectifying and does nothing to contribute to the inclusion of women within the video game industry and community, which is still a very big problem.

In real life, women tend to wear more revealing clothes than men do. Why should this be any different in a fantasy RPG? Of course, there should also be non-revealing clothes for women.

In real life, it's generally a bad idea to walk into combat unarmoured (though you could also call it "heroic"). In a game world, characters can usually take a few hits before they are killed. There is magical healing, and regeneration can be very quick. In the context of this different reality, characters might not deem it necessary to wear armour, even if there isn't a fighter companion (or pet) who can act as a "doorstop" for enemies.

Wearing partial armour when you can have full armour is a bad idea, agreed. Having boob cups on armour is dangerous, true. But it's just as stupid to wear a heavy spiked shoulder piece that imbalances your movements and obstructs your sight. However, some people don't seem to care because they think it's cool. And the game developers cater to their wishes. As long as there also is some non-revealing and some non-exaggerated armour, everyone should be able to choose their character's looks as they see fit.

I also prefer more realistic armour than is depicted in the Original Sin concept art. But who am I to say that only my preferences should count when there are obviously players who want revealing or exaggerated armour?

I agree that armour that's too revealing is unfortunate and should be avoided. I wouldn't mind if the women were wearing the same practical armour as the men.

It is sad that compared to most games, the "boobplates" of Divinity 2 are actually more protective and functional-looking than the standard fantasy game's female armour.

It's true that "boobplates" are not practical for real life fighting. But this is a game, not real life. Magical potions will heal all wounds without a scar. There are talking skeleton bombs. Ranting on and on about how unrealistic boobplates are misses the point a bit.

Yes, the armour in Divinity 2 wasn't realistic for either gender, but it looked fantastic. And in a fantasy game, shouldn't fantastic and cool trump practical and realistic?

In Divinity 2 I played a female character, since I didn't care for any of the male voices (and only liked one of the female options). I showed my brother the game, which he thought was cool, but he only had a netbook at the time, and despite previous efforts to get him to play other RPGs, he only plays Diablo (with Minesweeper accounting for the rest of his gaming).
Anyway, he saw me playing for a few seconds later in the game, with a completely different set of equipment, and thought I had restarted with a male character (what he saw of the running and combat was from behind).

With an isometric camera you see less of your character most of the time than you would with a third person camera. You may be able to zoom in, or there could be closeups in cutscenes, but combat can not be zoomed too much if it is designed to offer strategic environmental options (carelessly stored oil barrels, etc). Even if Larian wanted to do bikini armour (the goals of pre-release concept art and game art not necessarily being the same), it still wouldn't be a huge difference when the characters are an inch tall on the screen.

Well, the fashion industry's issues aside... we're talking armour, not day-to-day clothing. Revealing armour is a sure-fire way to make yourself a target and get killed. Having realistic fashions for non-combatants, fine. There's no issue for me there.


You're confusing gameplay mechanics with universe laws, there. It's why you can one-shot a fully-armoured character but they can't one-shot you. In Skyrim, it's perfectly possible to shoot someone in the head with an arrow and not kill them. I have (or had) a screenshot of my character, wearing a helmet, with an arrow sticking out of her neck.

Gameplay mechanics demand some artistic license, but they do not necessarily define the laws of the universe.


It might be just as stupid, but it's not the same issue. The boob armour stuff accentuates and exaggerates the breasts. That is the whole purpose of it - to go OI OI LOOK 'ERE THERE'S TEATS. Spiked armour and so on is often exaggerated for game design purposes (i.e. to make it stand out), but often can make a character look more evil (Sauron, anyone?). Yes, it's stupid, but that's all it is. It doesn't have much to do with anything else.


I'm sure some players would like to make Lara Croft strip, but it doesn't mean they should have their wishes granted. But why should this be even a discussion? As I've said before in this topic, male characters are not treated in the same manner (and if they are, it's never on the same level), so it shouldn't happen to female characters. If Larian - or, well, any other studio - was willing to do it for all genders, then maybe there wouldn't be so much of an issue.

Well, what's cool is a matter of opinion. Apparently, there are people who think World of Warcraft's visual style is cool, but I don't like it at all and I've often read complaints that other games look "too warcrafty".

In , I've had my character walk around in underpants for some while because I didn't like any of the available armour options. Though I admit it partly was because swimming in full armour looked so silly.



There are games in which even experienced player characters can be killed with one hit. Sure, it's just gameplay mechanics, but they define the inner logic of the game world. If an adventurer experiences that wearing armour doesn't have a large effect on the damage he takes and on his chances to survive combat, what should he "think" of it? That he's just lucky all of the time? The conclusion that wearing full armour isn't all that important is more plausible.

It's like taking stuff from containers. If nobody in the game world objects when you smash all barrels and loot all chests that you can find, it might just be gameplay mechanics. But it defines the inner logic of the game world and it wouldn't be fair to still call this "theft".



I think there's quite a difference between bikini armour on the one hand and plate armour with boob cups on the other hand. If players (both male and female) want a female character to be recognizably female although she's wearing plate armour and just a few centimetres tall on the screen, boob cups are a way to achieve just that, and it doesn't have much to do with anything else either.



As said before, having similarly revealing armour for male characters would just be fair. I don't know why it isn't done. Perhaps there's not enough demand for it?

Another way would be to have pink armour.

That wouldn't help for Death Knights, though.

Eilif Donnerfaust (Thunderfist in English, I assume):

http://drakensang2.wikia.com/wiki/Kapitän_Eilif_Donnerfaust
http://www.dsa4forum.de/viewtopic.php?p=1218434#p1218434

But, she is still a Thorwalian (albeit a massive one ), and thus doesn't wear full plate armor.

Since feedback is requested, feedback ye shall receive!

I thought that the game Warriors and King: Joan of Arc (imho completely underrated and mostly unknown pearl of an action rpg) managed to strike a good balance between "realism" and "visual appeal" regarding the fantasy picture of a medieval female warrior in plate armor :





Wallpaper - 1024x768

It still doesn't fully comply with the recommendations provided by seemingly more professional armorers, quoted in this very thread here several times. The bust is too high, round and "feminine" I guess, but it still hopefully could be factored in to find a compromise satisfying both the community of players and Larian.

The option to switch off helmet graphics is a must too, of course.


Just a slight favor to conclude, as a potential user of DOS modding tools in the future :

I remember a not so distant time where unclothed character models would display but bare skin, and still remain politically correct in a widely acclaimed video game :

• male
• female

I would be fine with character models in DOS that once unclothed displayed a bikini (think Dragon Age Origins, or Neverwinter Nights 1).

I would equally be fine if character models couldn't be unclothed at all, or if they had but one unique outfit throughout the whole game, its stats changing, without any visual alterations (think Dragon Age 2, I believe).

Please just avoid the horrible Neverwinter Night's 2 mish mash, which had character models unclothing to a sort of pajama (swimsuit ? bikini?), with unremovable field worker gloves and boots. It is truly a *pita* to fix, and work with as modder.

Thank you for your consideration.

Glad to see that Larian is back to business, and really looking forwards to the game, and especially its toolset

But that isn't the conclusion, and even if it was we're going down a path that isn't relevant. I'm not arguing about the *type* of armour, I'm arguing about the *design* of the armour. Plate offers the best protection, but at the expense of mobility and how long you can fight for. If you go down in full plate, you're screwed.

Realistically, the most practical armour for video game characters would be mail with either leather (for 'lighter' characters like mages and rogues) or sections of plate for melée characters.


They are a way to achieve that, but they're not exactly the best way. You compare the models in Div 2, and there's a clear difference in the builds of the characters. You can use animations, height differences, different models (e.g. wider hips, narrower shoulders for female). That's what Skyrim uses. Many of the armours are fairly neutral but you can tell the differences (and there's really only one plate 'boob armour').


Who knows? I don't think it's a demand issue, it's more a social one. If you look at fashions, men's clothing tends to cover, women's tends to reveal. You get the idea. But there's no real reason to reveal anything. Even just some cloth padding can be useful as armour.

I think I should just reiterate: Talking skeleton suicide bombs. This game isn't exactly going for hardcore realism.

As I've said numerous times, that's completely irrelevant. A magic system does not discount any sense of reality. We, as fantasy gamers, accept that in these worlds dragons, the undead, goblins, magicians and other such fantastical constructs exist but that they exist within the laws of that world. The laws of magic do not typically define (though they may affect) other laws - i.e. magic law can exist alongside the laws of physics.

The inclusion of armour suggests a need to be protected in combat. That means the design of the armour should reflect (within the bounds of artistic license) that need - i.e. it should be covering, it should be protecting, and it should be feasible. If you have armour that leaves weak spots (arteries, joints, the centre of the ribcage, etc) exposed, then it is not doing its job as protection.

Or, to put it in crude terms, if you put a hole in the tip of a condom it still covers you but it ceases to be functional as protection. It may still protect you from some things, but its main function will not be carried out.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

In the real world people need that protection because injuries have more diverse consequences than a little red bar shrinking, and in the real world, drinking a mystery red liquid doesn't make boo-boo's all better.

In a game, though, the protective value of armour is dependent on the little number attached to it in the inventory screen, not the materials it's made of or the area it covers. Falling back on "it's not realistic" seems to be missing the point of the question Larian posed, and it's also ignoring the style of the game.

The argument about whether armour should be less sexualized is a great argument and one well worth having, but I think it's a separate one from whether armour should be modeled for real-world protection.

The key difference is that implementing "armour should be real-world protective" has a greater effect on the style of the game than implementing "armour should be less sexualized".

The rules for the game world are interpreted through the game's style. There's nothing wrong with games that go for realism above all, but the talking skeleton bombs tell me that the style of this game world is not a gritty hardcore realism. Under those rules, I can understand that the game world is not realistic, so non-realistic armours are okay.

Health potions = Artistic license. We accept them as a gameplay device. They are not necessarily meant to be taken seriously.

However, with armour design, the male armours tend to stick - at least to some degree - to real world examples. They cover, they don't reveal. They protect. They do their job. The feminine equivalents *almost never* offer the same level of protection. The fact the male armour covers implies that in the world in which the game is set that protection is needed. The armour covers because the wearer wishes to be protected. If the armour was useless at protection, then it wouldn't exist within the game as it is - or it would be a decorative thing, thusly more ornate and not nearly so common.

Those factors combine to suggest that armour is necessary to protect against attacks. Those same factors, thusly, should apply equally to women. But in terms of design, they rarely do. Weak spots are often exposed at the expense of more sexualised or objectifying armour. Revealing armour offering the same protection as more covering armour is a contradiction. It doesn't make sense. It's wrong.

You work out the realism of the world by taking the aspects of the game and using logic to explain them. Game technology cannot truly simulate the real world, but it can be compensated for to some degree. That is why armour works on numbers, not on their design. But that is a necessity, where gameplay has to take priority over the visuals/realism aspect. A game's world does not need to match our reality, but it still needs its own realism. That realism needs to be explained.

There is no logical, reasonable explanation as to why feminine/revealing armour can offer the same level of protection as the masculine/covering equivalents. You could try and pass it off as "oh, well, magic offers the rest of the protection" - Well, sure, but does that make sense? Isn't it just easier to make armour that protects in the first place?

"Realistic" may be the wrong term in a fantasy RPG, but the armour style should be "credible", i.e. the player should think that a piece of armour both fits into the world and does its job. Of course, credibility largely depends on the player's background, so there is no "right" way to design armour.



Oh, it is relevant. If you accept that armour isn't all that important for surviving combat in the game world, you can ask yourself which motivation one might have to still wear it. One can reason, for example, that armour is only necessary where being hit really hurts or where scars would be particularly undesired. And that's a possible explanation for wearing a helmet plus an armour bikini or "metal trunks".

That doesn't mean I want bikini armour, but it shows that it's not necessarily completely irrational to introduce it into a video game - though I doubt this has ever been the motivation behind creating bikini armour. And it wouldn't explain why men wear full armour when women wear bikini armour ... perhaps men are more fretful than women after all



Armour with boob cups isn't the only way to achieve that, right, but it is very easy to notice. When armoured NPCs are just standing around, animations won't necessarily indicate their gender. Both men and women can be tall or short. Wider hips and narrower shoulders can more easily be missed than boob cups.



I think demand plays a role. If a sizeable percentage of the target group wants revealing female armour, but almost nobody wants revealing male armour, the latter won't be implemented.

Anyway, women aren't forced to buy and wear revealing clothes, are they? If many still do it in the real world, it's not unreasonable to assume that many do it in a game world.

The game Severance: Blade of Darkness had very realistic combat (even the most weak enemies could kill your character in one or two hits) and featured a barbarian and amazon character who bought used very little protection but were more mobile in combat (and used weapons with long range) compared to the knight and dwarf character who both used shields and heavy armour (and were very slow in comparison to aforementioned characters).

It handled armour well without it becoming ridiculous.

I maintain that for adventurers in fantasy games who trek through various landscapes and usually are involved in much smaller scale fights, studded leather or chainmail would be most practical. Full metal armour wouldn't be at all practical outside battlefields where blows can come from all directions.

There is a whole generation that is still out there playing video games, and that has been heavily influenced by very scantily clothed pin-ups posing in front of cars on the first page of their magazines. One could attempt to hypocritically deny it, or blame marketing all day long, but as a matter of fact, female characters in rather revealing outfits used to contribute as a strong selling factor in the industry.

For the sake of integrity, I need to state that I am a male in RL, and probably belong to the aformentioned generation. Like any other heterosexual male, I keep a pronounced liking for the female anatomy, but it's been a while since I expected video-games to limit themselves to such trivial standards before catching my interest, and motivating a purchase. The same for novels, movies, magazines, etc.

Video-games need to evolve, like society has, like the population of their players has, no doubts. I would absolutely hate it though that we couldn't find some kind of sensible middle-ground in doing so.

Females characters in bikinis, with submissive psychés hiding in the background of the archtype of a Conan-like superhero belong to the past, but so does the stereotype that the slightest nipple showing would be inadmissible.

Female characters need to remain feminine, male characters masculine, as a whole (in their physical and psychological features), lest to portray everyone as some kind of horribly dull and boring asexual robots in our games.

I agree, but I disagree with your last point. The "right" way is to design armour that fits in with the aesthetics of the game world. Many fantasy games exist within a European world - therefore it's reasonable that the armour would also fit the European style. If a game was set in a world inspired by, say, Africa, then you would expect to see various African influences in the clothing and armour styles.


If armour isn't all that important then it wouldn't exist on the scale it does in video games. You wouldn't have most of the characters wearing it, because it's largely obsolete. But even then, if it is just to cover more sensitive spots - why an armour bikini? It doesn't make sense. Why would a character walk out just in that? Would they not wear the protection underneath their clothing (like how male sports players wear cups)? That makes more sense.

Bikini armour isn't "entirely irrational", perhaps. But I personally believe that only a minority would - or should, even - be wearing it. A particularly self-confident or flirtatious leader, perhaps. She could wear it to enhance the sexual characteristics of her body and so on - it's a similar tactic to the explanation of Red Sonja's chainmail in Peter V. Brett's Red Sonja: Blue. But that doesn't work for every character.


Considering how close we are to the characters - even in games with cameras like NWN or Original Sin, it doesn't make a difference. Why do you need to know the gender/sex of the other characters anyway? And it's often very easy to tell the differences if the animations and models are constructed correctly. In Skyrim, for example, gender differences in armour are minimal for the most part (though there are feminised armours, and even a boob armour piece - Steel, I think) and you can still tell the difference should you need to.


Just because something is demanded, it doesn't mean it should be implemented. Just because something isn't demanded, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. It isn't about "demand", it's about getting rid of these stupid, unfair, imbalanced, contradictory and even sexist (again, not saying Larian are sexist) differences in design and implementation.


Okay, you go into any women's clothing store and tell me it's easy to buy a wide range of clothes that don't reveal, whether it's by their tightness or by being cut to show cleavage. It isn't a choice, trust me.


I agree with everything but the very last paragraph. Why can we not have more feminine males in games? More masculine females? Not every woman is feminine, not every male is masculine. We need to show that you can be a strong woman and still feminine, yes, but it doesn't mean we can't also have - say - a tough, masculine woman who holds her own.

This "who knows ?" is not necessary : Everyone KNOWS that development teams are mainly consisting of male people. So why would a man want "revealing armor" items for men ? Unless they are gay, maybe ...

Point is, most RPGs are just written so that they are written for male protagonists. See the Gothic series, for example.

Even neutral, gender-irrelevant RPGs are relatively seldom to find.

RPGs are mainly written so that they represent a kind of "rite of passage" or "Hero Jorney" for men - and not for women.

No-one in the industry knows wht a women's "rite of passage" or a women's "Hero's Jorney" would look like - because there just don't exist stories or even social scientifc studis for them.

The "Hero's Journey" is basically a male tale. There just doesn't exist a proper female equivalent to it - and most designers just don't care, since dev studios are male-dominated anyway, so why should they bother ?

Venetica and Kult are rare exceptions. And yet men decide "not to play games with "only female protagonists", meanwhile greatly ignoring that 99 % of ALL RPGs have "only male protagonists". That's sexism in just aother form.

And good-looking female in games meanwhile bad-looking males in the same games - tht's a form of sexism, too.
Or even lookism.

Rhoda/Rhode should imho have been the blonde from the early screenshots - because that would hve broken the sexism. A good-looking AND highly successful hunter ? Well, that wouldn't have been expected. But instead the blone became a waitress in the local tavern. Quite a return to the old cliché. And she even complained about men string at hear - meanwhile a blonde Rhode would have just landed her fist into the face of a man staring at her.

A development studio comprised solely of men is not an excuse for sexism in games. At all. And the thing about men not playing games with female protagonists? Completely debunked by Tomb Raider, Mirror's Edge, Portal, The Settlers 7, a large chunk of the adventure market, and that's just off the top of my head. There are plenty of men in the creative industries who can draw, write and create women without resorting to sexist ideas.

Dev studios should bother because women are almost half of the gaming community. Women are fighting tooth-and-nail to be taken seriously as gamers in the face of sexism from development studios (intentional or otherwise) and some extreme sexism from the gaming communities themselves. They should bother because this is the year 2012, and we should have left many of these ideas behind.

But even Venetica wasn't perfect. Performance issues aside, many of the armours were overly-feminised/sexualised. They weren't particularly practical. Looked great, sure, but weren't as functional as they should have been.

This is indeed a problem for the industry, and I find it really bizarre that there are so few story-based RPG's that have a female character as the protagonist. "The Hero's Journey" may be what they're following as a guideline, but I don't know why in this day, it's so rare for a game to have a woman take that journey, other that "the developers don't care or it never occurs to them".

It's something that the industry as a whole should really work on fixing.




I didn't see those early screenshots, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. (For one, you're apparently not including Rhode as "good-looking" ).

I also don't see your point. I think Divinity 2 was much better than many other RPG's when it came to gender fairness, and Rhode is a good example. She's basically the most powerful person in the Dragon Slayers, she starts out as the player's boss, and is well respected. She takes down Talana.

Half of Damian's generals are women, there are many female soldiers on both sides of the fight, and Ygerna managed to trap the Divine. There's also the bit with Ursula in FoV who complains about the sexist way the louts of the Prancing Pony treated her that shows some self-awareness.

The existence of the sexy barmaid Elsa doesn't negate Rhode. I don't see anything sexist about her not wanting to attack four professional soldiers with her bare hands, that's just common sense. If Louis didn't interfere, they'd have wiped the floor with the Dragon Slayer - who's supposed to be an even more elite soldier.

No, Divinity 2 isn't perfect in the way it treats women, but it does a lot of things right.



Well, if only for gameplay reasons, being able to identify the gender of an NPC from an isometric perspective would help if you're looking for a specific person. There are ways to differentiate armour without making it skimpy or overly exaggerated, though.

Skyrim is not a great example, though. it depends a lot on the armour type. For example, Lydia in her default Iron/Steel plate doesn't have "boobplate", it looks basically identical to male armour. But a lot of armour in Skyrim is just embarrassing to put your female companions in, like Forsaken or Fur armour which is shamefully skimpy. It makes the "boobplates" in Divinity 2 look more reasonable in comparison.

It's the Steel Plate (I forget the exact name) Armour that has a boob variant. The others (bar Dwarven) are slightly different for female characters, but not significantly so. As for the fur armours? Well, they're probably equally revealing, I think. It isn't quite a solid rule (I think the Vampire robes in Dawnguard show more skin for women), but Skyrim gets it fairly right. Or is at least a major step forward.

But again, I can easily just counter your point and say if an NPC is important, there are other ways to make their placement significant or to make them stand out. Put them in a prominent position (e.g. that guard talking to a group on Lanilor Lane), name them or do something else. It doesn't have to mean they wear more fitting armour.

As for Div 2's treatment of women? Pretty good, in that I think it's a parody of stereotypes and tropes for the most part, but it did have moments where the jokes/attitude just didn't quite work. Not many, though.

How about those armors for males ?
http://fr.guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Armure_de_Parangon

Which style is considered to fit in with the aesthetics of the game world will vary from player to player, however. That's why I wrote there is no "right" way to design armour. There will always be people who think a given style fits and others who think it doesn't. Combining influences from different parts of the real world can also lead to a mixture that is both interesting and convincing, though the chances to fail might be higher than when you take your inspirations from just one region.



I agree. It would be silly to have all or most women in a game wear armour bikinis. "Would be" because I don't know any game in which this is the case.

In sports, both men and women wear protective cups underneath their clothes, but they don't face the risk of their clothes being cut with swords. If you want to protect a certain part of your body and your clothes, you'll probably wear clothes underneath your armour. I think it's also more comfortable to wear clothes underneath metal armour, not vice versa.



It's not always necessary to know an NPC's gender, or race, or anything else about him/her, but those informations might allow some more educated guesses concerning the NPC's possible motivations. And if you're looking for a male deserter, for example, you might not need to talk to armoured women at all (as long as you can tell them apart from armoured men).



You're right, not everything players want can and should be implemented. But if a company wants to stay in business, it can be dangerous to ignore demand.

Maybe you should make it a little clearer what exactly you consider "stupid, unfair, imbalanced, contradictory and even sexist". I can agree that these adjectives would properly describe a game in which all women wore bikini armour while all men wore full armour, though I don't know such a game. If the only difference is that women's armours have boob cups, however, it's on the same level of non-functionality and "stupidity" as giant spiked shoulder pieces.

Imagining the opposite situation, I can say I'd call a game in which all men wore loincloth armour while all women wore full armour "sexist". I'd find it strange if men's armours just tended to be more revealing than women's armours, and yes, it would probably not be very convincing unless the developers provided a good reason, but "unfair" or "sexist"?



Maybe your experiences are different, but when I go shopping with my partner, it's not terribly difficult to find clothes for her which are neither tight nor cut to show cleavage.



Don't you think you overgeneralize? You sound as if almost all games were sexist and women were almost completely ignored by the games industry. As far as I can tell, that's simply not the case. So which ideas should we have left behind?



In my opinion, isn't such a great example. Rhode may be a strong woman, but the most powerful people in the game are Zandalor, the Divine One, Damian, Bellegar, Behrlihn. All of them men. Moreover, there is a greater variation in the appearance of male characters. To put it bluntly, almost all of the women looked the same to me - big-breasted Barbie dolls with model-like facial features, just with different hairstyles, eye colours and clothes. I would have preferred greater variation: more stout women, more old women, more plain-looking women. Though I see that extending the range of character models is a significant cost factor.

Within the early screenshots there was one showing a kind of "Proto-Rhoda" having the same hair as the waitress in the inn of the first town has.

I've been looking for this screenshot, but cannot find it anymore.

You left out Ygerna. She was definitely one of the most powerful people - she was the final boss of the entire game, for pete's sake, and trapped a demigod in an alternate dimension from beyond the grave

There's Rhode, too, of course, and while the player never witnessed Rhode in combat, she's widely respected as the most powerful Dragon Slayer (the elite of the elites), and her mortal-wounding of Talana (herself centuries old and a killer of many Slayers) is proof of that, I think.

I specifically said that Divinity 2 wasn't perfect in its use of gender roles, but the series does have its bright spots. In Divine Divinity, 3 of the 5 black ring members were women, and a woman was in charge of the entire army. In Divinity 2, half of the Black Ring generals were women.

Yes, the game didn't have a lot of variety in character models. Most of the men were basically the same body, no stout men, and even the grey-haired men in their 90's looked pretty good still. To me that seems less like a gender issue and more like a budget/resource allocation issue.

Dwagginz, I can't believe that "Skyrim got it right" just because one or two of its armour sets look the same on women as men when many more of its armour sets are literal fur bikini's in the frozen wasteland of the north that show far more skin than anything in Divinity 2.

Well, you're right, Ygerna is a powerful woman. I haven't included her because Damian has played a more prominent role in Rivellon's history. It was my impression that Ygerna's powers didn't match Damian's ... that she wasn't really on par with him. This impression might be wrong, though.

You may also be right with the budget/resource allocation issue. As we know, a lot of content was cut, and it may simply not have been possible to implement character models of many different physical builds and ages.

I didn't mean to say was a bad example, but I think that the male character models looked more diverse than the female ones. In my eyes, is a better example for gender fairness.

Oh, the old debate... After a quick glance at a few of the replies so far, I have to say I agree with those who say neither. Armor bikini is right out, makes no sense and it's, well, demeaning (and I'm saying that as a straight guy...), but the walking tank is inappropriate for an adventurer too. The "tank" look MAY happen later in the game, with heavily enchanted armor that weighs much less than it should by the looks of it, but should still be put together in such a way as to not hamper movement too much.

Wrote a post about this once, though that was after the issue stared me in the face in an MMO (one of the few I tried, didn't last long of course) and I approached it mainly from that perspective, the general idea applies anywhere.

I say that for the basic armor you should take real armor designs that fit with the game's world design, maybe make a few small changes to improve that fit even more, and leave it at that, without unnecessary differences between male and female models. So same armor for both sexes, just with the necessary alterations for the obvious physical differences, but largely trying to make said differences less noticeable (and definitely keeping it looking useful, as in not deflecting blows to face, as somebody pointed out).
And, of course, again as others said, at least the regular adventuring armor types should stick to light and at most medium armor (but please, something that makes sense, no "studded leather" (about as protective as plain leather, only much heavier) or "ring" (anything pointy goes right through), and "chainmail" is a misnomer, it's just mail...). Later, when it comes to enchanted armor, as enchantments lower weight you can go to heavy and/or start embellishing it to make it also look cool while still remaining functional.

Bottom line, armor should protect your body without sacrificing too much of your speed and mobility, so make it look like it does just that. There's a real dearth of reasonable armor in games (or fantasy art for that matter).

A few links on Sexism in games and within the games industry :

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...sexism_in_game_industry.php#.UMnv7CA0NI5

http://kotaku.com/5917400/youll-want-to-protect-the-new-less-curvy-lara-croft
The comment there is the point there.

http://www.trredskies.com/tag/sexualization/

You're comparing two sets of armour, though. Heck, two completely different sets of armour, not to mention you're missing my point.

My point with Skyrim was that it, roughly, got the design balance right. You could tell at a glance (bar Dwarven armour, IIRC) what a character was, because the armours looked slightly different. Sometimes the differences were a bit silly (e.g. the boob plate steel stuff), but largely it was a case of slight changes and tweaks to fit a different model. The fur armours you describe? Well... look at the male and female ones for each kind. The female stuff typically only covers a little bit more (the breasts) - but even in the more covering fur/hide armours (there are a few variations) are still pretty balanced in that respect.

Yes, they were a bit revealing for such a cold area (regardless of gender), but I don't think it was much of an issue within the game itself. It didn't go against the aesthetics of the setting. They didn't stand out as being out of place, instead they seemed to fit in fairly well. But regardless of how silly they were or weren't, they were fairly equally made for both genders.

To contrast, if "bikini armour rules" were in effect, the male fur armour would be fairly covering and sensible, whereas the female armours would leave a lot exposed.

I'm a man. I love looking at ladies, the less clothes the better!

...

With those things said I hate the iron bikinis in video games. They look silly, they do nothing for me sexually (sorry, I like looking at real females), and IMO they make the games they are in seem more immature.

What I'm getting at is it really has nothing to do with silly claims of sexism or anything like that (who cares about that crap?). What it boils down to me is the majority of the time the iron bikinis and half dressed females in video games are done in such a way that it just makes it silly and immature. There are plenty of examples out there where female warriors and dressed in functional armor...and they are examples where they even retain some of their femininity. I think it's totally possible to have female warriors in functional armor, retaining some femininity, while not having them look like silly warrior hookers designed to make 12 year old boys drool.

Kein posted a great example. The armor looks great, but you can clearly see it's designed for the female form.

This is why I stopped participiate in this thread, I knew it will come to this, I got fed up with this bs in 2012 already, we have a goddamn Kickstarter for that, isn't that enough?

Just for the sake of humanity I asked my gf which outfit she would prefer to wear in battle (hypothetical situation) and showed to her pic from OP post. She said the left one (but more covered - there she mentioned example from Jeanne d'Arc movie ). When I tried her to explain the point behind my question and whole "bikini thing" she said she understand but right one feel way too heavy and immobile, she did rather prefer has advantage in speed and, well, aesthetics and comfort.

There is no morale of this story. Nor there is a point in this argument, It just dumb.

"Sexism". Blargh.

Not sure why you quoted that word...my entire post indicates that my opinion is NOT based on claims of sexism or anything like that.

Apologize ahead of time if you are really not quoting me, but you did quote that word from my post and the reply topic is "Re: Knucklehead".

Actually, if you just type in the Quick Reply box, the last poster in the topic will be listed as who you are replying to, and you can manually add quote tags (a Quick Quote will include the name of the poster being quoted).

Well,

getting back to the topic, i would prefer some armours for the eyes.
But normal armour (which looks like it protects something at last) is definitly needed to stay serious. But btw i would love the possibility to have some really strange armours (not only sexy), mainly bizzare ones that just shout in youre face : Damn im ugly but hard and unique as shit!

So Larian, you shall make sexy armours, normal armours and some bizarre armours too.

Let me see the outcome

Someone posted a link to this video in a GOG forum topic: female armour sucks.

I can understand how in practice female armour sucks; and it might even offend some but as a guy I gotta admit that often it is quite charming.

I'd like to have different clothing for different environments.

When the protagonists go to battle, they should wear armor that is more or less realistic battle armor. Something in between the two extremes from the first picture in this thread. Armor that leaves body parts unprotected should have a lower armor rating. Armor that is too heavy should give some penalties elsewhere.

But I think it would be nice if the protagonists could wear different clothing in non-combat situation. For example in Mass Effect 3, the main protagonist is wearing casual clothes when he/she's on board of the ship, or even in some side missions in Casinos and stuff. For not to this too complex, I would just let the player decide which clothes/armor the protagonists wear in any situation, preventing change only in combat.

Does anyone else notice the irony in someone not backing/buying the game because of how it looks (the cover-art) and failing to see the quality of the game within?

Ha ha, good point.

I like the cover art as well, the white and grey (with red) is a simplicity of design that seems more elegant than splashing it with hundreds of colours. I would not object though, if they make a version that gives Scarlett some clothes that covers her up a bit better.

Well... first of all females can’t fight like mans. They have thinner bones, lower lungs, different distribution of body fat (in hips instead of in the rumen), and most are less strong. So they are anatomically distinct and that is a good thing, because of these differences is that we like them. Consequently they could not wield a sword or wear armor as well as men and in a real war they should be in magic or archer role than front warrior.

But this is a game and here they can fight and carry armors more or less like a man. And in a game bikinis armors are more attractive than tank armor, (even for women players as they say me in multiple times!), because if we chose a female character is because we are willing to see differences.

I personally play female characters to see a nice butt instead a huge man’s sweaty butt... I know that in real life those kinds of armors are impossible. But does a man killing enemy after enemy with healing potions equally impossible? And if we can heal ourselves why the enemies doesn't the same? Etc.

Again, this is a game, not real life, mans and women do impossible things, and art must prevail over reality.

This is a great idea which rely on a successful publication.

I don't like "fanservice", no for high heels and bikini "armours" etc.
No matter what class, I'd like to equip my characters with somewhat realistic, serious looking armours, hope that will be possible, thank you.

Btw. OP you could add a poll to this topic.

There is difference between fanservice and aesthetics. Lighting from FFXIII series or female armor in D2 - this is design choice, aesthetics. Thin bikini with revealed pantsu in Lineage 2 - fanservice. There is a very distinctive difference, too bad not everyone able to understand -- and appreciate-- it.

The armour is realistic in D:OS.


Welcome to the forum.

Nice to see Larian having a bit of fun over a topic that is life or death on other game forums. For me, I like a balance of realism and aesthetics, something that shows a woman to be a woman but doesn't leave half her midriff exposed.

I think there should be a variety of armors and styles. Bikini armor for those who want and can pretend at having magical shielding and full on big plate for those who prefer the full look and everything inbetween and even mix and match (lower in full plate and top bikini!). I love customisability in armors and the more options the better and the more types of item...rings, necklaces, earrings, tattoos, magic hair, magic skin, nail polish, makeup, armor, gauntlets/gloves/handwraps, hats/headgear, boots/shoes, pants/leggings/skirts/shorts, bodysuits, shoulderpads/guards, armbands, garters and more and all with attributes. Of course balance of the game has to be priority so if some were attribute free and just for customisation that could be okay too.

It hasn't been changed everywhere yet, but the graphic on the front of the Kickstarter page now has the female character in midriff-covering armour, while keeping the same feel of the original cover.

But now she won't be as mobile! Disaster...

I don't see her bellybutton any more. That's the REAL disaster...

Yup, the only bad thing about the change is they gave in to public pressure

(personally I like it better this way, then again, pretty much my favourite RPG armours so far must be the plate sets from DA:O)

PS. I wish you redirected Facebook to here and not the other way around, I can't find any of the discussion on that website.

Couldn't Larian have given the male a loin cloth instead?

Nobody complains about Kratos' firm outfit.

Because the guy doing the artwork secretly dreams of being a fashion designer in Milan. Loincloths are so not in this year. Ssh, don't tell.

It sure would have been fun to 'swap' the armors. I wonder if there would have been more complaints.

Can somebody please close this topic?

Never feed the trolls....

I want my female character to have some sexy bikini mail pajamas. :3

And the dude can have a pair chainmail boxers too. The gamer gurls need something to look at too. ^^

Class/armour-type based. Chain-mail bikinis are ridiculous.

Try and keep both male and female versions of each class practical. Female barbarians with DD's in bikinis, no thanks. Male barbarians with so much muscle they would be out of energy after 2 swings of their weapons, no thanks.

I dont quite follow the logic in your example, unless your mobile wall of flesh is swinging a building around.

Mind you, I'd love to see real armor on the women.

It would make me infinitely happy if this game didn't follow the standard of men in actual armor that protects you and women in armor bikinis that could only stop hits if your attacker closed their eyes and swung randomly, and even then not much of the time. Basically, wherever on the cover/mobility scale you go for the male version, why not do the same for the female. Since you're (I believe) not restricting a character's stats/classes based on gender, there doesn't seem any reason why they can't wear similar armor.

Lady Aribeth is my favorite fantasy female hero. Perfect mix of practical and sexy heavy armor.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m177uyADXs1rq8jqio1_1280.jpg
http://wallpoper.com/images/00/33/88/71/elves-neverwinter_00338871.png
http://www.spacespider.net/specials/nwn-aribeth-005.jpg

Why no equal opportunity for the male protagonist? Why cannot we put him in bikini armor?

I exaggerated a bit with the "two swings" part. I meant that the barbarian that is depicted in most RPG's is very unrealistic. With that amount of muscle you would not have any endurance to last in a fight. If you increase your endurance to last in a fight, you wouldn't have that amount of muscle.

Think about the extremely strong people you know with endurance. They don't look like roid-heads, they are more like hockey players.

Of course, we are in a fantasy world, so maybe physics are different?

Borat style ?

You mean like a chainmail mankini?

very nice

There's always gonna be a person who says "well I don't like this" about a game and have conflicting preferences with other players. You cannot please everyone.

Yes exactly that

Pah My female lead will be wearing a turban and a mage robe since she will be a pure witch and my main man will be the walking tank!

Please give us both, sexy female armor and "realistic" ones. Maybe keep the skimpy ones as magic armor, if you really have to justify it.

pls dont make sexy armor you have a relistic gameplay (rain puts put fire)
bur no realistic armors, that would be bad and not believable. OF course they should look good on both genders but dont make it too unrealistic. like D2 or skyrim etc the armors are awesome in these games.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the bikini armor. I tend to prefer my fantasy games and art with scantily clad women with impractical fantasy armor and clothes. Does it make sense? No. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it looked fricken awesome.

But then again I've always been one to pick aesthetics over realism. I mean...sometimes I just don't want realism in my fantasy. How much fun would the game be if we had to take a piss every time we drank potions? Or if we needed to take showers to keep people from not talking to us, or sleep every so often or our characters pass out from exhaustion. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a game with these features I'm just saying at some points realism gets in the way. The point at which that happens is drastically different from person to person.

Some random smexy artworks.

http://www.wallpaper-source.com/wallpapers/Fantasy/53693_Fantasy_Fantasy_-_Women_Wallpaper.jpg
http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/...-world-fantasy-women-animated-433823.jpg
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30900000/fantasy-women-fantasy-30961826-700-525.jpg
http://membres.multimania.fr/skanlon/pictures/Luis_ROYO/royo2.jpg
http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/...n-masa-st-resmi-fantasy-woman-675795.jpg

Don't ask me why some of those links have weird phrases in them...because I'm afraid to know lol.

I fall more on the side of sexy armor as well. Doesn't have to be a bikini but I'd like to know that my character is a woman. Unrealistic but its a fantasy game so its already not realistic.
But what I'd like to see even more then sexy armor would be a simple toggle for hiding the helmet (like in ME1). That way picking hair and hair color will matter for more then the 2 mins it takes to find a helmet.

Funny thing is that in REAL world sexy clothes exist and are NOT unrealistic !
But indeed, it is inappropriate/unseemly wearing such sexy outfit starting a fight! Arrows can easely go through her body and kill her in an instant !

But so far in my life I play rpg's because I wish/want to be in "another world", in a world of wonders, fantasy and new journeys of fantastic events !
Such new dimentions in games make them for me addictive!

The "Perpetum Mobile" of Joy & Happyness of exploring again & again the Divinity Universum make my Day !

http://9gag.com/gag/6713261
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8
http://9gag.com/gag/5538797
http://9gag.com/gag/6596710
its exaggeration- for those who dont undetstand this
Of course they can look good or sexy but i think its kind of downgrading that man can have full armor protection and woman always show body parts. armor can still looking could without make it unrealistic.

That'd be the best compromise.

Just give both options and everyone is happy.

I'm more for the amror bikini too, but if other people are annoyed about it, give them the option to put on more clothes.

Copied from the KS-Site I am happy right now

Creator Larian Studios LLC on March 31
@Loranc: A lot of questions indeed
Difficulty levels aren't finalized yet, but we have some ideas.
Character customization screens aren't in yet, but I'm thinking we'll be doing something like the illusionist in Divinity 2 to handle a player dropping in in multiplayer who doesn't like the looks chosen by the other player (the host).
There will at the very least be the equivalent of gold dust, and I guess that once that's in, we could probably include ways to make paint out of transition metals Those would be good item combos. Still, that's not done yet either.

Female armor will be realistic.

Dragon Commander as an add-on perhaps once the pre-order campaign launches, which is going to be in a couple of weeks.
Party size is limited to 4 + whatever you summon
The experience split is something we're still fooling around with so no final decisions there yet.

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

When the restriction and rules that supposed to support freedom and rights on one group start to limit another and the first is completely blind and oblivious to it - there is clearly something wrong with the whole concept of it.

I hope you are happy, "offended", I hope it was worth it.

That poor artist, having to deal with the "harsh" criticism of unrealistic armour being called unrealistic.

You hope what was worth it? The cover art for the kickstarter was changed; nothing about the game was changed. What exactly are the horrible consequences that should make people regret voicing an opinion on the art and it being change so it wasn't ridiculous?

I didn't get a t-shirt in the kickstarter because it used the original cover art, and I would never wear it.
I know of a few people who almost didn't back the kickstarter because of the original cover art (that being the immediate representation of the game on kickstarter). I doubt anyone looked at the updated art and didn't back because they couldn't see a bare belly (and arms, neck and cleavage, which the artist failed to mention in that post).

I believe in a lot of freedom, and I can see the chainmail bikini as a way of characterising an established concept of feminine that may be as unpleasant to many as Conan in supertight maille swimming trunks would be to me. The artwork would mostly be limited to people who like that expression, or find it bearable (irrelevant/tolerable).

My own tolerance for it (and my ability to enjoy cool images with lots of flow, action and zest) would be greatly increased if the context was an artwork where the rest of the art was similarly geared towards style over realism. (IE. Nobody significant wears armour that's plainly functional, unless exceptional plainness is part of that character's function; Greg the incredibly dull and responsible guy who just dons the plate and gets on with it.)

Some people bring up Conan. Sexualised? Maybe. Sexist portrayal of armour? No. Unarmoured. (I mentioned metal trunks, as the equivalent of bikini armour.) <EDIT> As I recall, Conan is sortof "adult" and sexualised through and through; so that's another thing - in that artwork the baring of skin isn't necessarily particular to genders.

In a world where all the men don practical equipment that protects most of their bodies, it seems way out of place when the highest order of armour a woman will wear hardly amounts to more than a chastity belt.

I'm not very uncomfortable playing such games, although I think it is because I am spared the men donning battle-speedos and going to war (perhaps with right shoulder, half the chest and one nipple protected as well, to draw extra attention to the unprotected heart, man-chest and nipple). I get the impression that people overlook the extent to which the females are portrayed as sex-bombs rather than fighters.

I wouldn't object to the existence artwork featuring males in armour modeled on actual provocative clothing (not merely scant), but I'd probably feel something turning in my belly and play another game. (The closest thing I've seen is the toned, glistening football-stars looming in their skintight boxers on posters around the city, or brown painted sex-dudes on Paradise Hotel adverts; they're actually somewhat sickening.)

I don't think there are many sexualised male warriors in fantasy that compare to the typical stylized warrior woman (provocative and useless armour). And we don't seem to mind the more common male stereotype of badass (butch unarmoured, or ironclad impractical yet protected).

Preemtive: I'm not saying Divinity was that bad; I haven't even seen the original cover art. I take this to be a more general discussion, especially with the deviantart entry complaining about a general movement against these stereotypes.

I think it is good to remind game makers that there are players who would like to play their game without being sexually assaulted by the art. (Many of us identify so strongly with our gender that we react to the way our gender is portrayed. So I gather anyway, and so do I.) Because it might prompt some of them to delve earnestly and enthusiastically into something that suits more/other players, because they might produce new flavours of game.

I wouldn't go much further than that, though. If they still want to draw their battle-babes, they might draw some really cool battle-babes that I'd like to see in action. These characters can be expressive, although I understand that (superexaggeration underway) having bare bellies and sexy attire being a feature of all women in a setting regardless of their circumstances and intentions (dating, dancing, fighting, travelling, conducting meetings with politicians, leading armies) suggests, possibly in a demeaning way, that all women will/must show off their bodies; that this is a defining trait of women. (Since it is independent of anything but their being women.)

Men's attire tends to seem appropriate for the situation, although there is sometimes the aforementioned badassery to their armour (bulky addons, spikes and whatnot; perhaps akin to goth/punk/metal outfits in the real world).

Or they just wear their armour/battle attire (their near-nudity) all the time.

EDIT-Just a thought: The unarmoured male shows that he needs no armour. The silly-armoured female doesn't show quite the same thing.

Maybe there should be a button on the box that allows the purchaser to select the art work they feel most comfortable with
-
Then again if you give a choice will there be those who object to the choice that is allowed some people ?

Yeah, that poor artist happens to be part Larian team and have the userbase like "this" who sent threats over artistic expression.

I know few people who won't buy Dragon's Crown, for example, due to the fact they don't like the artwork. I never planned to buy it as well, because gameplay isn't my thing, but now, seeing how they reacted to backslash about Sorceress design and said directly into the face of "offended" "Fuck you" - I will buy the game. i will never play it, but I will support the developer. Because they deserve it.

That be a poor reason to spend money, but it be yer money so knock yerself out.

Seriously, if you don't like it, then don't buy it, don't use it, don't look at it and let it be unless it somehow presses itself into your life in a way you can't avoid it.

Which makes his objections to the change worse, not better. I would never take it as a personal affront to my freedom if my boss (in any job I've ever had) told me that my particular image/proposal could not be used unmodified to be the immediate representation of a product that the future of the company was dependant on.



Threatening messages would be wrong, regardless of the motivation. Since the artist in question did not accurately describe either the objections to the image or the image itself, I have very little confidence that the description of the reaction is accurate. For example, if you have a gaming website and choose not to cover a particular game because of the cover art (whether you think it is ridiculous, sexist, too childish, too gothic, etc), it is not "blackmail". You may miss out on some good titles that way, but if you have a ton of games to write about and limited time/space to do so, first impressions matter, and if a company chooses an inaccurate representation for their game (whether it be cover art or a trailer or demo), then they should expect the possibility of that causing problems.

A problem arises when they choose an accurate representation and the same outcome as you describe happens, while the product itself breaks no laws and is not adult-exclusive.

To repost my usual argument against the top standard defense for boob plates and bikini armors:

Magic doesn't exist. Humans and metal do.

So no, the realism argument is *NOT* invalid.

Go cry me a river.

I seriously worry about the state of the world these days. Its a sad day when the backlash over a piece of cover art causes a company to change it, they deemed it fine otherwise why would it have been used in the first place. The human form is a beautiful thing, look at all the renaissance sculptures from the likes of Michelangelo and Cellini.

People are fine with seeing totally naked pieces of art from the past yet have lost sight of what it means to be a piece of art these days. Games are an art form and a piece of fiction they are there to convey a world unlike our own. I would never want an artist to change their work because they are then trying to change something which fit naturally in the world they created. I may not agree with it but at least I know that is the artist's style.

Video games are attacked a lot yet looking at the film or theatre industry they are allowed freedoms that the games industry isn't. I have loved all the work by these talented individuals on both D:OS and Dragon Commander and I can't wait to receive my art book to see more amazing pieces. Keep up the excellent work.

I'm more concern about people blowing themselves up in crowds than complaining about art work on a pc game or developers feeling that have to change the art work but having said that I agree that it is a good thing to be concern about the state of the world.

I was getting at the overly, politically correct obsessed state of affairs we have now. They should just enjoy the hard work of others without seeing the need to complain over every little detail, I'm all for clamping down on racism and issues involving serious discrimination against sexuality, gender or religion but there has to be a point where it just reaches petty.

I know but the world is full of people and many people are easy going or moderate but when you have a gazillion people who can express an opinion there will always be at least one who can't tolerate something. The worse thing is that you don't really know why they are intolerant of some particular thing. They are just anonymous voices without backgrounds. They might be intolerant because they get a kick out of being intolerant or there might be something in their particular background to explain their expression.

However, once the opinion is voiced in a public fashion; a herd mentality will developed and frequently the reaction will be out of context. Ack Larian is sexist and disrespectful towards woman - ignoring the fact that many of the herd - if left on their own would not be voicing such agreement. They might not actually find the original art sexist (in context) or find it out of place on a game cover or even care about games in general. Rather they have joined the herd and march they must !

Was it a sad day when response to the keyword dialog system used in the pre-alpha builds (meant to keep the screen from becoming a wall of text) caused Larian to change that?
How about Larian redesigning the dialog system's dispute resolution rules, after people pointed out that a wizard may be weak but could still be intimidating? (intimidation up to that point being based entirely on strength)
I don't see how changing the cover art is different than any other change.

It differs based on the perceived reasons, be they real or otherwise, that led to the conclusion that the change was an act of censorship.

Me, I dislike the human form, I only like the internal complexity and am particularly fascinated by the brain, so I don't mind the change.

I do prefer decency over any other invokable factors around this discussion, and do find a gray area between decency and freedom of expression.

But it's probably just me having formed my principles my own way.

There should be a word for someone who deliberately attempts to affect something by using irrational accusations of sexism. Like Godwin's law or similar.

Whoa, talk about a straw man. Nude figures in (ancient/renaissance) art are created for totally different contexts. Try paintings and reliefs of battles as a proper comparison. Guess what, they wear armor of their time to protect themselves. Shocking concept, I know.

It's kinda hard not to notice when person A is in wearing protective armour covering every part of them but their head, and Person B is wearing a tiny bit of armour leaving most of their vital organs exposed.

Sexist may not be the right word for it, but there's absolutely NOTHING at all wrong, Kein, with pointing out that hey, there's a discrepancy here.

If the women are dressed like Red Sonja and the men are dressed like Conan, that's fine. It's when the women are dressed like Red Sonja and the men are dressed like walking tanks that it appears that things are unbalanced.

"Waah waah waah artistic integrity, waaah waaah waaah censorship."

People are free to make art the way the want, but guess what? Other people are also free to disagree with that art. That's not censorship.

I am really, really sad and i just can't stress enough the really part, to see this discussion about armors. The whole topic just makes me sad.

People seem to be mostly divided in two groups the pro-bikini and anti-bikini, with a few individuals in between.

With the anti-bikini people mostly raging when there's artwork that's not to their liking with threats of withdrawing their pledge and such.

It's project eternity all over again. There's a thread there of countless posts. And supposedly one of the most hot topics? (i really don't know what's going on there atm, i stoopped visiting the forums because of that thread) I mean, the most important part of the game is the armor for females?

And why there's no topics for male armors then? How they should look like etc? Male armor appearance can be ugly as long as it's not bikini?

Don't really think the one group can convince the other.

Myself, i'm with the pro bikini crowd.

Bullet point explanation

1. I like women looking like women and not dwarves with beards, suggesting that i appreciate armors for females to be more feminine.

2. I appreciate realism and historical accuracy but this is a fantasy setting, not everything has to be absolutely realistic, it's not Rome Total War with a Roman soldier wear bikini armor. If i like a certain design, i just like it and as long as it makes sense for the setting it belongs to, and i mean no lightsabers in a mediaval based setting, i have no problems

3. As Raze said, quote follows below, theres people actually not backing or even withdrawing pledges for the sake of bikini armor.
I don't see pro bikini people react like that.



I am one of those that didn't back project eternity due to this rage coming up about bikini armors and the whole artwork style.

I only did back it very later begrudingly so, well after the kickstarter has ended.

My answer would be. If possible, make a few options for pro bikinis, a few options for anti bikinis and the rest in between. When i say few could be 1 - 2 i don't know. Depends on the workload

Or just let the artists do the art they like.

Save the boob plate

PS. I just noticed the cover artwork change *heavy sigh*
While i do like the new looks better, i can't help but to think this was an act of censorship

Personally I much prefer ladies in heavy armor. I prefer it this way for many reasons... Aesthetics, equality, fresh change from tired tropes and cliche's.

Now this might be counter to some of the outcry of the controversy... But I like a lady in full armor. Personally I find that more attractive than the striperrific (and I don't mean that in a mean way) outfits that most games put their women into now adays and I feel that . I've just become so insensitized that most of the "tittilation" is lost on me. So if the skimpy armor isn't attractive to me I am left to judge the outfit based on its merits. When I do this I have to ask myself...

Does the outfit fit the character? How does the outfit hold up without the tittilation? How do the outfits look compared to the male characters?

Most of the time I have to answer no. Skimpy character designs are largely boring. Everyone has the same design and there are only so many ways you can draw a bikini on a character before it gets boring. At least with armor you can design and decorate it in so many different ways that it is hard to get bored.

Now I can't comment on Larian's design as the game isn't out yet and we have had a limited pool of npc's seen... But from what I can see I didn't really like the design. It was rather ridiculous.

To sum up my feelings though... The artist has the right to make whatever he wants. However he is beholden to the company, who is beholden to its playerbase. If the company wants to appeal to a larger audience... (an audience that includes women probably sick to death of this kind of character design) then they will want to change the cover. If the artist doesn't want to do that its his right to find work somewhere that will let him express himself rather than where he is right there.

Personally I support the change because I like the change. I am sorry the artist doesn't feel the same and understand his distress.

I don't know of anyone who withdrew their pledge because of the cover art (after all, they had seen it before backing). The issue was people having the original artwork as the initial representation of the game, and then wondering if they needed to look into it any further if that was either the maturity level of the game or indicative of how woman would be portrayed.

For example, one person made a comment in the forum about liking the new design shortly after it was changed, and got some rather negative responses from the pro-bikini side. It actually made them second guess backing the game and wonder about the portrayal of women in the previous Divinity games. They emailed support to ask if the forum was usually so hostile and which design was more representative of the game (which got forwarded to me because support wasn't following the forum discussion closely). I responded to their concerns, and they were actually fine with the female warrior in DD starting off in pretty much a metal bikini since the male warrior started with gladiator style attire. Their main issue with the original artwork was the difference in designs, rather than the bikini armour itself.

The armour designs in the game were always realistic. That was part of the reason the cover art was changed. I'm sure modders will design some bikini armour, though (not that that would make a huge difference when the character is an inch high on screen).

I am really, really sad that it is still necessary.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell. A warrior wearing nothing but a bikini (or loincloth) only makes sense if said warrior is invulnerable and/or if that particular culture hasn't developed armor (or any real clothes, really) yet and/or if there are laws preventing one or both sexes (of for example a lower caste) from wearing protective gear.
*Chainmail* underwear (due to massive chafing) and boob plates (due to extremely counterproductive extreme lethality) only make sense if invulnerable and/or required by law.
Fantasy as a genre means that magic and made-up creatures exist, not that absolutely everything goes - at least not if you want the setting to be anything more than a pure joke that doesn't take itself seriously at all.


This is exactly the same argument as if one were to argue for form-fitting metal crotch guards with separate compartments for each crown jewel instead of only a nondescript bulge you have appropriate freedom in. You know, I also like my characters to look good, but form follows function, so I have nothing nice to say to that view of yours, especially phrased as it is.

Erm, yes, duh? I do assume you mean "plain-looking"? It can be ugly, but it doesn't have to be for either sex without leaving the realms of believability even one step behind, let alone miles and miles.
If you mean "silly spiky oversized mess" (armors *and* arms), then that shouldn't be there, either, but being silly without naked skin *is* less problematic than being such with all vital organs readily accessible, so people do naturally discuss it less, particularly when D:OS and especially P:E have been much less guilty of that to begin with.
And I always see people on your side throwing around barechested male characters in fiction as a justification for the objectification of the female form, but never do I see them arguing for the implementation of topless or even belly-free armors for men. Quite the opposite in fact; nothing but sneering disdain and mockery for such "gay" designs (fairly common in Asian works, where they are nevertheless still much rarer than the female equivalents) other than the Conan archetype. All we want is equality.

If you want nonsensical armor, than at the very least appropriately abysmal stats ought to reflect the design. Wanting to ogle eye candy yet refusing to live without überstats is exactly one thing: sexist.

Never. Kill it with fire.

Are people really named Shar ?
--

Normally i woudln't edit a message to place a note as follows but on reflection it occurred to me that my comment could be taken wrong hence this once in a lifetime disclaimer:

Btw Shar I have no problem with your post; it is fine and the comment is unrelated to your post itself so please don't take it that way.

I can think of at least two categories of people from which you could find people legally named that way.

There's a slope here which looks like it might be slippery. So I'll lower someone on a rope carefully a bit at a time until we find out the spot where it gets too slippery to walk on, the point where someone is going just too far.

Kein (or anyone else pro-bikini who wants to answer), if a woman dislikes the image of how women are portrayed in a game (eg. in bikini armour), is it okay for her to complain about it? To be clear: JUST complain - not "refuse to buy", not "demand a change", not "call for a boycott or ban", just complain on the developer's forums.

No problem but either way my name is not Shar. Just a random DnD related screenname i chose. I also had Shar herself as an avatar before i switched to the current one. Though you had me curious and i did a brief googling and there's actually people with Shar as a name.

Let me say once more that i prefer the new cover art more, the armor looks interesting, subtly feminine and generally on the spot.

Bikini armors aside, i can't understand why people have an issue with boob plates. Its not the medieval period. There were very few women to fight or wear armor back then. It was a man's thing.

To me it just sounds like you walk in a store that sells only women clothes and you have to pick something to wear. There was no necessity to fashion armor considering women.

If the society has developed in a way that does not resemble the middle ages and women are actually equal (and i don't think women were considered equal in middle ages) and women in military positions were a lot more commonplace then why there shouldn't be armors fashioned in a more female friendly way?

Bikini armour is an extreme case of female-specific armour (I wouldn't call it female-friendly armour), so taking the argument away from this extreme is at best going off on a tangent.

Female-friendly armour? Iron thong not good. Grokina no like! (I suppose.)So I'd be ok with chainmail bikinis if they represented the wearer's style/mode of clothing, provided a context where armours generally represent a wearer's style. Such a game might feature men and women in other unrealistic armours as well, unless it portrays all women (or even men) as ardent bikini-wearers.

There could also be "boob plates" in more realistic games. These would be held or used by idiots, actors/liveroleplayers and others who might prefer appearance over function.

In short: Save the boob plate for the right occasion.

<Clarification: By "I'd be ok" I mean "It wouldn't strike me as too odd", as I'm otherwise mostly ok with stuff to begin with.>

The correct answer here is yes. Anyone is entitled to complain about a product if they feel so inclined.

But those are not the women people generally have a problem with. Except for people who are knobs in general and probably treat everyone they come across like crap.

The problem is when you start encountering people who insist changing it to give you more options is "not good enough", or if pointing out more options already exist and nothing needs to be changed, start getting spiteful and demanding things be removed or they'll tell everyone you're a such and such who hate women.






And this is a prime example of the height of ridiculousness some people will go to, to see others conform to their personal beliefs. Anyone who purposefully equates the reaction of other customers to demands they view to be outlandish,[equates them] to the way the DEVELOPER portrays or treats women, aside from the patent absurdity of such a conflation, must have some kind of self-image issues floating about in their head.


And which point we arrive at the age old garbage headline of "The video game made me do it" that so many cling to, despite no real solid proof.

Without diving into the depths of this controversy once again, like has been touched on upon in the alpha discussion with Scarlet's heels, I would like to put down that I dislike an armor bikini far more than excessive armor because of the obviousness that this is impractical in the extreme.

Super heavy armor is also a bit annoying because of how cumbersome it is (which is why I have always appreciated how D&D has athletic skill check penalties and movement speed slows for heavy armor), but it's easier to err on the side of too much armor without triggering red flags in people like myself.

As such, I would also like a compromise between these two extremes and have some armor with some sex appeal for those inclined to such things, and some that's a bit more realistic, for those like me that prefer that. This of course won't work perfectly; the compromise would be a lot of time and effort for probably little return for the team.

As such, I think that ultimately the art team will have to decide which aesthetic they focus on while only having some things to suit others, I personally enjoy complete cover while avoiding the walking fortress look. It might be a bit impractical using more than chain armor or leather, but it's far less impractical than not wearing any armor over any organs (until reaching the fortress problem that is, where you could probably hardly maneuver).

Edit: I want to re-iterate that I'm making an aesthetic argument around the idea that I find things roughly being believable (in the world I know practically) is aesthetically appealing and gratifying. I'm not saying hardcore realism. Just in the realm of reasonable protection that makes some sense, however imperfect.

Women in leather bikini's are a pillar of the fantasy genre. Please don't change it.

Don't much care for the look of the armor in most cases, just want something realistic for an archer, though the image I have in my head will have to be something I make with the editor.

Artistically, I think that Kingdoms of Amalur got armour right, some examples below, more can be found at http://amalur.wikia.com/wiki/Finesse_Armor_Sets

Heavy:
http://86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924...of-amalur-reckoning-tilera-wallpaper.jpg

Medium:
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/01/Mass-Effect-3-in-Kingdoms-of-Amalur-3.jpg

Light:
http://www.oxmonline.com/files/u50071/kingdomslead.jpg
http://ap.ign.com/pictures/games/64688/14253.jpg

As Sin is supposed to be a very open Game how about having both and let people decide themself what they want to wear

Noting my previous post a few posts up, I find that this suggestion might just be the compromise most reasonable people could be happy with. Some of that armor is pretty sexy and unrealistic from boob slots, etc etc., but it's also full cover that allows suspension of disbelief at least in my case to wear that and not really mind.

So I think something like this might just be the way to go for appealing to the sexy crowd and the pragmatic/realistic crowd in equal measure. I would strongly encourage the art team to at least take a look through these.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/230230/discussions/0/540731690785708992/

Community (a better part of it) is working to bring things back to the game, instead of removing them. There is a lot of work ahead, but it's a start.

If you want a serious answer to this, "boob plate" simply doesn't work as armor and shows a gross misunderstanding of how armor works.

Here's an accurate explanation:

Lastly, real plate armor doesn't look anything like you imagine it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smythearmour2.jpg. It's far more barrel shaped than you imagine.


/thread


*Ask your mother / sister / close female friend about sports bras, binding and how easily bruised they are.

I prefer realism, with properly functional armor, as it aids immersion for me and helps me take my, and others' characters more seriously. We already have tons of RPGs with skimpy "protective" outfits for female characters. It's a trite design. We get it. Women have tits and skin. In the way of media, there's an abundance of erotica and pornography for that. I'd like media to tone down titillation.

However, that doesn't rule out doing what Neverwinter, and perhaps other games, do, which is that they allow characters to have a set of "casual" clothes, that they can switch to wearing, while simultaneously having a set of combat clothes equipped, whose stats are still in effect, even while casual clothes are displayed on the character. Non-combat clothes is a nice feature for roleplaying purposes, too.

The thing is, if you are going for realism, then women shouldn't even be out on the battlefield fighting to the equal ability of men in the first place. Hell, they should barely be able to move (for very long anyway) in the heaviest armor, which would require a level of strength and constitution in real life.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can suspend disbelief for that, you can suspend disbelief for skimpy female armors. They are both unrealistic IMO. The most realistic would be to prevent women from wearing heavy armor, or even doing any hand to hand combat, but games will pretty much always portray women as equal to men in all facets in games these days to be politically correct.

I'm happy enough to suspend my disbelief with that, though I never play as a female, so I don't have to as much.

Can women not work out somehow to reach a level of fitness such that they can carry 40-60 pounds of armor? I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe you. Especially being -barely able to move-. Might want to check those anatomical facts.

Edit: I thought I should note that I do know women do have trouble reaching the same levels of strength as other trained men, but as far as I know it's not so different such that combat isn't quite doable even in moderately heavy armor.

Hi YoungFreshNewbie,

I reckon you are mostly right and in the real world, women on average, peak slightly lower than men, in terms of strength. There is an additional issue - army equipment is designed with men in mind. Female veterans have voiced their annoyance that the shape of the armour doesn't actually sit quiet as well on their figures as it does on men (chafes, incorrectly balanced, tight in thighs etc. etc.)

These are however real-world issues.

I think that essentially a fantasy game has room to disbelieve this. Significantly because: "magic". Why can a waife-like girl lift 150 pounds of armour and gear? Because: Dragon-Blood (or whatever else - happy to think of Scarlett as Lilu from Fifth Element).

I wouldn't "protest", if "for lolz", there were a quest, where an elderly wizard has a guard comprised of buxom amazons with uber-magically enchanted nanokinis (think Princess Leia), because everything I've seen of Larian, is that this would be lighthearted and they wouldn't allow such a ripe opportunity for parody to slide.

I am also reminded that Annah from Planescape Torment was wearing exceptionally revealing armour, and did not struggle in her fights in the Hells.

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120814034446/torment/images/b/ba/Annah_Front_%26_Back.jpg

Should Annah have worn more? Absolutely not. Because artistically the design corresponded to her characterisation (tiefling rogue), fit the style of the setting. I can't think of Annah for example, covered in all black like a ninja, though it might seem practical to me as a person in the real world, from the perspective of my character experience in Sigil, the ninja would stand out as weird.

For specifically medieval fantasy, what I am delighted Larian have absolutely no track record of, is the sexualisation of women for the purpose of boosting sales to a particular demographic, e.g. Kingdom Under Fire 2 (South Korean MMORPG)
Male:
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/856/856476/kingdom-under-fire-ii-20080303031840968_640w.jpg

Female:
http://me.ign.com/pictures/games/14231226/24085.jpg


I hope that Larian above all, remains true to their artistic vision and style.

Who says men are stronger than women? My woman bested the village blacksmith when she was fifteen, and killed her first man less than a year later. The world sickens, and needs a woman's strong hand to restore it.

If you think that women are weak, you better hope that you stay anonymous online, otherwise, I'm sure someone will be willing to shove your words down your throat.

Men and Women are physically built differently than each other, and there are also hormonal difference and differences related to muscle growth. You will ALWAYS find exceptions to the norm, outliers on the curve, but to construe that as some across the board fact of life that an average woman is just as strong as(or stronger than) an average male is disingenuous, and so is the way your reply assumes the poster was attempting to call women "weak".

It would be no better than someone trying to extrapolate the average man is a weakling because their male friends all happen to be weak.

But more to the point, and returning to the topic at hand. Whatever happened to "the empowered woman" being able to decide she likes to dress provocatively or show off her body?

Canned "women have just been conditioned by the patriarchy to think that way" response incoming.....

But in all technicality, the poster was calling women weak (also, my first sentence was a quote from Divine Divinity Female Warrior). Not allowing women to participate in hand to hand combat? Or even wear armor? Saying that that's realistic? That's indicative of some backwoods thinking that women are only for fucking. I'm not going to let this conservative dumbass put women down like that.

While I do think we've derailed quite far from the more reasonable/arguable opinions in the last many posts, I do agree that many of the immediately previous posts have done nothing but play up the outrageous extreme opinions nobody with half a brain holds. Nobody reasonable takes "patriarchy-smashers" or misogynists seriously.

We should probably just move back to the more interesting debates of practicality/suspension of disbelief/aesthetic preference and how it relates to the enjoyment of the game. I have enough faith in Larian to not fall into sexist fallacies with their portrayal of characters, so there's really no need to even go here.

I only say this to point out that derailing this thread could end up locking it or purging it before it's run its course. It would be a shame to see that.

On topic, I liked Dragon Age: Origin's heavy sets best, though they are unrealistic in many ways (I'm sure armor specialists can point out a load of things), they are still aesthetically pleasing while avoiding all the typical annoyances (boobplate, high heels,...) one tends to find in "generic" fantasy settings.

Like this one (can't find a full body shot right now):



That said, D:OS has quite a different graphical style from DA:O...

2 armors

That image above... It's decent. I mean, in practicality, that's a stab in the heart away from being totally useless. But it's better than the armor bikini that 'protects more' than some leather armor.

:p

Fuck this discussion.

How is this different:


From this:


Leave the artists alone!!! Don't like their artwork. Don't play their games!

This.

also;

@DarthDavy: If you're not interested in discussion on the topic that Larian itself asked about, why bother joining it at all?

Another major issue you have is the fallacious assumption that because one character in one game is not heavily clothed somehow means men are on the same grounds as women when it comes to gaming. That's just ridiculous to think a single example represents a huge multitude.

I could post many pictures where women are virtually naked and men are fully armored in the same gear. That doesn't mean all games are sexist/sexualizing either.

"Fuck this discussion" is right. You can't even begin to discuss or argue by the looks of it.

To put it briefly, let the people who actually care and can argue reasonably on the matter do so, and see yourself out if all you can do is throw out bullshit arguments and an insult to all those who do care about this subject.

To be honest, If I were playing as a female character, I would like to have my character be able to look as cool as the male characters. I really like the work that artists do on male character armor and clothing. Generally they all look decked out in metal with lots of weird little additions to their armor, extra plates here and there, and things like that. But then you look at armor bikini... and... well it's just not the same. I don't mind that it exists, but I definitely would like the option of having a few sets that had 'walking tank' like styles to them.

Technical and practical assumptions aside, this is still a fantasy game, and should include some more choices if people want them, it shouldn't really be an 'either/or' part of the game.

I personally don't find appeal in the whole 'strip of clothing' armor that 'protects' as much as the male character's heavy armor. But, whatever floats your boat.

Here is an example of some 'decent' women armor art from the SPMMO 'Guild Wars'

This is of the 'warrior' profession: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Warrior_armor

Yes, women in this game are more 'slight' than their male counterparts, and so the armor isn't the same, but you have a variety of elite armor to choose from, which, to me, makes the female version of the class playable. Again, I don't really like any of the armor that 'shows skin', I like people covered up to the brim in protective padding.

But then you have the 'elementalist' profession: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Elementalist_armor

The women, It's practically all like short skirts and panties. Which I personally don't appreciate, which, kind of keeps me away from playing that class at all (and I don't even play the male, because I dislike their dance emote).

But that's just an example of a game that kind of includes quite a bit of diversity in their armor art, which is what I think this game should be able to do. I just happen to like full cover body armor.

You're right. Why did I post in the first place?

Oh right, because I find it lame this discussion is still going on for a Larian game. There are clearly more sexist games out there where all of you social reformers can have a blast (Tera, that kingdom under fire game, mods for skyrim, oh think about those mods for skyrim,...).

Yes, there is sexism in games. And a lot of it. Does Larian deserves this crusade? No, I don't think so.

And my opinion on the matter is that the artwork of the armor bikini should have stayed where it was and not changed. I really think Swen made a wrong choice of asking his artist to change the artwork. It only fuelled this discussion.

You know why this discussion is worthless. It's because you think are right of your opinion and I think I am right on my opinion. It's like having a discussion with a vegetarian to eat meat! It's useless. It's a choice, it's a point of view.

And that's why I think the armored bikini should have stayed where it was. It was the artist's choice, the artist's opinion in the first place. But changing it brought this all to this.

Now it's not about the armor bikini anymore. It's now about the fact they changed the armor bikini the front runners who were against the armor bikini think they are in their right mind to get all the sexism out of games, which is ridicolous because D:OS wasn't sexist in the first place! Certainly not comparing to a lot of other games out there.

Like I was saying earlier, that's why I was trying to steer it back to topics that DID matter. That is to say, a good compromise between the viewpoints or a way to incorporate both.

I have also elsewhere noted that making a sexism argument instead of an aesthetic argument is never going to get anywhere. What this topic can and should be doing is figuring out a way to aesthetically please the majority of the community.

Throwing out insults discredits your more constructive and meaningful opinions you just posted above. You're right that some of it should not have happened, but not all parts of this discussion are useless.

I wish you had just started by saying why you found it useless. Would've been a conversation we could've started on better terms. I hope you see my side at least that there -could- be potential for conversation here, even if it's not meeting it atm.

Now-now, be careful with logic and common sense.

You are talking to people who did rather change the world instead of changing themselves. Because apparently this world exist only for them :3

I concur. I was pretty harsh with my comments. For that I apologize. There are more civilized ways to express my opinion.

Either way, I also agree Larian could and should accommodate all point of views. There should be an armor bikini and there should be a walking tank. Certainly in a RPG are options fine. More options, better game.

However, my frustration is that the artwork was changed. That frustration can't be changed anymore, but I shouldn't have vented it. Anyway, I have my revenge nonetheless, because I own D:OS publicity (posters) with the original artwork (so the armor bikini).

You have to understand I dont wish to be rude at all, but in the first games Larian made they were sensible about "female" armor, and now i see bikini bras and tit breast plates. Here is a article every one should read! http://dungeonsandcaverns.blogspot.ro/2013/04/the-problem-with-women-in-fantasy-art.html
Here is another referance
And another Need I say more?
Well here is one more article to sort the issue Please read that article Larian! http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.ro/2012/01/character-design-style-of-substance.html

The main note of the day There is a BIG difference between defense and distraction! And monster and hard enemies don't give a damn about distraction!

You mean you managed to miss title scree/cover art with almost naked pretty angel?Consider goggles :3

Mate the look of the armor on females in divine divinity and beyond was hardly different from that of the men, you must be mistaking the way the unarmored fighter looks in the divine divinity hero selection. But put her in armor and she looks battle ready!
I would like to see female warriors looking like this
And if this isnt evocative enough not even mages or rogues would be suicidal enough to wear inadequate attire!
Here is one more dragon age image,
dragon age did things right
If you need more proper examples here is Joan of Arc
And one more thing, Larian changed the title screen art for Divinity Original sin because it looked sexist! Well why in gods name is the in game armor sexist! I dont want arrows and swords in my female party members chest, nor do I want every one else staring at her. Seriously Larian!
And now for the most recent female armor that is practical fellow game developer Aterdux Now that is a proper female ranger!

Dragon Age didn't do things right in my opinion but whtever. Too freaking over the top.

Hey even Riot who makes the most booby women in games bothered to make one of their heroines a set of sensible armor im referring to Sejuani. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/04/thank-you-lols-sejuani-gets-sensible-redesign/

So come on Larian get serious make us some nice proper female armor we are tired of the fantasy bs!

I much prefer Armored Bikini as being more realistic and visually pleasing than full plate which the chestpiece alone from Divine Divinity weighed 300 pounds in game. What a load!

It weighed '300 units', who knows how much it actually weighed. Your boots could weigh 120 pounds if you go by that

We have an official speaker for the whole community. Isn't that amazing.

Honestly bro don't We the gaming community have enough stupid mmo's that do this? Must we have it in a quality rpg that wants to be special? No you all either want women to look like you could screw them at any moment of the day even on the battle field, or you could use them as a real meat shield.
Pardon me for being harsh but in my mind this is cruel to women, who won't be able to even look at their character and its cruel that developers even pander to gamers who are so obsessed they HAVE to have this as a feature.
You consider this is apropriate ??? Do you pity the game does not show you how brutal a death this sort of "heroine" would meet!
I may never even make a female hero for my party in DOS, or even allow one to join unless Larian bothers to at least make a few appropriate female outfits! But the fact they did not consider making armor look like armor on women from the start worries me. NUFF SAID!

I forget ofc that is hard to make everyone happy, but im my mind and I am sure im not alone there is a sheer lack of proper fantasy armor for women!

Does any one remember this game?
Probably not since every one forgot how to make proper female armor when mmo's made fantasy bimbo armor so damn popular.

Calm down a little bit

My two cents to this Topic:

I often read arguments about "realism" (regarding to weight and how armor work). Keep in mind this is a game. Even if you keep "magic" aside, there ere lot "unrealistic" behaviors. For excample, there are no ugly people or even people of different age ...
All citizens of ceicile are mid-aged, with an estimated "perfect" body (no handicaps, not to heavy ...)

A game world is a idealized world, cause of lack of money/time, they is far away from being realistic, arguing with realism is a little bit weird

"Correct" Female armor is (imho) more a matter of style/expectations. If i run through the deepest forest or coldest mountains, would i expect a woman dressed in underwear and stilettos? (I know there there are pictures to prof it's possible, but i think it's rather unusual :D)

If a game (especially the content-less modern MMO) advertise with such Girl-Images, everybody know why. even if you have such armor Ingame it's more ore less worthless, cause a good player choose the gear by stats not by look. So it's simply an eyecandy.

If i want to see "eyecandies" dressed in underwear (or even without this) in HighRes and with a high PolygonCount, i know better sources than rpg-games :p (mostly without sexism-debates...)

So in conclusion: the style of the (Fe)Male-Armor should match into the scenario and to the expectations. DOS doing an already good job in this. At least with the last Alpha Release the armor looks very identify-able (you can identify the difference between plate, leather, cloth and a heavy armored gear is identify-able from a long distance) to me. Only the stilettos are a little bit weird :p

PS: i didn't even notice the differense in the Loading screen (even with the started debate here). Only after someone pointed to the detail i get it. So don't count to much on this topic ...

You, "gaming community", has the choice to ignore stuff you don't like. Just like everyone else, every normal human being.


The fact that you don't like something means only that you don't like something. Simple as that.

I appreciate your reasoning mate, I can live and let live if people want some pure fantasy metal bikini fine, but at least have some reasonable outfits for people who want them. This is my biggest fear...
I personally would like to see armor more like this
Or have a mage like this I want to play a evil knight protecting a equally evil witch, and if Larian made a set of cloths like this id be extremely happy. I could hardly find any female mage pics that didnt look overly sexualized

@Marius Voinescu: please put your images in boxes (or spoiler tags) your text is hard to read, cause of the jumping text-line



This leads to another endless discussion, like the one why nearly any fantasy female warrior looking like a barbie who would nearly unable to lift the long two-hand sword...



Your Picture shows the central point of this topic: in a fantasy game, there is no relation between the appearance/shape/material of an (so called) armor and its stats. To make it extream, there could easily be an "invisible unbreakable armor" (make a picture your own :D) in the game and its just "fine" in "fantasy logic"-way. It simply "magic".

As soon as this fact is accepted, there appearance/look of an armor is only choosen by the designer for some reasons. This leads to the question what reasons are meet by "armor design":

• Primary target for (ingame) Bikini-Armors (and the only reasons why my "invisible unbreakable armor" would never happen are prudish american market ;)) are young boys. I can't figure out another target. In all RPGs i know, you see your character from above (isometric like fallout, BG2, JA2), from behind (third person like wow, and all other grinders...) or never, cause its an first person view (like oblivion). So in the best case (3rd person) you see the naked back and butt ... all the time (during fight)... very uhm ... don't know, i don't get it.
  
  I think it's simply the old way of owning a pretty nice/sexy looking doll.
  
  In DOS the Characters are not that present (iso-view, multiple characters under player control) and not that high polished (low polygon-count) so i think we can rule out this point for DOS.
• A main goal for handing out Armor (and any other item) to the player is: be a reward. If any armor in the game is a bikini armor, you only have a few options to make a difference. As written above, in real you have no chance to make a difference, cause the player is unable to see the armor. But if you have the "full body armor" aka "walking tank" you can make a difference and the new item can look a lot more different than the old one.
  
  Additionally: if there are a few count of bikini armors in the game, it's completely vice versa. Like in reality, then you have your "special dress for the special moment"
• But (imho) the most important reason for armors are: show progression. In a good RPG you can face an character and easily predict what level he has, what kind of armor stats to expect and simply answer the question (pvp): I'am able to stand my ground or should i run?
  
  With Bikini Armors "in mind", the question might be another on, but at the end you're unable the notice any progress. From the distance the characters looks always the same: naked

Feel free to mod the game, then, it is very open to modding.

Ok fine make the armor fantasy but make it fair, make the men look naked to!
And if you want real examples of good fantasy armor for women here are some more.


My best and imba argument is that even in a fantasy setting armor must protect the body not make you look like a naked fool! I understand progression and even having low level armor look silly is just bad! And spare me the nonsense about invisible armor, or magic. If magic would be so strong armor would be irrelevant.

At least if Larian really reads all these posts they would see some proper images of fantasy armor and get creative not follow the normal trends in video games

Larian has already chosen a different way. Ingame (playing the alpha) the (female) armor style looks quite realistic and descent

Like they had a choice with all of this crap. So much for development freedom. I'm eagerly awaiting what will be next target.

Hum. Amusing.

Magical clothing items, such a bikini in the case of this topic, provide far greater protection than any physically tough shielding. Doesn't matter if you somehow manage to get armor as tough as a five foot thick titanium wall, magic-based protection always trumps BS armor.

Beyond that you also get a far better game experience with normal clothing instead of walking cans....oh look another wannabe can, let me cook it for a bit.

Let there be bikini.

And I say let there be scrubs who enjoy seeing naked people and don't know what fashion in cloth, leather and steel is!
Seriously!
As Scar said "I am surrounded by idiots"

I am flattered that your opinion of me is so high. I shall continue to think on my life and how I can improve it to best fit your opinion of how it should be.

Sarcasm aside your sense of fashion seems to be completely off I fear.

Your are not very good in accepting other opinions, aren't you?


If i get it right, the initial pressure comes from the medias not from the users. Additionally there is no such thing as "development freedom" as long as you want to sell the software ...

@Raptor I will be very honest with you in the form of a question.
And the question is "Is any one capable of accepting others opinions in a subject where he/she believes only their ideas are valid?"
In this subject of fantasy armor, I personally believe at least some practicality and good fashion and decency is needed to make the heroine/hero capable of fighting a battle against what ever odds.

Now I will not in any way, claim mine is the ultimate truth. NO! Any one and every one is free to believe as they like, and the developers job is a hard one since they have to try and please all their fans. That ofc is always hard, however in this case all Larian needs to do is make the armors not to over top, not to skimpy and not overly heavy regardless of material.

Now what I have seen thus far in terms of armor for females and males a bit leads me to believe the armors are in my mind much to skimpy.
Now I would like to politely ask all of you great fans of Larian to nicely post one or two pictures here in the thread to prove me wrong. Please [i][/i]

@Raptor: You are very right in saying development freedom is not really a thing when profits must be made. They cannot do very many things that might be fun and fulfilling to create if they simply won't sell. As such, no moral or sexism argument can really make this decision for them if they wish to make a profit upon a game that will be good regardless of the armor art styles.

That being said, there is a way to find a balance between their personal choices as a company, the requests of their fans, and the needs they must fulfill to sell to the mass market beyond their hardcore fans (usually this is where things become more problematic, imo, and why smaller budget games for a fanbase might be the most consistent and least sacrificial method).

I think we can probably all be happy/charitable about the art so long as we are not seeing the two extremes of near-nakedness and walking castle, and let them decide further at this point what they need to do to sell their game. I just want to avoid the high heels and bikini armor, since I think it looks ridiculous and doesn't fit with my conception of an adventuring woman at all (i.e. it actively rips me out of taking her seriously as a character). If I don't have to wear that, I can deal with armor showing off more skin than is healthy practically.

Compared to 99% of the games out there they did it very right.

Of course *real* armor (male and female) would look pretty bland compared to even the plainest of game armors (well, except when it's a parade set I guess). And full plate wasn't usually worn on foot either, especially not if one was planning on hiking many kilometers like adventurers generally do.

No one bothered to post anything

Well 90% of what I play right now is Skyrim, and they choose, more or less, to make it more realistic. Honestly I would feel pretty weird if the female versions of armor became bikini's. Granted, the modders took care of that problem.

Here's some images I took that I like.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/047/5/d/screenshot59_by_burhenn63-d5v749i.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/065/1/f/myrna_05_by_burhenn63-d5x5j7s.jpg

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/065/8/6/myrna_02_by_burhenn63-d5x5hg3.jpg

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/065/3/c/myrna_by_burhenn63-d5x5163.jpg

I'll also add that I loved DA:O's versions of the armors and thought they did an excellent job with the armors.

Here are some screenshots from steam D:OS page (sorry I do not have the time right now to do my own screenshots):

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=223116240

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=219550402

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=219155721

So far, I have not seen any chainmail bikini armor in the game at all (except for zandalor underwears^^)

Ok that's fair enough, I actually like those pictures, they are not that hd but they are fine

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thread.

That said, are you suggesting that revealing armour is an important sales point for a majority of people out there? Are there really that many people out there who think: "This is a pretty good game, but the women don't show enough skin, so I won't buy it."? I don't think so. There's a reason it's called eye candy - it's nice to look at (not for everyone, of course, especially people like you and me who prefer immersion), but nobody would not buy a good game because of that.

Revealing armour in box art and promotional stuff naturally gets more attention, but that's a different matter.

And lastly, I fully expect full plate armour to look like a walking castle - not as over the top as in the first post here, because that suggests armour half a meter thick, but definitely bulky, even on a woman. I can't imagine anyone designing lighter armour like a leather or chain mail shirt to look bulky, so I wouldn't expect a castle there.

My hope is that robes and other mage-y outfits aren't overly sexy, at least not exclusively. I prefer playing wizards, mages and other magic users and some games don't leave me any choice but to leave my female characters half naked. On the other hand, I hope they don't have only robes - This video makes a good case. Just consider his usage of the word gay as a synonym for gaudy.

That said (plus my post from above) I simply don't understand why most RPGs (or MMOs/asia grinder out there) show female armor as "very tiny" lingerie.

The only reason I can suggest is, the Developer/Publisher expect that this fact boost the sell-count.

Short side story: It seems there are right with this expectation. For the Female Caracters in Warface (booring FPS from Crytek) was "Sexualized" after listening to the target audience (Source: PCGamer

As the pictures shows, DOS goes a very realistic looking way ...

I don't know, there is only one reason I bought Champions of Norrath for the PS2. ... ... ... Ok, maybe there were two reasons.

I like eye-candy for eye-candy's sake. I like Boris and Royo art, etc. But if I am actually role-playing ... no, I just really don't want the eye-candy there.

Well, yeah, since art is practically 100 % dependent on its "graphics", people enjoy pieces of art for their visuals.

Games, though ... There's thousands out there for people who just want to see half-naked women, and I like to think that people who are interested in RPGs are above that. I might be a bit naïve.

A piece of steel to protect the chest used to be pretty expensive, as well as well made weapons. So, if you consider this fact, it would be pretty common both lowborn male and female warriors and adventurers to have a few parts of armor to protect themselves, while a noble and rich people would be able to afford a full plate armor. Also, armors are made of many diferent layers of diferent materials.

This is a fantasy game, but that concept would explain the "bikini armors"...

maybe, if characters could have an extra slot to equip clothes of diferent kinds that would show beneth the armor... so you could have cloth and chainmails under the armor or take it out to show the female character's atributes.

A good example of that idea is Neverwinter (online). I don't know if its something easy and viable to make, but surely would please both publics.

There are quite a few games that do away with the bland stereotype of female fantasy armor. One of these I would like to mention is the in development Sui Generis that features a dynamic aiming and combat system, if you look at their latest trailer you will see that the female protagonist have some well made armor and apparel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOzmyED5qA

Bikini armour shows bare skin, especially cleavage and the belly. Both of these regions would be protected at least marginally by even the most destitute warrior, if only by pieces of leather or cloth. Most vital organs are in that region, so why would anyone with any kind of sense leave them unprotected? And yes, people of the time probably would've known that a hit in the stomach or chest was bad.

This is probably more fantasy than reality, but a poor warrior would probably scavenge for bits he could use and at least bolt some metal parts on a vest. Bare skin is just a complete no-go in any kind of setting that doesn't want to rely on titillation.

Now here is someone speaking with sense, thank god! Who ever came up with fantasy female "armor" be damned!

you tell that to roman gladiators... they had some leather straps with metal parts to protect the heart and sometimes the shoulder or an arm so it could not be easily be crippled and unnable to wield its weapon... and loincloth...



my point is exactly that... one must protect itself with whatever he can afford, be it shopping or scavenging or running or whatever... but really, would you expect to scavenge a full matching armor not worn out? considering the guy wearing it died with a blow that didn't hit the armor at all, it could happen... but not all armors might fit every type of warrior... right? (consider height, weight and strength)

just to make it clear: i don't defend bikini armors... but as I have stated and you apprently agreed, pieces of armor to protect vital parts is not the problem, but what is underneath... be it cloth, leather, chainmail or skin

Gladiators did it for show, not because it was a good idea. Actual Roman soldiers wore actual armour and hid behind shields.



I never talked about scavenging a full and fitting suit of armour, I talked about scavenging bits and pieces, as one does. I can pretty much guarantee you, though, that nobody in the history of ever thought exposing ones belly or cleavage was good sense when it came to protecting themselves. Also, you apparently don't consider those parts vital, but they are.

Even going into combat with unprotected hands or feet can be a very bad idea. Because obviously if your hands get smashed you wont be able to hold a weapon to fight and defend with, and if your feet break you wont be able to walk or run.

One could rely on a sword's guard for example to protect the hands and aside from feet usually being protected by some sort of footwear, it's actually not that easy to hit them in the first place. Arms and legs on the other hand...

gladiator did it for show, but it proves battles can be fought without armor and people can actually survive... and sometimes lead a rebelion against fully armored armies and actually win those battles...

yeah, I know you didn't talk about scavenging a whole armor... maybe I expressed myself rather confusing... let me put it in another way:

what I tried to say is even if you find a not damaged piece of armor, maybe it can't fit one's current pieces or the body at all... making scavenging rather difficult

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

Its development began at a time period when the need for a lighter and faster sword became mandatory thanks to the introduction of firearm use in warfare .[4] Throughout the 16th century, a variety of new, single-handed civilian weapons were being developed, including the German Rapier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier

London 2012 Olympic female final, individual foil, to get a flavor of why armor isn't so important (aim is - scary fast):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwGoYcLqkJ0


As gunpowder weapons improved, it became cheaper and more effective to have groups of unarmored men with early guns than to have expensive knights, which caused armor to be largely discarded. Cavalry units continued to use armor for longer. Example include the German Reiter, Polish heavy hussars and the back and breast worn by heavy cavalry units during the Napoleonic wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor#Gunpowder_era

(Hint: the flare spell is your crude musket approximation)


And lastly, please:

Gladiators rarely fought to the death (they were expensive to train) and each pair had armor / weapon sets that "complemented" each other in opposition. i.e. heavier armor + gladius vrs net + trident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius).


Elizabeth I in full plate (accurate historical replication of the type, however in reality she never wore armor):

http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/13_05/boob-armor2.jpg

Issyk Warrior-Priestess (Siberia, 3rd or 4th C BC):

http://www.csen.org/WomenWarriors/ww.issyk.pr.html

http://archive.archaeology.org/9709/abstracts/gold.html

Female gladiators (they are comparitively heavily armored compared to most gladiators, and use large shields, aka a scutum):

http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/images/gladiatrices.jpg

http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/gladiators/female-gladiators.htm

And, for some fun:

In 1467, Hans Talhoffer wrote his Fechtbuch giving illustrated instructions on how duels with a great variety of weapons should be fought. One section deals with combats between a man a woman. R. Coltman Clephan, following R.L Pearsall, reports that, while these were rare in Germany after about 1200, a number of illustrations refer to them. The set-up pictured by Talhoffer is common, but not universal. Apparently, they were most common between husband and wife (because otherwise she would have less trouble finding a champion?) Talhoffer presents his isntructions without special comment, and his advice applies to both combatants. He gives two different versions of a fight, one with the man victorious, one with the woman winning...

Here she has grabbed by the neck and by his member and wishes to drag him out of the hole.

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman_files/fecht9.jpg << Member grab, looks fatal.

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman.htm


TL;DR

History: IT ISN'T ALIENS! and gender disparity in armors are pretty much ahistorical across the board. Oh, and if we're being accurate, our brave source hunters would have terrible teeth, be covered in mud and probably had lice / fleas not to mention smelling badly. Realism, forward! (Even up to the end of the 19th C, outdoor garments in cities were constantly covered in mud in Europe / America)

I am personally for an option as a general rule.

For a role playing game, it really depends if you want realism vs. fantasy, but for me when I role play in games I like to be able to choose if I want gear called "Full Plate" to leave all my (virtual) vital organs unprotected or not.

Usually if I am a melee warrior wearing full plate, I prefer to at least have armor that would appear to serve some functional use, however that isn't to say it can't look nice.

However as a role playing game there are many that would prefer to have a character that looks nice and could care less about the "realism" of it.

Are we still talking about this? Let it *go* and focus on the problems the game has with its mechanics or storytelling. This is a non-issue compared tot he other ones (fro a game quality point of view, not a societal one).

Are we still talking about this?

Ah... no, actually. You bumped a topic that hadn't been active in a month.

That's what Larian were doing until "offended" brought this topic up.

Shocking, I know.

I vote that nothing is more protective than magical g-strings. Let there be parties.