Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 armour appearance

I'm in no way an expert on this, but if you're referring to medieval armor i believe it did look good way back when with its narrow waist and wide shoulders look, which is also how they depicted people in their art. Much like how greeks were really into simmetry, perfect proportions and peak physical condition, and that blended into armors having abs, nipples and all that.

You seem to forget that Larian needs to make money. That means keeping development cost within reason and releasing a product that the majority of people of the TARGET AUDIENCE will like/buy.

And no amount of philosophizing will change that. Welcome to the real world.

All variety of choice that is offered improves the worth of every option.

Probably 90%, if not more, of people will defend the tieflings, only a small % of people will actually kill them, but the existence of that choice makes it worth something in contrast, if the plot was railroaded for us to do what the majorirty would do, it would not be as satisfying. Same for options with appearence and aesthetics, your personal choice matters.

By the nature of the genre - RPG, it thrives when it offers unique niche options, otherwise, what is the point of a choice if the only choice that is offered is what majority would do anyway, you can just make a linear adventure game then with a set protagonist Tav with a vault dweller appearence.

PS. This logic in general is also just so funny to me.
-Hey, what kind of game do you want to see?
-The kind that will make money!

I don't think, that variety has to be expensive. There are a lot of nice looking armor models already in game, just not for our PC. I for example love Kaghas armor very much and some of the armor, that looks more like clothing, some of the tieflings wear. Give some dye options and some variants of existing armor and it would be a lot better.
Even for the more exclusive taste like that guy, that looked like the Loviathar priest, you have already armor models. So I'm theory a lot of different models for different tastes are already in the game, just not necessarily for the player.

Very true, there are some beautiful examples of armour throught history. I was thinking more about day to day armour that the average soldier could afford and maintain. If you want to outfit an army, I guess you want to keep the costs down as much as possible so no expensive filigree or gold etching. A lord or baron etc would absolutely most likely have gone for elaborate armour.

And giving a choice won't arm the sells. The point is choice, to every one. I don't like the current homogeny of armors or the fact that almost all forms of clothing recall moralistic ages, when in this years freedom of choice should be the driving motor.

The lack of choice and diversity in armor styles and dressing is even more obvious and blatant when you have different races with different cultures that wear the same identical clothes and style of armors. The only ones that have different armors are the Goblins.

Furthermore Larian build this games doing an improvement of the motor they used with their previous hit games, and in that games there was a lot more diversity, armors changed the aspect based on the race, elvens had a style that reminded their ties with forests, dawrfs have armors that recalled their being bulk and strong, the magistrates robes clearly reminded of their being a mix between a military and religious order, Lhose's armor clearly reflected her complicated nature and so on, that means that Larian already has the code needed to allow at least a little more of plasticity.

So too much male sex appeal? Lol

I'm teasing. No need to take it so serious. My problem is when people complain about exaggerated female attire that focuses on feminine traits gets heated up, but when male attire gets put into question they don't put masculine traits. They put the most feminine crap they could think of on a man. Very inconsistent.

No, it's not the most feminine crap, it's just the same, and it is very consistent. The equivalent of the revealing barbarian would be this:



And there is nothing wrong with either.

Except that this is also not armor. Remember the thread topic?

By game terminology it is, we even discuss robes here, we dicsuss the things that go into your torso slot, if you want to get pedantic about it.

Ok so returning to some of your original statements, would you put that bra on a male barbarian? You want armors to look the same right? I wouldn't. Thats part of being reasonable. You seem to have a huge bias to putting feminine traits on men so i'm curious.

Join my reasonable side. You cannot fight forever. Let it flow through you. We will be the buffest speedo wizards feyrun has ever seen.

No, and if we go to my earlier post you will see that the chest is bare and not with a bra on:



No, I want to see both. I want to see muscular male barbarians and muscular female barbarians, I want to see sexy female sorceresses and sexy male sorcerers.


It's not about reason, I just genuenly like both and find both aethetically pleasing without having double standards, it would make me happy to see both. My problem usually is that I want to play a feminine male character or a masculine female character and I can't, because the game doesn't allow me to do that.

Finally to the root.

I understood what you wanted from the get go. You kept trying to avoid saying it.

All I can say without spiraling into a very different topic, is that you can't have polar opposites be happy in the same space. You like to meld everything together and ignore that boundaries exists for a reason. Individuality I think is what you are missing in understanding. Harmony is an illusion. You can't please everyone because individuality exists.

Don't know if you will understand what I'm trying to say, but thats ok. I've had my fun. I'm done for now. The topic turned out funnier then I expected.

Barbarian don't where armor because thematically they're supposed to represent primal vitality, as opposed to knights who represent a 'civilized' warrior, defined by their armor.
By this turn they also don't where cold weather clothing because unlike the races who abandoned nature they haven't grown so soft to need such protection

It's not all about the beefcake factor.

What do you mean i tried to avoid it? Lol


That's why I made this topic, I wanted to see the amount of people that don't care vs amount of people that do one way or the other.


I understand.

Oh man, people overanalyzing things to the point where nothing makes sense anymore.

Ive said this in anothert thread. Conventional wisdom isnt wrong just because you can go down a rabbithole of explaining it away.

What most people consider "sexy" probably is, what most people consider "feminine" probably is. IF you need to explain why something is what you claim that it is, it probably isnt.

>Its not all about the beefcake factor
But it mostly is.
Down to ancient history and the romans discribing celtic gesetae that were young men in their prime fighting naked.

Public conception dabs on attempts at deconstruction.
Ar barbarian should be a rippling mountain of muscle.

>sexy male sorcerers

What is sexy on a woman is not sexy on a man and vice versa.
Toned muscular women? pretty sexy. Bulky women with a neck like an ox? Probably not sexy for most people.

Soft sensual sorcress dressed in whispy silk? probably sexy, twink dressed in his undies? probably not sexy for most people.

I say "fo rmost people" so someone doesnt jump to "Ackschually i fap to that".

Maybe yes, maybe no, you have to question things to find out, times change, enviroment changes, some wisdom is still valid some is outdated.


There is a difference between wisdom and taste.


That is your opinion, which is not right or wrong. But when you go from ''I want to see males that look like blank and females that look like blank'' to ''Males ought to look like blank and females ought to look like blank'' you go from having a valid opinion to being wrong and irrational, UNLESS you go down a rabbithole of explaining of why that is and providing good logical and rational points that support your position.


It is a very bad sign that your position stops making sense once you start to analyze it.

So too much male sex appeal? Lol

I'm teasing. No need to take it so serious. My problem is when people complain about exaggerated female attire that focuses on feminine traits gets heated up, but when male attire gets put into question they don't put masculine traits. They put the most feminine crap they could think of on a man. Very inconsistent.[/quote]


Wait, you're not off the hook yet.

have a look here, https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/651262796083912198/, to see some armor, I searched for "roman armor" on pinterest. This is stylish, practical and something men could love in a game, I guess (sharing my BF). It's not fully padded but convey the message that you are actually going to fight and need protection without compromising the weight of the armor (which make you less efficient), especially if you are going to walk, run (and jump like crazy) for a long time. After all characters, here, are adventurer.

That touch of realism, for an RPG is cool, that's what makes me give the money.

The mage dress design a la Gandalf, the typical wizard robe, is a stereotype that I hope we will get rid of someday - prob not, sign ..
But there are other cool avenues: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/342836590384906515/
Give mage pants or better outfit !! And throughout this path the "sexy" will come.

But it doesn’t have to be all about boobs & bra and buttcheek - these parts also needs protections if you still want to keep enjoying looking at them

Mages can't wear pants. Pants get in the way of the magic.

It is known.

Very true - not the sort of thing I'd just throw on a character. Skimpy/sexy armor has an element of being a feast for the eyes in a carnal & literal sense than a metaphorical aesthetic. I feel like Astarion's character would have issues with the former, where the latter is more his style. I could see Tekehu from PoE2 able to pull off a skimpy robe in a non-evil looking variety, because it matches his character to flaunt himself. His body type is the Adonis type, rather than lean, but he could still pull it off.

As far as where the rest of this thread is going at this point, I'll just say this: Practical armor is probably what is preferred by the "majority" of the combined target audience, and for the most part that's what Larian seems to be going for at this time (titty half plate aside). Armor conforms properly by physical frame, showing more contours in light armor, and less in heavier ones. Hopefully they do change up the hideous spellcaster robes though - providing a choice between the standard mage dress style but also for simple clothing as well.

If they did add gratuitous sexy armor, I'd honestly be disappointed if they made it only for females and did not make a good looking equivalent for males. Briefs are not an equivalent to an armored bikini. That sets a precedent that I question like how all the women in D:OS1 all fought in heels. In other fantasy games, battle armor has non-phallic, rated PG-13 codpieces that add an additional place for an insignia or house crest. There's a way to make men look good, and emphasize their physique without solely appealing to one audience or another. Something like that barbarian picture linked before, but just a little more...