Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General RPG rules: Armor Bikini vs Walking Tank

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Bikini armour is outdated, pointless and serves no purpose beyond titillation.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.