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

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.