AAA Gimmicks I`m Sick of Seeing

[Lectori Salutem]

Any gimmick that's just in the game for the sake of gimmickyness, rather than to enhance the gameplay.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

1. Yeah, I miss when I could kill children.

You're a monster.

I said could!

It's not like I actively searched them out but it's always nice to have the option. Like in Fallout 2, if one stole from you, you could just blow him away and loot his corpse for your stuff.

Captcha: Goody two shoes

Damn right

I wish real life was like that; someone steals your shit, so you just blow them up, right click the corpse and walk way. Drop your ice cream? Ctrl + Z. Get into a big fight with your partner? Load a previous save and try again. Die? Respawn.

 

[Kahunaburger]

go back and read what I actually over a number of messages

Okay, Therumancer, let's go back and read what "you actually."

Regular armor doesn't work well with the female anatomy, as a lot of people (including women) have pointed out, breasts don't render them invalids, but they ARE very sensitive, while not identical an impact there is similar to a guy getting kicked in the nuts. As a result a lot of armor like breastplates aren't going to function properly, sure they might prevent a sword from going through the internal organs, but a glacing blow to one is going
to have more affect on a girl than a guy. Hence fantasy about using very low tech arms and armor to enter melee combat generally doesn't work.

That's the argument you're trying to defend. That, because you have a pretty shaky grasp on how boobs work, you think that women can't wear chest protection. Not your recent goalpost-moving attempt to argue that female warriors were uncommon, but the initial argument you made that somehow armor didn't work on women. See, Therumancer, when you post something absurd on the internet, it doesn't go away.

and the general rule of women fighting, by assuming that any exception disproves the rule.

Allow me to explain why your non sequitur is a non sequitur. You are saying that:

A) Armor doesn't work on women,

B) It was unusual for women to fight in the pre-industrial world.

B does not prove A. B has nothing to do with A, and nothing to do with this discussion. Your "exception" argument does not help defend your initial position. I can see why you're trying to back down from what you initially said, because what you initially said was hilariously wrong. But that does not mean I'm going to allow you to change the subject to something completely different.

So, let's break down why A is incorrect. First, we turn to the example of the Sarmatians. This thesis [http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/department/publications/PDF%20Theses/Mike%20Adamson.pdf] has an excellent rundown of the various archaeological finds demonstrating that many Sarmatian women (I've seen statistics thrown around along the lines of armed Sarmatian women representing ~20% of burial sites for that culture) fought, in armor when they could afford it. This is consistent with writings from Herodotus, Hippocrates, and Polyaenus, among other scholars contemporaneous with the Sarmatians.

The Sarmatians are useful for determining whether armor is practical for female wearers, because they represent one of the largest-scale instances of female warriors in human history and a warlike culture providing ample opportunities to test the effectiveness of their weapons and armor. What do we learn from looking at Sarmatian burial sites? That Sarmatian women wore armor, and found it practical enough to keep doing it for centuries. In the area of armor selection, I take the opinion of hard-bitten steppe cavalry over the opinion of people on the internet who don't back their assertions with citations.

"But, Kahunaburger," you say, "one of the ancient world's largest steppe cultures was an exception!" That does not save your original argument that it is impractical for women to wear armor. It very clearly was practical for Sarmatian women to wear armor, or they wouldn't have done it for centuries.

Now, looking beyond the Sarmatians, we see women who led armies in armor (Hangaku Gozen, Matilda of Tuscany, etc), women who charged into combat in armor (Khawla bint al-Azwar, Tomoe Gozen, etc), and so on. Unlike Sarmatian women warriors, these women were exceptions in their own society. And guess what? They found armor practical and effective. Similar to before, I'll take the opinion of someone who has demonstrated her practical knowledge in ancient combat over the opinion of someone who has never seen combat, ancient or otherwise, when I'm judging the practicality of women wearing armor.

And against the evidence you have failed to address, what do you give us in defense?

As a general rule women did not fight, period. Women did not wear armor period. Armor is not functional for women the same way it is for men period.

Assertions.

There is no way around the simple fact that a blow to a breastplate is going to be substantially more servere for a woman than a guy, it's just how the anatomy is. In a real fight it doesn't matter if the chestplate stopped her from being scewered, she's liable to be down from the shot and finished. This mandates a differant approach to combat if she enters it, which the overwhelming majority of women did not do specifically due to being unsuited for it.

Laughable misunderstandings of human anatomy, backed by more assertions.

And that's pretty much it.

Yeah, I can see why you're frantically trying to change the subject. You could own up to being mistaken, say "I learned something about history today" and move on with your life, but sadly your pride will not let you accept that your favorite fantasy novel cover might not accurately depict reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bertylicious]

Laughable misunderstandings of human anatomy, backed by more assertions.

And that's pretty much it.

Yeah, I can see why you're frantically trying to change the subject. You could own up to being mistaken, say "I learned something about history today" and move on with your life, but sadly your pride will not let you accept that your favorite fantasy novel cover might not accurately depict reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oooh, burn!

Therumancer, I think your only remaining option is to explode into a fine, red, mist.

 

[Emiscary]

Edit: Yeah also about number 1, you're putting too much emphasis on the rating being called "Mature". It's just a name, and most devs want to keep their games away from the the "Adults Only" rating that graphic sex and child murdering will likely get them. You're basically getting mad that devs don't want to make less money by not restricting themselves when devs already don't actually make a ton of money.

The ratings are complete bollocks in the first place. Think about them for a second: M (17+) and AO (18+)... How are 17+ games massively popular but 18+ is a commercial death sentence? Is the bulk of the gaming market exactly 17 years old? It's the same as the MPAA ratings which never fail to make me piss myself with laughter (other than the PG-13 plague): R (17+) and NC-17 (18+). Tons of R movies and 17+ moviegoers, but 18+ is just unacceptable? Please. I wish the entertainment industries could get their heads out of their asses...

Dear Gods thank you.

The entire concept of entertainment being screened for content and "rated" as appropriate for certain people by a board composed of slack jawed idiots who's most intense life experience was: using the word "kerfuffle" in anger one time? Drives me batty.

The Head of the PTA/Organizer of the Church Picnic has no business telling me (or anyone) what is and isn't appropriate for me to find entertaining. They'd be far better off passive aggressively engendering the resentment of their children with their vague authoritative nonsense.

 

[repeating integers]

Laughable misunderstandings of human anatomy, backed by more assertions.

And that's pretty much it.

Yeah, I can see why you're frantically trying to change the subject. You could own up to being mistaken, say "I learned something about history today" and move on with your life, but sadly your pride will not let you accept that your favorite fantasy novel cover might not accurately depict reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oooh, burn!

Therumancer, I think your only remaining option is to explode into a fine, red, mist.

You know what should happen now?

Kahunaburger and Therumancer should start rap battling.

It would be perfect.

 

[Bertylicious]

Laughable misunderstandings of human anatomy, backed by more assertions.

And that's pretty much it.

Yeah, I can see why you're frantically trying to change the subject. You could own up to being mistaken, say "I learned something about history today" and move on with your life, but sadly your pride will not let you accept that your favorite fantasy novel cover might not accurately depict reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oooh, burn!

Therumancer, I think your only remaining option is to explode into a fine, red, mist.

You know what should happen now?

Kahunaburger and Therumancer should start rap battling.

It would be perfect.

Yesssss... Truly this can only be settled in the way of the old skool.

*dons flava flav clock and steeples fingers*

 

[Therumancer]

[

Laughable misunderstandings of human anatomy, backed by more assertions.

And that's pretty much it.

Yeah, I can see why you're frantically trying to change the subject. You could own up to being mistaken, say "I learned something about history today" and move on with your life, but sadly your pride will not let you accept that your favorite fantasy novel cover might not accurately depict reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Quite to the contrary, I am not the one making laughable assertations about human anatomy, and there is no reason for me to want what I said about human anatomy to "go away" as it's accurate. Indeed I've actually said it multiple times in the past, as this basic issue has come up before. I'll have you know that "The Escapist" is pretty much the only site out there that has had people actually try and argue that point. A desire to try and prove me wrong trumping pretty much every bit of common sense there is.

See, the big differance here is that your not so much argueing with me, but with pretty much everyone who knows anything about armor and makes a living off of that knowlege, not to mention people who actually WEAR armor and engage in battles with it (MWS, etc...). I very much doubt you've so much as attended an SCA event or fought with rattan weapons, never mind seen people go at it with the real thing for fun (which is more MWS, which is differant from SCA, but they DO put on displays during ren fairs and SCA events, and explain things like this in detail).

Go ahead, land a haymaker on your girlfriend's boobs and see if she reacts like a guy does. Assuming you have a girlfriend. Guaranteed not only will it hurt a LOT more than you obviously expect, she won't be your girlfriend anymore, even if she let's you do it thinking that your right. That's pretty much the equivilent of what taking a blow from a medieval weapon to the chest is going to be, even if the breastplate isn't penetrated.


See, the thing here is that like most debates I get involved in here your basically jumping around trying to take a shotgun approach to the arguement, hoping something hits to let you save face. If you can't win the arguement, you attack me, if neither work you use absurdities, if that doesn't work you have to question common sense, demonstrating you not having done ANY research at all, while trying to assert that about the other person. At most your arguement is based on what you've heard other people saying to decry fantasy artwork, and what you personally want to believe due to your modern sensibilities.

Also before you decide to go to an MWS website and go "derp, look a girl in a breastplate" understand they aren't really trying to kill each other. They are being careful, and wear the costumes. If she gets hit like that, the guy she's fighting hits her like that it's more along the lines of "OMG, sorry, are you okay" than brutally exploiting it and putting her six feet under. That said, the people involved DO know the weapons, and what to be careful of.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Using 'realistic' graphics as justification for calling a game realistic.

When it comes to games like COD, just because it uses real weapons doesn't make it realistic. 12 triggerhappy PCP addicts running in circles killing each other is not a realistic depiction of war.

 

[Muspelheim]

Using 'realistic' graphics as justification for calling a game realistic.

When it comes to games like COD, just because it uses real weapons doesn't make it realistic. 12 triggerhappy PCP addicts running in circles killing each other is not a realistic depiction of war.

Precisely. "Realism" that isn't realism. It's getting rather tireing. If you want realism, then go for it and let it be one of the cores in your design, but don't just cram it in as a gimmick.

Operation Flashpoint/ ArmA were commited (almost) entirely to realism, and created a different, enjoyable experience. Halo had no commitment to realism and created another type of enjoyable experience.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Sadly, I'm not much of a rapper. But at least I can spam links.

Quite to the contrary, I am not the one making laughable assertations about human anatomy, and there is no reason for me to want what I said about human anatomy to "go away" as it's accurate. Indeed I've actually said it multiple times in the past, as this basic issue has come up before. I'll have you know that "The Escapist" is pretty much the only site out there that has had people actually try and argue that point. A desire to try and prove me wrong trumping pretty much every bit of common sense there is.

So apparently when dealing with conclusive [http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/department/publications/PDF%20Theses/Mike%20Adamson.pdf] historical [http://www.siddiqi.org/khawla/khawla_bint_alazwar.htm] evidence [http://japanese.lingualift.com/blog/tomoe-gozen-the-female-samurai/] that pre-industrial women, when they fought, preferred to wear armor, you think the "common sense" response is to ignore history? Your "common sense" does not resemble our Earth common sense.

but with pretty much everyone who knows anything about armor and makes a living off of that knowlege

You mean like this armorer [http://madartlab.com/2011/12/14/fantasy-armor-and-lady-bits/]? Who thinks that chainmail bikinis are unrealistic?

people who actually WEAR armor and engage in battles with it (MWS, etc...).

Well, if we're looking for the closest thing people hitting each other with period-accurate weaponry while wearing period-accurate armor has to a competitive sport, we'd actually probably go with jousting.

Oh, hey, speaking of jousting and taking massive hits to the chest through armor, [http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/12/09/extreme-jousting-sport] you know who was just in the news for winning a competitive jousting tournament?

http://thejoustinglife.blogspot.com/2012/04/female-jouster-saray-hay-wins-full-tilt.html

I mean, seriously, you need to stop pretending like you know about things you haven't actually done the research on. It just makes you look ridiculous.

At most your arguement is based on what you've heard other people saying to decry fantasy artwork,

My argument is based on what historical women fighters we have clear information on the armor choices of wore when they rode into combat to shoot people/run people through with lances/sawing heads off with knives*/etc.

*in the case of Tomoe Gozen. Feudal Japan was hardcore.

understand they aren't really trying to kill each other.

Funny, because people were pretty clearly trying to kill Khawla bint al-Azwar, Tomoe Gozen, Hangaku Gozen, Sarmatian warriors buried with their armor and weapons, etc. Guess what? They all wore armor, because that's a pretty good way of making it harder for someone else to kill you.

So, uh, are you going to cite some actual evidence any time soon, or am I going to find in my inbox yet another rambling wall of text about how your assertions are correct because you say they are, despite overwhelming historical (and, in this post, contemporary) evidence to the contrary?

 

[Emiscary]

Honestly wowed at how long the debate over chainmail bikinis has gone on.

The inherent ridiculousness of combat fetish gear isn't really up for debate...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChainmailBikini

See above for confirmation.

 

[Therumancer]

Sadly, I'm not much of a rapper. But at least I can spam links.

Quite to the contrary, I am not the one making laughable assertations about human anatomy, and there is no reason for me to want what I said about human anatomy to "go away" as it's accurate. Indeed I've actually said it multiple times in the past, as this basic issue has come up before. I'll have you know that "The Escapist" is pretty much the only site out there that has had people actually try and argue that point. A desire to try and prove me wrong trumping pretty much every bit of common sense there is.

So apparently when dealing with conclusive [http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/department/publications/PDF%20Theses/Mike%20Adamson.pdf] historical [http://www.siddiqi.org/khawla/khawla_bint_alazwar.htm] evidence [http://japanese.lingualift.com/blog/tomoe-gozen-the-female-samurai/] that pre-industrial women, when they fought, preferred to wear armor, you think the "common sense" response is to ignore history? Your "common sense" does not resemble our Earth common sense.

but with pretty much everyone who knows anything about armor and makes a living off of that knowlege

You mean like this armorer [http://madartlab.com/2011/12/14/fantasy-armor-and-lady-bits/]? Who thinks that chainmail bikinis are unrealistic?

people who actually WEAR armor and engage in battles with it (MWS, etc...).

Well, if we're looking for the closest thing people hitting each other with period-accurate weaponry while wearing period-accurate armor has to a competitive sport, we'd actually probably go with jousting.

Oh, hey, speaking of jousting and taking massive hits to the chest through armor, [http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/12/09/extreme-jousting-sport] you know who was just in the news for winning a competitive jousting tournament?

http://thejoustinglife.blogspot.com/2012/04/female-jouster-saray-hay-wins-full-tilt.html

I mean, seriously, you need to stop pretending like you know about things you haven't actually done the research on. It just makes you look ridiculous.

[?

Alright this is going to be my last message on the subject because I'm tired of the flames, trolling, and ignorance. You can go off about however many exceptions you want, and it will still, never change the rule.

The thing is that I've done TONS more actual research on the subject than you ever have, you don't even make pretensions of having even been anywhere, or checked any of this stuff out first hand. Which is obvious just from the way you talk.

What's more, Jousting? Are you bloody serious. For one, that's not to the death, secondly the modern version (I've seen it many times, Ren Faires are fond of having it) has numerous rules and safeguards put into place in order to make it competitive.

The suits of armor these guys use are actually nor historically perfect, they are replicas, and incorperate modern materials, especially under the armor, giving impact protection superior to what any knight actually had. Secondly, being hit in the chest isn't lethal for women, or anything, it just means that if she wants to take that risk it's going to hurt a bit more, nobody is going to finish her off because of it. The actual biggest danger here is the fall off the horse.

Her having won basically means she was better at angling a lance, and deflecting the other person's launce than anyone else. These guys didn't do like some movies where they atart out with lances, and then while one guy is down but still alive the other guy gets a sword and goes walking over to try and finish them off for real, which may or may not lead to both fighters winding up armed. In general the civilized world frowns on bloodsports.

Kind of lame actually, the truth is you could find pictures of women in the MWS wearing breastplates, I know because I've seen it. You might even be able to find a picture of a female melee tourney winner or something. That would seemingly reinforce your point, although it wouldn't, because it's not real, and people are being careful, and nobody kills anyone else. Someone gets knocked over/stunned/taken out by a blow if nothing else the fight is stopped until they recover so it would be meaningless... but would be better than jousting.

Really, take my advice, go see some real Jousting, chances are they will also have arms and armor displays. Talk to some people in the MWS, or even SCA, or who actually work for armory museums and such and are experts. Then get back to me. Until you've done that, you have no leg to stand on, and absolutly no credability. See, even if I was wrong, your not in a position to disprove it.

That said, this is going nowhere, so I'm pretty much done responding. You'll either learn something or you won't. We're otherwise just going to make the same arguements back and forth.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Alright this is going to be my last message on the subject [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flounce] because I'm tired of the flames, trolling, and ignorance. You can go off about however many exceptions you want, and it will still, never change the rule.

Ah, so you're still trying at that derail. Sadly, still not going to work.

The thing is that I've done TONS more actual research on the subject than you ever have,

Show, don't tell. You've yet to give this thread a single citation or piece of evidence. (Protip: saying "this assertion is making is true because I say it is and I know about this subject guise I promise" is not evidence.)

secondly the modern version (I've seen it many times, Ren Faires are fond of having it) has numerous rules and safeguards put into place in order to make it competitive.

No shit. You brought up SCA/MCA, so I gave you evidence from the one sort of pseudo-medieval pseudo-combat sport that isn't:

A) some form of touch-based fencing,

B) glorified LARPing.

Incidentally, jousting's a sport where you slam giant pieces of wood into people's armored chests and one where skilled women in armor can win tournaments, so clearly the "lol boobs invalidate armor" argument you've been making is hilariously wrong.

because [Ren Faires are] not real

Yup. That's why the core of my argument is conclusive [http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/department/publications/PDF%20Theses/Mike%20Adamson.pdf] historical [http://www.siddiqi.org/khawla/khawla_bint_alazwar.htm] evidence [http://japanese.lingualift.com/blog/tomoe-gozen-the-female-samurai/] of women fighting in armor. You know, the stuff that actual historians use to make inferences about questions like "did women wear armor when they fought?"

Talk to some people in the MWS, or even SCA,

You, on the other hand, do appear to be resting your case on Argumentum Ad Renfairium.

So, to conclude, let's go back to my question last post:

So, uh, are you going to cite some actual evidence any time soon, or am I going to find in my inbox yet another rambling wall of text about how your assertions are correct because you say they are, despite overwhelming historical (and, in this post, contemporary) evidence to the contrary?

The latter, apparently.

(I predict that, despite the flounce, your pride will get the better of you once again and you will post yet another rambling wall of text devoid of anything that could be considered factual evidence. Let's see if my prediction comes true.)

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It's like this, as a dude if someone slams you in the chest you might get a bruise or a welt, but it's not going to really do a lot to slow you down, especially with your adrenaline pumping, unless you broke some ribs or something. Thus a chestplate that stops penetration and simply puts a lot of force into your chest is practical, and worth giving up the mobility for it.

It's beyond practical. The assumption that mobility is some sort of saving grace is a lie especially in melee combat. In fact, I'll go so far as to dismiss your entire argument based on the following inarguable fact: a person can swing a blade or a mace or an axe faster than you can move. It doesn't matter if you're burdened or not.

The odds of evading an attack are not based on mobility but misdirection. Warding off an attack using one's weapon is aided most by having a lighter and shorter weapon not by having lighter armor. Doing the same with a shield is aided by having a shield that covers as much of the body as possible while still allowing the shield hand to move.

And the argument that a halted attack would hurt is largely negated by a few things. First, from personal experience I can say that pain alone is not sufficient to really affect one's capacity to fight. Second, when you consider that ones capacity to evade attack is largely based on things besides the small milliseconds of mobility not wearing armor might offer, one could assume that if a blow landed hard enough to cause such terrible damage through plate steel (or chain or padded or anything of the sort), not wearing said plate would not have saved from the hit. Not wearing armor could buy you inches and you argue in terms of feet. And if you accept the reality that evading an attack as you describe would not have been possible without armor either, you surely must accept that the difference between pain and death is a vast gulf.