Clothing/Armor in gaming.

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

I'm with you Weakgeek. I feel like the whole genre of Fantasy needs to take a step back and look at itself and its prevalent tropes, especially in the armour department.

 

[WanderingFool]

Personally, I would just do away with armor as a wearable equipment, and instead give everyone Mass Effect kenetic barrior like magic shields. That way players can wear whatever they want without any sense of "realism" being broken due to armored bikini.

 

[go-10]

so it's entirely plausible to have magicians casting spells, dragons flying about, ogres, goblins, darkspawn, and all kinds of unrealistic and sometimes inhuman creatures, elves, dwarfs, and whatever else people come up with, dudes who grab a sword and go up against a giant one eyed laser shooting lizard, or hell have some dude that shouts random words suddenly be a master magician who can jump on a griffons back that takes him through the sky in an epic battle he then falls from the sky lands face first on the ground takes a potion and is back in top fighting shape... BUT, the minute a girl puts on a thong and calls it armor it breaks the realism in the game?!?!

 

[lunavixen]

The whole chainmail bikini thing is a rather silly thing, I mean the OP's idea of lighter/less armour making the character more mobile is sound in theory, but poor in practice as a lot of vital areas are still seriously exposed and not just to weapon damage, but to environmental/proximity damage too. Armour for greater mobility would be best full covering but made of lighter materials like leather and having very light metal plating in key areas, like Lilani mentioned earlier. A weight system like in Baldur's Gate is a decent way to go.

 

[Aeshi]

Actually from what I've seen (and played) of TERA, most of the male outfits tend to be pretty skimpy (not quite as skimpy as the female versions admittedly) as well. So there's that

 

[Falseprophet]

This is the important part. If you have men dressed in mail shirts and women wearing chainmail bikinis, there is a problem there. If everyone is wearing mail shirts, fine. If everyone is wearing scraps of fur, also fine.

That's the crux for me too--the overall art design. If the setting is over-the-top sword and sorcery where men and women alike run around in skimpy fur nothings that wouldn't protect them from cold in reality but in this universe, it just shows how badass they are, that's fine. Likewise, if the setting is grittier and treats armour with more realism, then male and female characters alike should be wearing full plate armours or leather/chain tunics and breeches.

Chainmail/plate bikinis are just silly either way, though. A fur/leather bikini says "I'm so badass, I don't need armour" or alternatively, "I don't have access to armour". Proper armour that covers most of the body says "I know what armour is, I have access to it, and I can use it correctly." But a chainmail bikini says, "I know what armour is, but I'm using it incorrectly." Unless the character is part of some kind of fetish subculture, there's no practical reason to wear something like that.

 

[The Lugz]

Not keeping such outfits limited to one gender would make it better as well, for example you could be running about as a female character in a bulky, ornate set of heavy armor, with outstanding defense but very little dodging ability, and your friend could be running their male character who is running about in a male version of said revealing armor, with crap defense, but such high mobility that hitting him is no small task.

this thread has been done quite a few times already, so i can say with certainty

1, higher level armour is 'magical' ( perhaps not literally enchanted, but it's craftsmanship is simply legendary. ) and has properties that make it defend the character better despite being more revealing.

wonder woman's bracers are the perfect example of both traits,they are literally magical and they feature low mass and perfect placement, they are an ideal blocking tool, whereas a larger gauntlet would slow down attacks and blocks, leading to connected blows, and would restrict the flexibility that her combat style relies on.


2, excessive armour makes you slow, a target and ultimately weaker if you don't have the power and stamina to work through it, if you equip most women in full armour you've tripled their body weight. it's truly excessive and they're a walking punching bag which simply doesn't work in a fight..
there are a few female characters that have the raw strength to power through this problem, i would say those characters are the ones truly guilty of 'titillation' if they aren't appropriately armoured even if they aren't the prettiest ( by classic definitions, at least ) because there is no reason they shouldn't be made immune to a basic shiv from behind.
just think about Brienne of Tarth ( game of thrones ) who is supposedly both an expert swordsman and a physically powerful fighter, it makes sense that she has complete armour all the time, she is basically 'a guy' in terms of fighting.


3, yes, many of these characters ( ESPECIALLY modern ones. ) are designed from the ground up by an artist to be titillating and follow the form > function ideology to the limit, with no practical reasoning whatsoever. most MMO's are guilty of this.

so, my conclusion is simple yes there is a problem with titillation over function in some areas but whitewashing the entire entertainment industry as cheap pushers of eye candy is not correct, or fair as some of these characters have entirely plausible reasons for looking the way they do, predominantly that some of them simply couldn't stand if equipped in full armour and leather makes much more sense considering the power / weight of some of them in terms of actual fighting ability.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like the games where you can apply armour pieces for protection, but keep your outfit cosmetically identical. I hate looking like a smithy's shop blew up. This also guves the on topic benefit that people who want skimpy clothes can wear skimpy clothes and people who don't can opt to not have them.

 

[Frotality]

games should have more mechanics for armor besides +2% more damage mitigation to begin with. i like games like guild wars two where you have the option to keep the appearance of one item and the stats of another, and that works best when all armor does is grant a linear increase in generic damage reduction.

i would really love to see a game that used armor semi-realistically, scale and mail armor that was ineffective against arrows and thrusts, and plate that made you virtually invulnerable against all but the heaviest of blows, but was weak against precision attacks aimed at the joints and other open areas, and maybe made you tired if you tried to dodge and move around a lot in it. armor types that have a tactical purpose rather than just being the chosen level of protection your class is allowed to wear.

i have nothing against skin armors, as long as it goes with the style of the game.

 

[Byte2222]

I actually don't like excessively bulky armour either. A character wearing a suit of armour that looks like an entire armoury on one person would never even make it to a battle, let alone survive it, as slim swords could find gaps and arrows and strong attacks can penetrate armour. Based on my experiences playing Xenoblade (which had some great armour and some terrible armour), I suggest the following artistic guidelines:

Light armour: could potentially be mistaken for normal clothing (e.g. light leather armour)
Medium armour: clearly armour but does not exaggerate the wearer's physical bulk (e.g. light, close-fitting plate armour)
Heavy armour: clearly armour, and it is unclear how much is the wearer's physical bulk vs. the armour's bulk (e.g. ridged/raised plate armour)

Also, helmets are another matter altogether and I don't know how I feel about them. I will say that they're at least as important as a breastplate in terms of protection IRL.

 

[Hargrimm]

this thread has been done quite a few times already, so i can say with certainty

1, higher level armour is 'magical' ( perhaps not literally enchanted, but it's craftsmanship is simply legendary. ) and has properties that make it defend the character better despite being more revealing.

wonder woman's bracers are the perfect example of both traits,they are literally magical and they feature low mass and perfect placement, they are an ideal blocking tool, whereas a larger gauntlet would slow down attacks and blocks, leading to connected blows, and would restrict the flexibility that her combat style relies on.

You're overestimating the finesse you need to excercise with your fingers in combat and how much a gauntlet restricts your mobility. There's a reason why you ball your fists when you punch something. You also won't be using single fingers to grab something, you keep your fingers together as if you were wearing mittens.
A gauntlet has the benefit of also protecting your hand and fingers, as well as letting you grab sharp blades.

2, excessive armour makes you slow, a target and ultimately weaker if you don't have the power and stamina to work through it, if you equip most women in full armour you've tripled their body weight. it's truly excessive and they're a walking punching bag which simply doesn't work in a fight..
there are a few female characters that have the raw strength to power through this problem, i would say those characters are the ones truly guilty of 'titillation' if they aren't appropriately armoured even if they aren't the prettiest ( by classic definitions, at least ) because there is no reason they shouldn't be made immune to a basic shiv from behind.
just think about Brienne of Tarth ( game of thrones ) who is supposedly both an expert swordsman and a physically powerful fighter, it makes sense that she has complete armour all the time, she is basically 'a guy' in terms of fighting.

You're overestimating how restricting and heavy armour actually is.
Here's a demonstration:
EDIT: Found another really good one (Skip to 40:00):

 

[The Lugz]

2, excessive armour makes you slow, a target and ultimately weaker if you don't have the power and stamina to work through it, if you equip most women in full armour you've tripled their body weight. it's truly excessive and they're a walking punching bag which simply doesn't work in a fight..
there are a few female characters that have the raw strength to power through this problem, i would say those characters are the ones truly guilty of 'titillation' if they aren't appropriately armoured even if they aren't the prettiest ( by classic definitions, at least ) because there is no reason they shouldn't be made immune to a basic shiv from behind.
just think about Brienne of Tarth ( game of thrones ) who is supposedly both an expert swordsman and a physically powerful fighter, it makes sense that she has complete armour all the time, she is basically 'a guy' in terms of fighting.

You're overestimating how restricting and heavy armour actually is.
Here's a demonstration: SNIP

because REALIZUM!

ok, right i can lift a small car off it's springs, i've done it several times for amusement and once to get one out of a ditch, the fact is, i cannot carry a car.
however, for extremely short periods it almost seems as if i could that's because the way muscle structure works you are strongest when fresh. this is important when considering lifting and moving objects as they get 'heavier' with time.

all i'm saying here is the small thin women depicted in games would tire to an unacceptable level too quickly to make best use of heavy armours. and yes, tripling her weight may have been hyperbolic, fine, true exaggeration happens. but my point is it would be a significant portion of her weight. doing a quick google says that infantry iron armours would have been as much as 30-50 likos, source:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1729/640.full

and a well smithed steel knights suit could have been as little as 15-20 depending on the size and level of protection offered. as you can see these are much more amiable weights. source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#cite_note-6

( Presumably the 15 kilo sets are the cuirass - oriented breastplate / cuff designs, which are more appropriate for lighter people.. ##### as is my point.. really ##### )
and either way it slows you down. the effect of f=m*a is simply irrefutable. there is no point me arguing that.
see the above article for specifics, but the overall conclusion is this:

it basically states wearing armour as good as doubles your energy expenditure at any given moment
and i tend to trust that over a poorly made youtube video.

 

[Hargrimm]

because REALIZUM!

ok, right i can lift a small car off it's springs, i've done it several times for amusement and once to get one out of a ditch, the fact is, i cannot carry a car.
however, for extremely short periods it almost seems as if i could that's because the way muscle structure works you are strongest when fresh. this is important when considering lifting and moving objects as they get 'heavier' with time.

all i'm saying here is the small thin women depicted in games would tire to an unacceptable level too quickly to make best use of heavy armours. and yes, tripling her weight may have been hyperbolic, fine, true exaggeration happens. but my point is it would be a significant portion of her weight. doing a quick google says that infantry iron armours would have been as much as 30-50 likos, source:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1729/640.full

and a well smithed steel knights suit could have been as little as 15-20 depending on the size and level of protection offered. as you can see these are much more amiable weights. source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#cite_note-6

( Presumably the 15 kilo sets are the cuirass - oriented breastplate / cuff designs, which are more appropriate for lighter people.. ##### as is my point.. really ##### )
and either way it slows you down. the effect of f=m*a is simply irrefutable. there is no point me arguing that.
see the above article for specifics, but the overall conclusion is this:

it basically states wearing armour as good as doubles your energy expenditure at any given moment
and i tend to trust that over a poorly made youtube video.

I like how you left out the third and most important video. (Or are lectures just poorly made youtube videos in your eyes?)
The timestamp is just for quick reference, you should watch the whole thing.

Sure, armour slows you down a bit, but you also have to take into account that the weight is distributed over your entire body, unlike modern soldiers carrying about 30-40kg only on their backs into battle.

Another thing to consider is the scale we're talking about. We're not talking about games like Total War, where soldiers fight for hours at a time in large battles with thousands of people, but rather RPG's like Baldur's Gate and such. The Battles in those games usually only last a couple of minutes and are between less than 10-20 people. Not having to stop for a rest is usually done because of gameplay and pacing.

 

[The Lugz]

because REALIZUM! Snip /quote]

I like how you left out the third and most important video. (Or are lectures just poorly made youtube videos in your eyes?)
The timestamp is just for quick reference, you should watch the whole thing.

Sure, armour slows you down a bit, but you also have to take into account that the weight is distributed over your entire body, unlike modern soldiers carrying about 30-40kg only on their backs into battle.

Another thing to consider is the scale we're talking about. We're not talking about games like Total War, where soldiers fight for hours at a time in large battles with thousands of people, but rather RPG's like Baldur's Gate and such. The Battles in those games usually only last a couple of minutes and are between less than 10-20 people. Not having to stop for a rest is usually done because of gameplay and pacing.

I actually removed all the videos, for brevity because it took up half the page in accordance with forum rules, and i did not receive the edited version in my inbox. as you clearly didn't either.


i'll agree that it's not impossible to make an anthropomorphically correct flexible suit of armour, it would just require a master craftsman with the best steel money could buy. and these things are not cheap.
hell a simple sword in those days is the equivalent of a sports car, i can't imagine what that armour would cost. so i doubt, but can't confirm that adventurers would likely not have access to master smithed wares, as they would probably be made for royalty in exchange for outlandish gestures in land and property. this is my suspicion, i have no facts for this one but you'll admit it makes sense, no?


the timescale is definitely an important factor, if not the most important.. as i said, you are capable of great feats for short periods it is plausible you could wear armour and simply exert yourself more to overcome several enemies perhaps a bandit raid? the sort of threat faced in the times these armours were prolific. but beyond that you WILL slow down.. and a worn out person wearing heavy armour is a recipe for death.


but then, we are attempting to insert much real world logic where it may not realistically belong.
games devs might simply not care about any of the above. some of the decisions are surely for aesthetics only but i personally would like to see much more leather armours in games as leather is surprisingly effective, much lighter and affordable even to poorer adventurers. i think the witcher in particular pulls this idea off well.

and you can have the slickest outfit you like and it still makes sense ( ish )

 

[Hargrimm]

i'll agree that it's not impossible to make an anthropomorphically correct flexible suit of armour, it would just require a master craftsman with the best steel money could buy. and these things are not cheap.
hell a simple sword in those days is the equivalent of a sports car, i can't imagine what that armour would cost. so i doubt, but can't confirm that adventurers would likely not have access to master smithed wares, as they would probably be made for royalty in exchange for outlandish gestures in land and property. this is my suspicion, i have no facts for this one but you'll admit it makes sense, no?

Well, in most RPG's the economy is hilariously broken, so it probably wouldn't be too hard for most players to scrounge up enough money for that. Another thing that makes comparisons to the real world very difficult is that goods are priced very arbitrarily in RPG's. To bring up Baldur's Gate again, swords cost about as much as a drink or a night in the Tavern.
This was just as an aside though, I don't really disagree with you, just wanted to mention that.

the timescale is definitely an important factor, if not the most important.. as i said, you are capable of great feats for short periods it is plausible you could wear armour and simply exert yourself more to overcome several enemies perhaps a bandit raid? the sort of threat faced in the times these armours were prolific. but beyond that you WILL slow down.. and a worn out person wearing heavy armour is a recipe for death.

but then, we are attempting to insert much real world logic where it may not realistically belong.
games devs might simply not care about any of the above.

Certainly. Hell, Baldur's Gate is also kinda special by the fact that fatigue is actually a thing that affects your characters (even if it takes several days or so). Most RPG's these days don't even consider that.

some of the decisions are surely for aesthetics only but i personally would like to see much more leather armours in games as leather is surprisingly effective, much lighter and affordable even to poorer adventurers. i think the witcher in particular pulls this idea off well.

and you can have the slickest outfit you like and it still makes sense ( ish )

I personally would like to see more sensible armour, period. Regardless if it's leather or something else. I'm sick of spikes of villainy and other nonsensical crap, especially in games that claim to be more gritty and realistic. Real, historical armour is beautiful all on it's own, you don't have to glue a coral reef to it to make it interesting. Maybe some ornamental stuff,(like the one shown in the third video I posted) if they really have to.

 

[KOMega]

I'm not against having realistic armor, but I do find enjoyment in fighting off bandits and monsters in my magically enchanted thongs.

Most of the time I'll have reasonable armor, but I like doing something crazy now and again, yet not have the game entirely based around the craziness.

 

[Zipa]

Well a lot of armour in games has to be approached much the same as most facets of video games, with suspension of disbelief. The common ''boob plate'' armour would be a death trap (leaving out that its not even necessary to shape it because of the padding) even if they were full and not covering just the midriff. It would draw bladed weapons such into the sternum area because of the shape. (this is bad as its an area you are trying to protect)


http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you

Now im not saying remove it entirely from games, some people enjoy it and I am not going to deprive but add some choice for those that prefer realistic looking Armour (for both genders)

It makes my eyes roll when I play a game and the male character has more metal on him than the average scrapyard contains but the same class female has a chain mail bathing suit.

Interestingly Bioware seem to have a thing about it as a number of their female protaganists of late have had reasonable armour, female Hawke in DA2 and Femshep come to mind as well as some of the SWTOR classes like the bounty hunter.

 

[The Lugz]

some of the decisions are surely for aesthetics only but i personally would like to see much more leather armours in games as leather is surprisingly effective, much lighter and affordable even to poorer adventurers. i think the witcher in particular pulls this idea off well.

and you can have the slickest outfit you like and it still makes sense ( ish )

I personally would like to see more sensible armour, period. Regardless if it's leather or something else. I'm sick of spikes of villainy and other nonsensical crap, especially in games that claim to be more gritty and realistic. Real, historical armour is beautiful all on it's own, you don't have to glue a coral reef to it to make it interesting. Maybe some ornamental stuff,(like the one shown in the third video I posted) if they really have to.

I think in previous generations the reason for this is simply that spikes and skulls are something games devs have practice at making, and long complicated gilded shapes take a horrendously long time to create and are equally taxing to render

hopefully ( fingers crossed.. ) we might see more of this kind of artwork with the new generation as games devs consider there to be more resources available on all platforms.

I know these sorts of things are being included in some of the more demanding armour mods for skyrim, for example.


##Game Economy Fails##

yeah.. game economies are flat out broken there really needs to be a poverty line system where by if you loot all the gold it can't be anywhere else, and thus you can't loot anymore of it.

because assuming an ancient mint puts out 2-3k coins per year and you have that many in your pack, you've caused global hyperinflation, poverty and plague as people can't pay the taxes anymore.
( well done hero, you've killed literally everyone. )
it's particularly dumb that some games allow you to carry infinite amounts of gold that simply couldn't exist.

it would be a trivial thing to patch as well, for every 10g you carry enemies drop 1% less coins or so.
( pick a number that works, you see the logic, i'm sure. )

and beer / mead is water to ancient people so the fact that it costs 10g is completely broken to begin with.. depends exactly what currency you're talking about but a gold coin would be extremely valuable and probably worth a night's rent in an in and a meal or two. ( realistically, games should also have copper coins, as gold is just too valuable. )
and a sword costing that little is just.. silly. it would probably be more like 80-100 gold coins just for a basic strip of metal you could swing reliably, and if you want anything fancy.. well forget it. you can't afford it. that's prince territory.

ie 'unattainable' to the commoners, much like many luxury items today.

so yes, the economy is hilariously broken, and frankly it's laziness that it isn't being sorted out because it's extremely simple to add a large amount of immersive realism without sacrificing gameplay.

the only justification i can make for that is complete blind ignorance of history.
perhaps people wouldn't believe that you could comfortably live off 20 coins for a year by buying a cow and farming some potatoes, or that an adventurer should be doing such things to begin with.

 

[Caiphus]

I don't know. I mean, I like boobs.

I really do.

Play a game where everyone is naked then. Also, everyone is a hermaphrodite, so everyone has boobs.

...

I think there are some furry games like that.

Hey, Soul Calibur gets close, on occasion. Didn't they have armor destruction in IV? Or was that III? I can't remember.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound quite as lecherous as I did in that post.

My main driving point was supposed to be that you can have armour that is attractive, and not prudish, for both sexes, without resorting to chainmail bikinis. Which, to be fair, has been done in most of the fantasy RPGs that I've played recently (Dragon's Dogma, Skyrim - without mods - Rift).

It also doesn't need to be that light armour has you running around in underwear/lingerie and heavy armour puts you in the clothing equivalent of a steam train.