Did they actually go into battle with those silly wings? I imagine they'd be a huge hindrance in combat. If only for parades though, fair enough.Soviet Heavy said:
Sexy fantasy armor...
- Thread starter lucky_sharm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's dispute over whether they wore them into battle or not. The wings were attached to the back plate, and were almost certainly used for parades and marches. In battle, some historians believe they were removed for flexibility, while others believe that the wings stayed on, as the sound of them fluttering in the wind might have intimidated the enemy.BathorysGraveland2 said:
It's kinda cringy to see people get so "Into" sexualised characters.
Like, Okay, I get you like naked women bodies, but, can't you just go and look at porn?
What's the fascination that every female has to be as revealing as possible in a fantasy setting?
Even boob-plate is dumb. I mean, sure, it's better, but, it's dumb.
Like, Okay, I get you like naked women bodies, but, can't you just go and look at porn?
What's the fascination that every female has to be as revealing as possible in a fantasy setting?
Even boob-plate is dumb. I mean, sure, it's better, but, it's dumb.
I read somewhere about similar things, but attached to the saddles, not the people, which would help prevent them from being lassoed off their horses, but not sure if that is true.Soviet Heavy said:
Huh...an informative (if very awkward) video. Hadn't thought about the getting in the way thing.Rebel_Raven said:
Not to mention, how would you get into that? Unless the divides between the front and back plates are seriously skewed (because I can't see them here) I just don't see how you could put that on. It couldn't be pulled on over the top of the head and shoulders or stepped through and pulled up over the hips.thaluikhain said:
Maybe it's actually all just cloth? Look at the gloves, same colour, completely unsegmented.
I do like the illustration, but yeah, not exactly real world practical. Still, in a fantasy game, comic, or whatever I'd give it a pass on the "not just a bunch of fantasy pin ups" front.
I doubt they would. The intimidation factor offers little advantage over the risk. I mean, can you imagine an axe, halberd or bardiche or other heavy-ended weapon smacking into the wing? It'd knock the Hussar off his feet. The slightest provocation on horseback could cause him to loose balance as well. It'd be way too risky to go into battle with those, for the same reason vikings did not wear horned-helmets in battle.Soviet Heavy said:
You may want to see this (slightly NSFW), well ok it's not the same thing per say (talking about girls clothing in fighting game but it's still similar but I suppose it's no brainer that the clothing they wear in games is not pratical in real life.Rebel_Raven said:
[checks stats]Zykon TheLich said:
yeah, her armor is probably made from cloth, considering she has a little more starting armor then other humans who wear cloth and is supposed to be this super amazing fighter(which is calculated into armor in dota)
i would also like to point out the flags you can see behind her in the illustration. they are attached to her back. because reasons.
I have no problem with impractical sexy armor, as long as it fits the setting. I mean, if female armor puts design and appeal above practicality, so should the male amor.
Have any of you heard of the linothorax?
It is apparently an Ancient Greek armor type used by the hoplites who couldn1t afford the bronze plates and it is practically makeshift ancient kevlar, layers upon layers of tough textile glued together to form a tough, flexible armor.
If you want form-fitting protection, you cannot mess up "ancient kevlar", eh? Unless you make it a bikini, of course, but that is a question of design (and stupidity) and not the properties of the material.
It is apparently an Ancient Greek armor type used by the hoplites who couldn1t afford the bronze plates and it is practically makeshift ancient kevlar, layers upon layers of tough textile glued together to form a tough, flexible armor.
If you want form-fitting protection, you cannot mess up "ancient kevlar", eh? Unless you make it a bikini, of course, but that is a question of design (and stupidity) and not the properties of the material.
I think what really matters here is the setting. In Historical games, of course the armor should be more realistic. In Fantasy games the armor can be whatever you would like it to be as long as it fits into the story. I personally think people should be able to fight in Santa Suits and loin cloths and be able to apply whatever stat bonuses they wish to via socketing and enchanting. If I want to fight as Ms. Claus in stilettos I should be able to in a Fantasy game, because it is FANTASY. If You want to fight realistically, you play historical games.
As for "revealing clothing", As a female player, I see those howling about covering up teh womenz as no different than those trying to force women to wear burkas in real life. Women should not be shamed into hiding their bodies because someone else is uncomfortable with it. It is okay for women to be beautiful sexual beings, and should not be shamed into hiding or forced to conform to someone else's beliefs simply because they are not comfortable with the human body, or even the fictional depictions of human form. Trying to shame a video game character into covering up is pathetic tbh. It is bad enough when women are shamed in reality, but now they are shaming fictional women as well? When does it stop?
As for "revealing clothing", As a female player, I see those howling about covering up teh womenz as no different than those trying to force women to wear burkas in real life. Women should not be shamed into hiding their bodies because someone else is uncomfortable with it. It is okay for women to be beautiful sexual beings, and should not be shamed into hiding or forced to conform to someone else's beliefs simply because they are not comfortable with the human body, or even the fictional depictions of human form. Trying to shame a video game character into covering up is pathetic tbh. It is bad enough when women are shamed in reality, but now they are shaming fictional women as well? When does it stop?
Ladies and gentlemen... may I introduce you to Captain Arianna Balthasar...
...
And Princess Calisto Asheri...
And both pretty sexy characters. Too practical?
Eh... either way, Stjepan Sejic is my comic-book god, and aside from Lynn's boob-plate, the women's armour (the antagonist's armour doesn't count to me, she's blatantly stripperiffic and playing for it) both makes them alluring and remains practical.
...
And Princess Calisto Asheri...
And both pretty sexy characters. Too practical?
Eh... either way, Stjepan Sejic is my comic-book god, and aside from Lynn's boob-plate, the women's armour (the antagonist's armour doesn't count to me, she's blatantly stripperiffic and playing for it) both makes them alluring and remains practical.
Some of us like fantasy that is a bit more grounded. Such a thing is possible. Yelling, "It's FANTASY!" is meaningless given the breadth, or at least potential breadth, of the genre.Lil devils x said:
Just saying.
As for the rest, it's not about covering up and shaming. It's about sticking sexual appeal into places it doesn't really belong, usually a battlefield, at the cost of believability. If a character is, say, a highborn socialite who spends her time evenings attending balls then I have no problem with her wearing all the sexy dresses in the world, since that is a character and a place where a sexy dress would fit right in. It's when they try to tell me a character is a force-of-nature amazonian badass then start cutting carefully placed holes in her armour that my eyes threaten to roll clean out of their sockets.
Also, if we're equating the design of fictional characters to the treatment of real people, then allow me to phrase my point in a rather silly but hopefully more illustrative way: Would you walk up to a real female soldier and tell her to ditch her boots in favour of heels and cut a boob window into her kevlar so she can be an unashamed sexual being?
Lastly, wearing practical clothing in situations that call for it does not make one an oppressed, asexual, victim shamed into submission. I know a few female hikers, bushwalkers and soldiers who would have some choice words to say about that notion.
I say have it suit the character and context. Having an army of sexy elf ladies who are frontline combatants and serve the same purpose as armoured up guys without a reason for it is blatant fanservice and stupid. There's a place for that, but I would understand criticism of it. Having sexy elf archer women however is another story, as long as the armour suits them for what they need to do. A reasonably good step towards a believable situation is at least having the men and women wear similar armour in similar roles. By which I mean if the guys in the battle have face-obscuring helmets, the women should too.
On a character-to-character basis, whatever suits the character. They don't necessarily have to conform to the context. Maybe they're an insanely skillful blademaster and don't need armour. Maybe they're a consciously sexy character.
What I'm getting at is as long as there's a good justification I'm happy, and I'm happy with a lot of good justifications.
On a character-to-character basis, whatever suits the character. They don't necessarily have to conform to the context. Maybe they're an insanely skillful blademaster and don't need armour. Maybe they're a consciously sexy character.
What I'm getting at is as long as there's a good justification I'm happy, and I'm happy with a lot of good justifications.
If you don't believe it is worth discussing it so much, then you are free to stay away from these discussions.lucky_sharm said:
Do you believe that just because you consider something as unimportant no one else should to talk about it?
I've nothing against generally form-fitting armor, but I really don't understand why designers are so in love with boob cups. It's not something you see often with real female clothing outside of underwear... since cloth actually stretches instead of sticking to the skin.The Lunatic said:
Armors like the three below I found in a quick google search are plenty feminine yet make do without them:
http://37.media.tumblr.com/87d9c01f613c6610c13b47e472378593/tumblr_mx3i9gcJJE1qm3agio1_500.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/a28383900111e60cde6e658a6197feff/tumblr_inline_mgc54yse8k1rnp9q5.jpg
http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-21/art/me3-tali-zorah-armor.jpg
Maybe I'm not even so much against sexualized female armors per se as I am disappointed with the laziness of their designers. If you think showing lots of skin and boob cups and cleavage windows and all that are the only way to present the female body in an attractive fashion, then you're dearly lacking in imagination and skill.
All of this.DANGER- MUST SILENCE said:
Seriously, the anti-feminists really have completely missed post-modern feminism by a country mile.
Sexy is awesome. Sexy is great. I love me some T&A on my real life and fictional women. The issue is when the standard go-to outfit for every woman is figure hugging and flesh exposing with no valid reason, while every male character IN THE SAME SETTING wears full plate and baggy clothes or what-have-you. When it makes no sense outside of 'mmm, wimmin-meat' then it's a problem.
Female skin does not equate to "adding sexuality". I think the idea that the nude female body equates to sex is part of the problem, like if a woman's breast is shown that is sexual, but men can run around topless all they like and it is not. What they are wearing is irrelevant to sexuality, instead that is actual body language and behavior separate and irregardless of what they are wearing.Zhukov said:
FOR example:
is not thought of to be sexual, but it would be if it is a woman although MANY women warriors actually did fight topless.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/517/cache/roman-statue-may-depict-female-gladiator_51794_600x450.jpg
If you are discussing the treatment of REAL people, you do not see people telling women to ditch their boots, but you do see them telling women they should "cover up" or they might be raped. Bullying plain and simple. That happens far more often than someone telling a woman to give up her boots, that is the reality for women. I am a female who very much enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and kick boxing, and my friend from school who very much rocks her mini skirts also rocks her military uniform. "Covering up" has not much to do with practicality unless it is to block excessive sun or cold temperatures.
Some holes in a fictional armor do not cause eyes to roll out of sockets and neither do real nude beaches. People are responsible for their own over reactions.
It's worth noting, I doubt anyone has any problems with those outfits being an option in video games.
I mean, if you're playing an MMO and rather than wearing bulky armour, you want to wear something skin-tight and revealing, then by all means, go ahead.
But for the most part the issue is that it's the only choice and no other options are presented to the player.
I mean, if you're playing an MMO and rather than wearing bulky armour, you want to wear something skin-tight and revealing, then by all means, go ahead.
But for the most part the issue is that it's the only choice and no other options are presented to the player.