[p]I am kind of bringing this issue over from the previous boards. :-D[/p][p]But one issue that has always bothered me with EQ2 (and now Vanguard) is that, outside of social clothing, all armors have the same basic appearance for both genders. :-( (A situation that does NOT exist on the marketing art.)[/p][p]Some NPCs do reflect basic differences in costume, (such as the DoF human models, New Tunarian High Elves, and the Bloodline Chronicles Vampires) This same type of consideration should be extended to player models as well.[/p][p] [/p][p] [/p][p] [/p][p] [/p][p] [/p]
[p]Yes, it should.[/p][p] Will it happen? Prolly after they revamp the models, they'll fit armor better and be able to customize armor in a broader easier fashion.[/p]
While i usually tend to agree with topics as this i have to ask . why should the same armor piece loko entirely different depending on the person wearing it ? After all the skirt i wear in real life doesnt look any different when a guy puts it on ((tho it would look very silly = ) ))
Some things about a male piece armor would have to be changed in order for a female character to properly fit in. So it would make sense that other parts might be different, or other flairs be added. You can still keep the same feeling and appearance of lets say cobalt, but change it to be more femiline and sexy on a female and more manly on a male character.
[p]The reason for this is two fold.[/p][p] First, while we would all like more armor variety, and I am specifically asking for different appearances for characters of different gender, I am not saying that armor drops should be limited by race and sex. (We already get enough pieces that are not useable because no one in the group/raid meets the class/level requirements.) So while it is less realistic, the idea that your "Cloth Armor Leg Piece" (your skirt) having a different appeance when worn by a male character is exactly what I am asking for.[/p][p] Second, as MMO players, we already accept many unrealistic conventions to make the game work better - respawning after death, mob corpses neatly disappearing when looted, swimming in heavy armor, etc. - that this idea should not be too hard to accept. And, since the benefit would be making characters more distinctive (and, yes, sexier) I believe that it would be worth accepting another unrealistic MMO convention.[/p]
You may want to look out for news about the character model revamp then . when that comes out SOE will be able to put in more types of armor much more easily
Pffft... don't be silly. Armor is designed to be *functional*. Clothing is designed for looks; armor is designed to protect. There is only so many one can change in an armor design for the sake of looks before it starts to become nonfunctional. I can accept the idea of more visually appealing cloth (and maybe leather - maybe) armors, but platemail and chainmail needs to remain functional. Besides that, we'll start getting into the discussion of whether or not the design is sexist - some of us prefer not to be *forced* into a certain look (as, yes, I do not like the idea of wearing more 'feminine' armor - I'm an adventurer and my character's looks should reflect that!). Perhaps if there is a choice in the matter it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't imagine how they could possibly do this. Unisex designs help us avoid that problem entirely. Also... why in the nine hells am I not allowed to wear a "male" suit? If I want to "cross-dress", they better let me, dammit!
[p] [/p][p]Armour designs in the fantasy genre has never (or almost never) been functional. Its supposed to be unrealistic isn't it? ..hence "Fantasy". Conan anyone? Chainmail bikinis FTW! :thumbup: [/p]
[p]Nearly all the adds show women (and men) wearing sexy armor or gowns...but none of these exist for the players (not that I see anyway). [/p][p]I want my female warrior to wera an iron bikini!![/p][p]Realistic and practical? No. But neither is fighting monsters and dragons while using spells.[/p]
I agree, I orginally started playing this game when they leaked the sexy white armor that showed thighs, arms and clevage on a female paladins armor. I was so impressed by how classy it was down and how sexy it made the female form look. Imagine my disappointment when we were all told it wasn't going to be put into the game and now to see all the armor look the same on EVERYONE. Its extremely boring and uninspired. I hope when the model/skeleton revamp goes through to return and find some sexier looks to female armor. I have to admit, while the armor is not as nicely rendered (and please don't ignore that fact and start flaming), the male and female appearances in world of warcraft, on character look different with the female characters showing a little more skin, bare bellies, thighs, arms and heaven forbid, clevage. So once my game time has run its course i'm back to wow till they fix this problem and yes, for me, its one of the larger issues in the game, along with not being able to colorize your own armor (and again don't flame) because there is no better way to make your armor feel like it is your armor then to let you set the color as long as its not offensive and of a basic color scheme (no hot neon colors). I also find it amazing that since EQ II wants to draw the core audience away from WoW, they haven't made this change already. What better way to get teenage boys to come play EQ II then to show more skin on the female characters and throw in a few sexier dances while you're at it.
So you mean it's ok for you to have what you want and not be forced to wear atractive feminine looking armor, but it's perfectly ok for those of us who want to wear atractive feninine looking armor to wear what amounts to mens cloths with breasts and a smaller waist, it's just as bad forcing one was as it is the other, and staticticaly speaking they would have a lot more subcribers were more atractive stylized armors (both for women and men) than trying to pawn for realistic armor in a fantasy game, once my friends quit EQ2 I did as well, it's a good game and all but the armors are so horible in the game that without having my friends to play with even having such good gameplay I simply have no desire to continue playing a game where I do not like how my character looks at all.
[p]True, but this is what I think players like AsukaKazuma are concerned about - being exploited for someone else's entertainment. [/p][p]Actually, I wasn't asking for something so extreme (at least not in this thread ). "Attractive" and "Feminine" does not have to mean exploitive (and to some, degrading) forcing female avatars to show lots of cleavage and leg. [/p][p](Note, I personally don't understand why that would be seen as degrading, but I have seen enough complaints that it does from players to know that many do feel that way.)[/p]
I think that it is kinda low to have teenage boys come to a game because it makes them more frisky than another.
It's really difficult to say for certain whether it would be for the better or not to have, some would say, more 'shallow' players entering the game simply because of the attractive avatars. I don't mean to sound overly judgemental, but the tone of your post tells me that you prefer games simply for the graphics, and not the gameplay. [hr]"Armour designs in the fantasy genre has never (or almost never) been functional."[hr] I beg to differ; armor designs in D&D games have almost universally been completely functional, yet still have an attractive appeal about them without going to unrealistic extremes to show skin. I don't care what anybody says; more skin does NOT = attractive! Maybe to weak minds subject to the thought that nudity = sex it would be, but honestly, that's not the issue here. The issue is that the armor designs, frankly, suck, more often than not. The 'femininity' of it wouldn't even be an issue if the armor were just more visually appealing. For example, why is it that almost every single set of armor in the game is almost singularly one color (with the possible exception of fulginate)? There would be no reason to complain if the visual attractiveness were simply upped a notch (and the clown colors tossed by the wayside - please, no more pink platemail!). And if you absolutely need to show skin, I can't imagine why they couldn't simply stick in some more social clothing in the game. Heck, even put in an option to display that clothing instead of your armor while you're adventuring - I can keep my functional, full suit of platemail and you can run around half-naked if you want to. Everybody wins!
[p]Bah , funtional smunctional , I agree the armor needs a revamp. I would love to see armor to have a different look based on race , why would trolls , woodelves or dark elves etc make their armor exactly the same in look? do they all shop at the local J.C. shmitty's ? and ffs bring back assless chaps! it was so cool in eq1 darkelves (female of course) with the assless armor lol, cracked me up.[/p][p] [/p]
[p]Just to clarify some things: :lol:[/p][ul][li]Sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Much of the talk about adding "sexier" armors tends to revolve around female avatars. Making armors that are more "attractive and feminine" should be paralleled with armors that are more "handsome and masculine" [/li][li]Skin does not equal sex appeal. . . . At least not in itself. Adding more style and "coolness" to the different armors in the game would go much to make the game (specifically our characters) more enjoyable to look at. If SOE does go for adding "sexier" armor looks, I do hope that they do so with an eye to taste and panache. (Also, as might be pointed out, what would look "hot" on a human, elven, or fae woman would look kind of silly on a female Iksar, Troll, or Froglok. The current social dresses in game have this problem.) [/li][li]No one should be forced to be "my" entertainment. This goes to the issue of choice that AsukaKazuma brought up. A related issue is that female warrior in an armored bikini will also evoke a very different social reaction then one dressed on functional looking Vanguard plate (and the number of rude jerks out there is appalling :-(). This is really about making the character more "attractive" to the eyes of the owning player, so players need to have more freedom to decide what they want to look like, and what they are willing to put up with.[/li][/ul][p](Yes, long time posters may remember, that I have advocated "bikini-type" armors. I now have much more understanding of how controversial that is though.)[/p][p](edited for spelling)[/p]
[p]I guess we can agree that having cross gender armour works so far. But I would like to add that having seperate armour for males and females, along with the armour we have now would add to the diversity of eq2. I'm not saying I want a bunch of "Red Sonyas" and "Conans" running around wearing battle harnesses. It would be nice to just have the option to do so.[/p][p] [/p][p]erain darkblood, warlock of Kithicor [/p]
Unforunately for us it has actual less to do with wanting armor to look realistic or function. Which btw none of the armor in EQ2 would be even close to functional and would still fit only in the ceromonial category as its far to skin tight (armor had to be loose and yet stiff in the right places to deflect blows away and to have room for the padding beneath to absorb the energy of a direct blow.) What it really has more to do with is that as the detail and closer to real life the graphics and imagery gets the amount of work, rework, and postwork that goes into anything exponentially increases. It is far more cost effective to design things that can work in a myriad of characters and models then have to custom tailor each. Unfortunately this does lead to a rather bland and boring look. Which is a big negative for many in a fantasy game because they play the game partly to attain some uniqueness and individuality versus the doldrum of real life. There is also another phenomenon that is actually under fairly intense study in both academic and entertainment circles. The closer we can create a virtual reality to reality the more that imperfections, inscruitines and improper details we notice. The working theory is that when something is purely fantasy and improbable to our mind we ignore or overlook these things as we know it to be not true (This is all in terms of image our minds perceive and not our conscious mind.). But as we come close to what could be real our minds quickly pick up on all the little details which don't fit to what should be right and we reject them. In effect the closer we come to perfection that harder it is to attain perfection and the more critical we become. Something ancient sculptors seemed to have refined to knowing how real life to make an object. Oh and as a small thing to hang out for all those wanting realistic and fuctional armor. It really doesn't matter how realistic and armor or shield or whatever is, its still all fantasy to be able to withstand the force of a giants foot, a magical blast, or dragons slashing claw. Sometimes reality hurts the fantasy more then it helps, and in fantasy rpgs all armor is fantasy no matter how it looks in its ability to actually protect the wearer against fantasy perils.
This, actually, was mainly meant to apply specifically to human beings, and NOT inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are much easier to recreate than human beings - they tend not to have to contend with the 'uncanny valley' as much as human beings do, due to very specific and subtle areas that tell us that a human being is not real, whereas with inanimate objects, there is a much greater variety of materials in the world to work with, so it could very well easily end up looking plastic-like an' that's what it'll look like in our minds - like plastic, but not necessarily 'unrealistic'. In fact, I think it's silly to bring this argument up on the subject of clothing and armor looks - we've had stiff-looking clothing an' armor in our games for a long time now, and when it's done right, do we ever really even complain about that? Complaints in the "uncanny valley" are usually leveled at the unrealistically doll-like skin textures, and not the 'perfection' or 'non-perfection' of the clothing or environment textures or what-have-you. I can't even imagine how it can apply to armor and clothing; so, the 'less realistic' it is, the better, simply because our mind's eye would know it as unrealistic as compared to 'more realistic' armors? I don't think so; I would think it's much, much worse to simply cop out on armor and clothing and create completely stupid and unrealistic looks just because of the potential of falling into the 'uncanny valley' (which, again, should not even apply to inanimate objects in the first place). It is our skin, our faces that come under the most scrutiny when it comes to the realism of graphics, not the non-living things surrounding them.
Simple, in the way it moves, flexes, and conforms to the body. Clothing and armor is inanimate until it is animated by us wearing it. And seeing as most of us wear clothing continously... I said most... we are very innately tuned to it.
