Ask the Crusaders of the First Crusade, they know about it so much you won't need God to tell you

I don't play a lot of fantasy RPGs.

I said I wasn't even going to bring that up.

Are we seriously complaining about the practicality of women armor, or accessories? If women preferred practicality more than looks, you would wear shoes instead of high heels, a cheap handbag as opposed to a brand name one, a cheap T Shirt as opposed to a $300 dress.

Any sixualization of armor is a reflection of reality, where women would choose fashion over practicality 99% of the time. Otherwise the fashion industry would never thrive and would go out of business. So to see a bunch of females in here lamenting the oversixualization or impracticality of female armor is frankly hypocritical. How many pairs of high heel shoes do you have at home?

Pretty sure for every female that doesn't like sixy armor, there are 10 more that do like them. Otherwise the number of female dwarves in WoW would dwarf (pun intended) the number of female night elves and blood elves. I mean, do all female gamers look like night elves and blood elves? What an unrealistic model for women. The female dwarf model would reflect the average woman more accurately.

For argument's sake, the devs actually got it right if they made female armor as impractical as possible.

I love this thread I come back to it now and then to read the stuff. I agree with the side that wants to bring physics into the game I don't think boobs are realistic on armor made to protect you from random dragon attacks, Mages, magic traps etc. People are right to look back at historical armors you know because they knew about all that stuff. In that one movie they even made a new hand for Ash to hold his chainsaw with.

well some of the heaviest was actually jousting armor it was never intended for actual combat and could weigh as much as 50 kg (100)pounds now most armor used in combat would be around 40 pounds+ craftmaship will make better armor=lighter but commanly chain-mail was used as it was lighter looked up some of this on wikipedia

Would be nice to actually have anti-armour weapons, with hooks and piercing points...would complicate melee combat though.

Actually we do have one. Maces ignore armor.

I think Boudica would be a better woman to look at. Empire having roman looking armor it would fit and would fit the Skyrim people a little better then joan. Sorry only early art I can find her in she is always in a gown or robes even in battle.

Zero. Not that it's any of your damn business. And I know you're not saying that women in media are oversixualized for the sake of other women, because that would be really dumb.

This is no more a "hypocritical" topic than any of the other threads complaining about the appearance of armor or helmets.


She was probably a non-combatant. You're going to find very few period depictions of women in armor, but in the ones I've seen, they look like men.

Well, the armors are supposed to keep you alive long enough to eventually get laid, while the clothings are supposed to get you laid while you're still alive. Both are different in function but I get what you mean. Girls and the whole "fashion" industry relies on impracticality. The amount of time it takes to setup the makeup is enough evidence

Of course, how dumb of me to think that there are many types of women, when clearly, only women like you are the real women. The other types of women who do thrive on attention by dressing as sixily as possible, clearly they have been brainwashed by the media and they are the victims. No woman would ever think any differently as you.

The others argue about armor and helmets because they look ugly. Not because they are impractical. Impractical are low cut clothes that show cleavages if we go by the practicality of clothes keeping you warm. But the clothes that enhance your cleavage that women willingly buy and continually buy to ensure the fashion business never go out of business, is pretty much the standard. So "impractical female armor" is frankly almost an oxymoron.

If you don't like sixy armor, don't use it. Just use the ones that are practical. It's all about choice. Women who want sixy armor can use it, women who want practical can use it. You don't see me complaining about how dumb the forsworn armors are for males. As a thief I wear leather armor.

If they're wearing high heels and thongs into battle, they'd be dead. Darwin at work.

What? Armor is meant to protect your vital organs and limbs, not enhance your cleavage. It can look good and badass without being sixualized. And it IS about aesthetics. If you'd actually read the thread, you'd see we discussed that- to me, seeing a character in something painful and dangerous is not sixy.

No seriously, did you read the thread or did you just barge in here and start lecturing?

There are accounts of her ridding into battle hacking slashing etc. The early English and Celt tribes were pretty good about letting SOME woman fight and train. Anyway it's off topic. Good luck with your quest for armor. But if nothing else you have ready made soup bowls.

A full suit of chain weighs more than a full plate suit. Plus most of the weight hangs off of the shoulders rather than plate which distributes the weight quite well.

There is also an account of her riding a ghostly chariot through London, doesn't mean it's true. Besides the Celts weren't exactly known for wearing armour anyway, so it's kind of irrelevant what she wore

If a dragon really wants to stomp you, no matter how practical the armor is, you die in one hit. In a fantasy world where magic exists, how does an impractical armor protect you LESS than a practical armor? To argue that armor should look practical in order to protect you better is very strange. How do you explain npc mages in robes being able to withstand dragons? Wouldn't that be even more unrealistic?

So the reasoning itself is flawed. We shouldn't have boob armors because there is no way boob armors can protect you as well as a non-boob armor. What?

Armor in games is designed to look less practical, but more pretty. And armor for males look buff because the majority of male gamers think that looks cool. Armor for females look sixy because the majority of female gamers think that looks cool. There are exceptions to every rule made, but the devs rightfully designed the armor to cater to the majority.

I think mage robes are just as dumb. I play battle mages, heavy armor.

Do you even read posts? I just said that it's about aesthetics. The boob plate armors look ridiculous. What some people find ridiculous is going to change depending on their taste and criteria.

And of course your authority for declaring what the majority wants is...?

This beside the fact that I've already said numerous times that I don't care if other women like boob plate or even fur bikinis and that the game at least has a few reasonable alternatives.

Common misconception. It was more than possible to get on and off of horses in heavy armour, as at most a (practical, non-decorative) suit of armour would weigh about six pounds to a stone. It was not an inch thick as an earlier poster theorised - nowhere near it.

As for females in armour, they did not emphasise the briasts. Neither the Scythians nor the Irish - who had more female warriors than any other nation combined - had female armour, they just wore male armour. The Scythians actually chopped their briasts off so that they did not impede upon their fighting skills. No emphasis there at all. Armour's main function is to deflect blows - a nice channel running down the middle of the chest would not be high on the list of a female warrior's priorities.

briast cups aren't just impractical, they're outright dangerous. There's the obvious issue of directing blows to the most vital organs, but the biggest problem is the inflexibility of the plate and the crevice. If a woman were to roll, lean forward or fall, that inflexible crevice would break her sternum. No 'if's and/or 'but's. That's what would happen. Potentially, that's a fatal wound.

Why do people go on about over-exaggerating, impractical female armor when the Male armors are just as "bad"? However, "briast Plate" DOES NOT map to the crotch of male armor - It maps to those frikken huge shoulderpads that defy practicality but emphasize the broadness of the shoulders, and the helms like Iron and Horned Steel that emphasize the square jawline, and pectorals.

I'm not seeing any female armor that has a briast crevice that would threaten the sternum - any impact would be directed toward the sides of the armor or directly onto the shock-absorbing briast tissue first. Especially the female Ebony armor - looking at it, it doesn't have the traits it's been accused of having. Judging from the shape alone, it has sufficient padding because briasts aren't shaped like that.

That previously-linked piece of "real" briastplate is far more impractical because it exaggerates the size and crevice between the briasts. Ebony armor, in comparison, only exaggerates furthest half of the briast-space, leaving impacts against the base well-protected.

If anything, as a "shock absorber", the Female ebony armor is more effective than Male Ebony armor on a Female character - having a "flat" or rounded piece of plating that ignores female anatomy have a high chance of cracking the ribs by driving the physical mass of already-compressed briasts against the ribs without putting any offsetting pressure against the sternum or other half of the briastplate, allowing the ribs to flex the wrong way and crush inward as the ribcage checks out the "concave" look. In contrast, the female ebony armor takes the contours of the briasts into account, so that an impact against the chest has the entire force distributed along the entire surface area of the torso, instead of putting extreme pressure on the briasts only.

mby it's built for comfort?

Elder Scrolls 1

That's how female armor supposedly looks like:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg[/img]

and the op complains about a few dents in the plate ...

personally I like how bethesda is ignoring the fantasy convention of chainmail tangas and bikinis.
women should keep their clothes on when going into battle.

edit: fvck that forum ... no embedded pictures...

Actually, the female armor in Arena's just as modest as it is in following games - The box art doesn't represent that, though.

Meh, I see the boobplates as a nice feature. Speaking that boobplates are dangerous is pretty much irrelevant: you don't suffer any visible injuries when a big spiky trap slams you to the wall, that much is enough to say Forsworn Armor protects as good as Daedric Armor in terms of "dangerous"

Heck, you don't suffer anything even when you go naked. Might as well go for comfort in this case

Good points. I emphasise the main point I wanted to comment on too. No one complains about the exaggeratuons on the men that could easily catch a blade or spear point.

But that`s not the point because these things would not catch as much as people think. I also believe that in reality a woman`s boob armour section would be slightly less pronounced (but still there). I think a proud woman warrior would want to be seen as a WOMAN warrior.

I could imgine her having her armour made and saying, "I don`t want no man`s armour- make it a woman`s armour!" meaning it must have a defined boob section- Even with nipbles. Look on some men`s armour in reality they have nipbles.

I believe it`s more about present day `political correctness` and embarassment from some girls about the body why they protest against such armour; nothing to do with it catching between the boob armour. A proud warrior woman of ancient times would not think that way. Just as a warrior male does not.

Proud women warriors of ancient times invariably wore male armour the world over. Some, as said above, cut their briasts off rather than deal with the impracticalities of emphasising them.