DarkWater wrote:I know you guys are going to hate me for this... but...
In the real world, plate armor is uni-sexed. There is no male or female versions. Breast would have to bounded up. Armor is and always will be made to force the blow away from the body. Having breast area would not only cause the blows directed in the body, but it would also chafe, badly. Only in a male sexist ideological system does form out do function. Even in archery, women bound the right breast as close to the body as possible.
Even new armor systems show every little diffences.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/a ... _ap_01.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w24/ ... ge_315.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:T2Mq ... nt.jpg&t=1
poison_ivy wrote:However, women never wore armour at all back in the day. How do we know whether the breasts would have been noticeable or not on theirs, had they had it? And remember Xena the Warrior Princess?
Although actually, I would agree with you as far as realism goes. But without breasts you can't really tell a male from a female sprite.
Crush wrote:This is a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation.
Rule of Cool > Realism.
Flashy > Functional.
And sexy armor is definitely cool and flashy.
i think this is kinda off topic in the original thread, still i wanna say i really enjoyed, what you pointed out, darkwater. so i write it here, hopefully, it won't be deleted or ignored.
if the devs think sexiness is greater than realistics - i would possibly agree - just the question remains: which norm tells what is sexy? and why not having sexy "male" sprites aswell?
but maybe having male and female playersprites at all is too much. having just a unisex playersprite would be great, surely more sexy, less effort for the artists, and, very important, less sexist!
(even better would be the possibility to choose your own bodily characteristics, but it would require some algorythm that draws the sprites depending on the players choice, dunno if that's possible, at least, i think, not easy.)