[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.23497729 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Hi, /tg/.

Practicality or aesthetics?

Love, /v/.

>> No.23497746

Why do you have to choose? You can have both, man.

>> No.23497779


>> No.23497782

The left one is more practical.

The right one will cut her hands the moment she tries to reload.

I think the left has both practical and sexy.

0/10 would not get trolled again

>> No.23497784

Why does "aesthetics" mean "trashy slut" in OP's picture?

>> No.23497789


Then you take the practical designs and put aesthetics on top.

>> No.23497794

Depends on the game, I guess. If I'm playing Cyberpunk, style takes priority.

>> No.23497799

That's neither.

The armor is shoddy design, and all the sexy got toned down by shitty fashion.

>> No.23497813

All these pictures are of women, so where is the practical example?

>> No.23497823



>> No.23497829

>Someone who obviously fights in close quarters that wears nearly nothing is more practical that someone who obviously fights at range with at least SOME armor.

>> No.23497831

Depends on the setting. If the men aren't half-naked barbarians, then practicality.

>> No.23497835

rate me /tg/ plxxx

>> No.23497839


>> No.23497847

>Not a wizard

>> No.23497849

Practicality 100%. Doesn't matter if it looks like shit as long as it works.

>> No.23497850

Oh yes.

She fights at range with what, her crossbow?
She's been carrying that fucking in her arms, since she's too stupid to put a sling on it.

Look at her quiver. Look at that fucking quiver.
Those bolts are loaded pointy-side up.

That ho is both stupid and ugly.

The bitch on the left can still cut you up.

>> No.23497863

>The one on the left is also wearing high heels. She is clearly not warrior material.

>> No.23497865

Fairly decent in aethetics but cloth armor is shit. Unless of course it's dyed leather...

>> No.23497870


now see, here, we have a non-retarded example.

>> No.23497884

wait till you see prostitutes run.

It's not ideal running shoes, but them hoes will fuck you up.

This here, is a ho.

>> No.23497889


meant for that.

>> No.23497904

Left one takes less time to undress, thus is more practical.

>> No.23497922

Looks like heavy-duty clothing.

Don't travel with armor. You'll just die tired.

She's armed with a crossbow. In an age with that shit around, anything short of actual plate-mail wouldn't help anyways, and she ain't going to scale cliffs with plate.

>> No.23497936

If she was a wizard, she could fight naked and still have high AC.

>> No.23497954

But she's obviously not a wizard.
Since she obviously isn't living in luxury.

>> No.23497972


me 2 plzzzzzzz

>> No.23497976

And that's why she's shit tier.

>> No.23497977

>>>/v/, now.

But in all seriousness, aesthetics I honestly think women dressed like that are more attractive anyways.

>> No.23497980

Practicality IS and aesthetic. I think the one on the left looks gaudy and retarded.

>> No.23497985

Practicality, I'm attracted to realism. Also, why the fuck would you wear heels, like, ever?

>> No.23497987


>> No.23497992

Why is the woman on the left masturbating?

>> No.23497994

Too many belts and rivets, no gloves.

Pretty practical overall, but can use some work.

>> No.23498018

Practicality is aesthetic. Form follows function and it looks better too.

>> No.23498019

Ugly ginger, obvious attitude problem.

Therefore not practical nor sexy.

Fuck you, post some 10/10 bitches with decent equipment. None of this shit with ugly girls in ugly useless clothes.

>> No.23498027


Because that's how you destroy monsters in Royo-world.

>> No.23498028


>> No.23498029

Not a wizard

>> No.23498044

This guy still working? Where can I get his stuff? Have a fetish for babes fucking monstrosities.

>> No.23498049

>Why is the woman on the left masturbating?
She's not. She's just adjusting her pussy.

>> No.23498050

What if I prefer the aesthetics of practicality?
To me the right side is more aesthetically pleasing while the left is the sort of juvenile pap I'd expect to see airbrushed on the side of a van or on the cover of some shitty metal album.

>> No.23498056

I think you mean dick

>> No.23498074

>adjusting a dick
Like that makes any sense...

>> No.23498102

Monks will fuck you and your friends shit up, and have an AC higher than your Fighters whilst using nothing but some peasant cloth and half a chair.

>> No.23498104

You guys are fucking retarded.

Here's how you have both sexy women, and practical armor.

See? The woman is obviously sexy, and the armor is obviously not-too-retarded.

Just because the girl is ugly and she covers her skin, does not make it practical.

>> No.23498110


She's got an itch.

>> No.23498114


r8 me m8

>> No.23498118

You guys are forgetting that nobody actually goes to war dressed like the left lady. Don't lose your shit at the character, lose your shit at the artist not giving enoigh of a fuck about character or setting to avoid selling out and showing skin for publicity.

>> No.23498119

continuing my education of decent armor

this girl is going to need a helmet, I'm not going to have sex with a mangled face.

>> No.23498124


>> No.23498126

>not vidya

This is a question of taste, which is dangerously close to a question of fun

>> No.23498129

getting crowned with torn tabard.

Both stupidly rude and ugly at the same time.

>> No.23498131

But that face is already mangled.

>> No.23498136

>not going to have sex with


>> No.23498138

Why not one or the other perhaps both? Their all nice in their own way.

>> No.23498143

I still see two eyes, blond hair, and lips that could suck golfballs through garden hoses.

I don't know what your problem is.

Continuing dump.

>> No.23498150


last one, unless you guys want to see a less good example that has too much riveting.

>> No.23498151

>haven't seen one helmet in this thread

I thought you guys had practicality down

>> No.23498156



>> No.23498157

What, she couldn't even put on a fresh tabard before a crowning ceremony?
0/10 would not swear fealty to

>> No.23498169

say that to me not on 4chan and see what happens.

I have ten katanas each folded by master japanese smiths a million times.

I'll cut you like I cut those bullets.

>> No.23498178

Why not both?

>> No.23498179

>Practicality or aesthetics?


Get out.

>> No.23498182


Hear hear!

>> No.23498184

Listen. Practicality is one thing. But if she's not going toe-to-toe with some baller on the spot, I'd rather look at a face than a suit of full plate.

Point is, we get fucking helmets. No need to fault anyone, she ain't even fighting.

>> No.23498194

>woman goes barechested and people bitch

>man goes barechested and it's practical

Make up your damn mind people. I wanna get back to my bikini-mail

>> No.23498200

>no crotch protection
>no rondels


>> No.23498201


this armor is my favvvv <3 <3 <3

>> No.23498203

I'd rather look at a helmet than that face

>> No.23498205

These two represent a good portion of /tg/ climate

Practical armor can look cool, hell it can even look feminine without sacrificing protective covering.

Practicality should be favored above so called aesthetics for a few main reasons

1-Aesthetics are subjective to taste of your target audience, which can also vary across the age/gender demographic

2-Practicality attracts the demographic that likes to analyze how something works

3-practicality adds immersion to your setting if you can imagine people actually using this in combat

4-Overtly "sexy" armor can be insulting to your fanbase as it insults their intelligence and their maturity

>> No.23498207

She looks like a middle schooler. Am I going to have to call my friend Chris Hansen?

>> No.23498209

There's a picture that gets thrown around about how if a breastplate followed the contours of the breast, it would allow weapons to glance off into the valley between the two peaks, which is not efficient.

If the breast were covered entirely by one elevation, it would not be efficient either because the extra space could be collapsed with a strong blow to the chest.

I present a better idea on how to protect the breasts: a breastplate fitted with a "cowcatcher". It can deflect blows and has enough room for the breasts.

>> No.23498210

>You now know why boobplate happened in media.

>> No.23498212

>man goes barechested and it's practical
No one ever say this.

>> No.23498220


If she's not going toe to toe with some baller, then bitch better get out of that armor and into the miniskirts.

>> No.23498221

Noone in this thread ever said men scantily clad are properly armored either, you're just tryinto start stuff ruseman.

>> No.23498230

Aesthetics, most of the time. But then again I don't consider realism very important to my games anyway.

>> No.23498233

Dear god, her left hip goes backward.

Does anyone involved with this picture know human female anatomy?

>> No.23498240


>> No.23498242

Female Train Knights!

>> No.23498243

A blow strong enough to crack through your armor would mess you up right fierce anyway.

>> No.23498249

Crotch protection was for dismounted knights. Guys on horseback have a saddle and a horse's head protecting them.

>> No.23498253

>Soul Calibur
>Human anatomy

Nice Try.

>> No.23498255

It could be. We all know men have +4 Chest AC. With the right Feats, I'm sure you could equal a female in Full Boobplate.

>> No.23498258

Additionally, both artists and audience always forget distinction between practical and ceremonial armor.

Some people get the idea into their heads that the fancy-as-fuck suits are getting worn into combat.

>> No.23498263

another thing is, normal women can just bind their tits down, if you really need the room for boobplate, you probably shouldn't be in the fight anyways.

>> No.23498268

Is that the Spartan from the Deadliest Warrior game?

>> No.23498274

then that picture needs a horse.
And not a depiction of the guy stabbing some imaginary dude on foot.

>> No.23498281

Spah 'round here.

>> No.23498305

Shame fantasy usually doesn't depict "normal" women.

>> No.23498313

Figured this was more /tg/ related since p&p allows infinitely more freedom than vidya in areas like this.

>> No.23498320

Hate to break it to you, but done and done.

>> No.23498326

People who ride horses don't ride horses 24/7

Sometimes they'd get to where they needed, dismounted, then fought crotchless.

>> No.23498327

Aesthetics clearly. Wat r u gay?

>> No.23498328

also /tg/ has a slightly older, and calmer audience.

Just by a teeny-weeny bit, though. It's 4chan, it's still a shithole.



>> No.23498340


If we're talking armor than practicality > aesthetics by a long shot. It's fucking armor, it's supposed to protect you from harm and (if you are an adventurer) doesn't hinder your mobility and over-encumber you. Sure you can spice up the design a bit, but if it fucks over it's intended purpose which is the whole damn reason you're wearing it, then that's bullshit.

As for clothes, aesthetics > practicality. Barring a few no-brainers like "wear heavy clothing during the winter" and other such things, clothing can look like whatever the hell you want without any real problems.

Also, and this very fucking important and something I don't want just cheesecake chainmail-bikini artists to understand but anyone who designs ridiculous as fuck fantasy armor, you can wear clothes with your armor, you can even wear the clothes over it. Pic-related. If you have to make some stupid looking piece of metal that barely qualifies as protection to make a character design unique than you're just doing it wrong.

If attractive and armored is how you want to go, just give the girl some lightweight, simple and minimal armor that doesn't heavily cover her up and accentuate her femininity through her clothing choice instead of making her easier to kill.

>> No.23498343

then maybe they should think about getting some crotch protection.

"Alfred, I must now dismount. Bring me my battle-cup."

>> No.23498344 [DELETED] 

Yeah, you can put anything on /tg/.

It's essentially a more worksafeish /b/.

>> No.23498346

Tits sell.

That's it. Look at the state of superhero comics. They can be strong independent women all they like, but they best be showing off some skin. You market to dudes, you give them what they want.

Let's face it, we're outnumbered. Too many people want women as eye candy.

>> No.23498349

You can tell he's mounted because of the pistol. In that time period pistols replaced the lance.

>> No.23498350

The musculado armor chest plate has the same flaw as the boob plate

unnecessary creases that lead the sword into vital areas, to be honest, the boob plate isn't that big of a deal on /tg/ unless its like pic related

covering ONLY the boobs, for a chest plate to work it has to cover the ENTIRE chest area

>> No.23498357

They fought without crotches?
I can see the tactical advantage, but how did they accomplish this sorcery?

>> No.23498384

That's a defeatist attitude.

We all know tits sell.

We just vote with our wallets for better protected tits.

You're like the guy that say "face it, people make bad decisions, so we shouldn't make good decisions either."

>> No.23498388


>> No.23498404

That picture is my fetish.

Yes, my fetish is cheesecakes getting killed.

It's a mixture of bimbo fetish and guro.

>> No.23498413

Didn't you know? The English had detachable crotches.

That's how strap-ons were invented, by the French, in an effort to emulate the English success.

>> No.23498414

Sisters of battle are a good example, they do have a "boob plate" that accentuates secondary sexual characteristics, but it is armor, a protective layer of metal and padding that stops kinetic energy from turning their vitals into red sauce and jello

>> No.23498426

>Rondels beyond early 1500's.
>Not seeing that guy obviously wears a fucking codpiece, not to mention a BLOODY MOUNTED CUIRASSIER.

Jesus Christ, posted something historical and some chump goes up to it saying 0/200 NOT COMBAT-WORTHY.

>> No.23498428

Think that there's an Arbite.

Nonetheless a good example.

>> No.23498446


Excuse me for not having studied every period ever, and making a judgement based on what I can tell by the picture.

Next time, explain the invisible details for the rest of us, you condescending twit.

>> No.23498455

Every superhero movie that has come out in the past decade has had so much manservice in it that if you can't see it then you are blind

The Avengers had so much mancandy that I am quite frankly surprised that all females in the theater didn't get type II diabetes

>> No.23498467

They did.

If you had a female, you would notice it immediately.

>> No.23498479

Shira is an Arbite, not a SOB but you do have a good example both picture wise and s you put it, the armor of the SOB is a good example

>> No.23498481

My bad, here you go

aside from the lack of helmet (which every 40K supersoldier seems to suffer from) its still armor with good coverage

Also there are in fact designs for SoB helmets

>> No.23498485

As a straight male I've gotta say Chris Hemsworth is one handsome motherfucker.

>> No.23498504

I'm willing to let the boob plate thing slide, given the Imperium is an ass-backwards Theocracy where 80% of the GDP is spent on MOAR CANDLES AND MOAR SKULLS.

>> No.23498507

damn straight

>> No.23498521


You can be straight and be able to acknowledge other males as sexy.

He's pretty sexy, in a burly mansteak sort of way.

>> No.23498523

Her face looks like a tomato.

>> No.23498527

Helmets attract bullets due to magnetism. Little known fact. Its similar to the push-pull effects you get on the Elbereth-Jenkins scale.

>> No.23498537

>insulting someone and then repeating their point as if they had not just made it
>all of my wat to your "argument"

Every guy in movies usually is, fanservice is a two way street, sure we have more beastly or inhuman male supers in fiction, but do you have any idea how large of a female fetish pool there is for that?

Same way /tg/ loves its monstergirls

>> No.23498566

... And? The Hulk is a tank made of muscle, Thor's like a god, Tony Stark built that suit IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! They got their shit going on beyond making vaginas tingle (usually because of it). Remind me what movie was made around a female heroine recently?

>> No.23498568

>but do you have any idea how large of a female fetish pool there is for that?
I do actually.

>> No.23498587

I really like the realistic SOB armor.

>> No.23498592

>Invisible details.
>Picture specifically says c.a. 1590's

Your fault. It's like looking at a piece of hoplite armor, seeing way too many openings, and going 0/2000 UNPRACTICAL on the get go without knowing the technological capabilities or the conditions and tactics of the battlefield of the time.

I owe you nothing, bub.

>> No.23498598

Didn't the Hunger Games come out at roughly the same time? That had a female heroine I think.

>> No.23498603

Tony Stark is sexy as a naughty bad boy, not because he's a great engineer.

The Hulk ain't sexy. Bruce Banner is cute, though.

That's my opinion.

>> No.23498604

Form is function. The layered trappings of decadent bourgeois society that we identify as 'aesthetics' are, in fact, not beautiful, and appeal only to the poisoned eyes of the hedonistic parasite. Subhuman creatures who would subjugate their fellow human beings aesthetically, by stripping from them purpose and worth, and instilling them with a sort of property's value independent of their utility, instead based in something as banal as how they 'look.'

To the eyes of the true man, who values in all things potential and fulfillment, something cannot be beautiful that functions poorly, and only things that function well can contain beauty.

>> No.23498621

SoB's helmet design is awesome too.

>> No.23498622


Fine. I didn't notice the title.

I still don't see the crotch protection, or am I supposed to go read a long-ass book that talks about under-the-poofy-pantaloon-armor?

>> No.23498639

The "Underworld" Series
"Prometheus" had a two female leads
"Girl with the dragon tatoo"
"The hunger games"
The entire "Resident evil" franchise

These are just the action movies of 2012

>> No.23498645

Preach it, papa, preach it!

>> No.23498647

Or you could go to wiki and look at Tudor Armor or armor in the 1590's and you're golden.

>> No.23498648



Would overthrow the tsar with

>> No.23498661

Also there is talk of an "Expendables 3" movie with only female leads, and the "Evil Dead" remake has a female lead as Ash, Bruce Cambell approved

>> No.23498687

>Same way /tg/ loves its monstergirls

So big men are monstrous?


>> No.23498691

>What just happened

>> No.23498705

No no no, monstrous males are monstrous, not big men.

Big men are mansteaks, I'm talking fantasy design for males of other races to appear more beast like than the females

>> No.23498707

No, I mean like superheroines. You know, I was talking about the comic books and shit. I know movies do well.

Still though, the fucking Resident Evil franchise? The one that gives no fucks whatsoever about the games and puts the biggest fucking Mary Sue in as a lead, ignoring already established female protags?

>> No.23498727

To be fair, the brutalism trend has completely dominated architecture since the 70s.

>> No.23498735

So says the regime that adopted aristocratic riding pants and other aristo stuff.

>> No.23498781

I don't know, I wasn't there, but I'll bet it functioned like a boss.

>> No.23498790


>> No.23498791

Alice and Selena from "Resident evil" and "Underworld" are superheroines

The Judge Dredd 2012 movie had Judge Anderson, who was a superheroine co-starring as a major character that half the movie was based off of, with a female villain lead

Expendables 2 had a female crew member that was reasonably "Badass" as most of the crew were

"Predators" had a major female action heroine

"Dark shadows" had a female main villain that was to be taken very seriously

What more do you want?

>> No.23498844

Superheroines? Have you not seen the fandom for femshep?

>> No.23498867

>doesn't know how to detach his own crotche

filthy non magical plebs need to go home.

No bro, your hambeast got type II diabetes the old fashioned way.

>> No.23498884

Everyone please stop with the ad hominem, it really takes away from the argument and stalls our logic

>> No.23498909

>expecting anything more from a tripfag.

>> No.23498925

I love Femshep. loved how not all the armors avaliable to her in me 2/3 had a boobplate. that was my major complaint about the first game. 24/25 century and we have plasticy boob plates for our female marines... reapers totally should have kicked our asses.

>> No.23498934

Yes. I expect logic and respectful behavior from my fellow vigilan/tg/uardsmen

Why? Because I believe that we are all better than devolving into petty insults, you are better, I am better, and everyone on this board is better than to sink into the negative stereotypes.

>> No.23498962


Well I remember watching one where there was this supercompetent redheaded master spy femme fatale

>> No.23499004

>ad hominem


My next character is going to be lenin: sword master edition, liberating the working class from their piggish over lords and meaningless gods.

>> No.23499043

lol skull boobs

>> No.23499058

Hell, man. I'd argue heavily that Anderson is the actual main character of that movie.

>> No.23499087


because historically speaking, thats more realistic

>> No.23499100

I've even known a woman with an E-cup who was able to look almost flat with binding, so you can actually be pretty large without needing boobplate. Plus, unless you have implants, boobs are pretty malleable, and should fit in to a normal breastplate most of the time anyhow.

>> No.23499129

>mentions Prometheus
>doesnt mention the whole Alien series

>> No.23499136

Nothing wrong with wearing a skull or ten.

>> No.23499142

Why not both?

>> No.23499146

dat anatomy

>> No.23499170


Is that a oversized Kopesh ?

>> No.23499172

I had not even considered the female heroes of League of Legends

Granted their art is stupidly fanservicy most of the time, but thats on both guys and gals so it evens out

>> No.23499175

Practicality is an aesthetic, and with just enough style it can look pretty at the same time. A suit of renaissance plate armour, for instance, can be both stylish and practical. If you're aiming for survival and not fashion, it's more realistic to do without the flair, though.

>> No.23499186


>> No.23499188

Also, boobs are mostly fat anyway and a fit girl who would be wearing armor into combat isn't very likely to have large breasts.

>Plus, unless you have implants, boobs are pretty malleable, and should fit in to a normal breastplate most of the time anyhow.

Yes, but they also have a lot of fucking nerve-endings so that can be pretty painful and the breast plate needs to be modifed to offer more space/padding for larger breasts. Of course, the contour of the breastplate itself is usually unchanged.

>> No.23499189

>Waaahhh, Waaahhh... Boobs plates are horrible.

Shut up you imbeciles.

>> No.23499198

I was making a point by only listing One genre of movies (action) in one year (2012)

But yes you are correct that is also a huge franchise

>> No.23499219

We covered this already

boob plates and ab plates are passable as long as they actually cover your vital organs

Though they are always functionally at a loss over deflecting bow plates

>> No.23499220

Depends on what you're going for, but generally go with either or.

>> No.23499224

Granted, of course.

My point was more that they'd have to be pretty damn enormous to actually require boobplate rather than the normal shape of armour and some padding. Besides, boobplate isn't any more practical than a more convex cuirass, really. I can understand if they are ceremonial or the setting isn't trying to be realistic.

>> No.23499228

Utilitarianism is sexy.
Also, knight armor would still be sexy even if it wasn't really good at what it does.

>> No.23499237

That's different. Male form is beautiful.

>> No.23499278

The difference between these

and this

Is coverage, one of them will stop a sword from going through your chest, the other one would still hurt if a sword actually hit the armor that covers roughly 10% of what it should cover

if I commissioned armor and it came back only large enough to cover my nipples, I'd be pissed and ask for my money back

>> No.23499282

So technically, you're saying that this can still work. It just has to cover the vital organs.

>> No.23499323

No, because it leaves the stomach completely unprotected. That armor is still crap.

unlike these, which cover the stomach

>> No.23499337

I would agree that its better than nothing
But chainmail would be better, and probably look less gaudy

>> No.23499347

Why do they have to be opposite ideals?
Why an't a knight in armor be a walking art piece, while not sacrificing any practicality?
Why does having adventurer women wear more than a chainmail bikini mean that you dislike sexuality?
Why, why, why?

>> No.23499366


Is it because that allows you to imagine somebody having sex with you?

>> No.23499372

>Implying I don't find women in heavy practical armour to be hot as hell.

They are clearly strong, smart, and capable. I need a woman who could wrestle a bear for me, for I am a flimsy twig and easily snapped.

>> No.23499374

Are tits vital organs?

>> No.23499387

Didn't tg have that one funny thread way back where someone proposed boob armor's fucking amazing because a guided sword means the smith can concentrate on reinforcing that bit?

>> No.23499397

lungs are, this armor is still crap but better than nothing

>> No.23499403

That's basically troll logic. It's impractical no matter how much you reinforce it, and you can only reinforce it so much before it's not a boobplate any more anyway.

>> No.23499407

That is the most retarded argument for the chainmail bikini I have ever heard. I just felt myself become dumber from reading that.

>> No.23499422

I value aesthetics over practicality as long as things aren't absolutely impossible... For example, I draw the line at outfits that look like they couldn't be put on or taken off, or would never avoid wardrobe malfunctions, or ones with metal parts that would have to bend to allow the wearer to move.

Of course, if clothes are explicitly magically capable of materializing on the wearer or whatever, or the story does say that nip slips do indeed happen, then even that much practicality isn't an issue. But if designers are gonna play those cards, it better make sense for the setting.

>> No.23499428

Is that related to the "hurr I know they are aiming for mah boobplate" argument?

>> No.23499430

>I like many fa/tg/uys find women in practical armor to still be just as sexy, in or out of it. The fact that they look like they mean business adds a layer of desirability that she can kick a serious amount of ass.

>> No.23499463

Can the term Utilitarianism really be used in this context?

I dont think it can.

>> No.23499475

oh, so you mean ONLY boobplate? Not boobplate on armor?

Okay then.

Also, ITT: Roman armor of all things used as an example of good body coverage. Wow.

>> No.23499482

how practical that wasp like waist is so practical!

>> No.23499484

But you wouldn't need to reinforce it if that bit wasn't there in the first place.

>> No.23499500

I think I reached a point where I find the girl on the right more sexy than the one on the left in OP's image.
Thank you /tg/.

>> No.23499501

Yes, boob plate on armor is perfectly fine as long as its actual armor and not a metal swimsuit.

>> No.23499503

>40k armor


>> No.23499505

What the fuck are you even saying?

>> No.23499515

Fan Redesign, not trying to imply 40k makes sense.

>> No.23499519

Makes sense, who would you rather spend the day with?

probably the warrior that knows her shit, not the idiot in ceremonial bikini armor thats more likely to stab her than it is to deflect an incoming blow. The one in the bikini armor is a display piece with no personality, the implication of the practical female warrior is history and an interesting persona, not to mention just pure awesome of being a warrior

>> No.23499528

Better'n most anime designs.
At least it puts some metal in the way of the dude what's shootin' at you.

>> No.23499545

that the classic plate armor isnt the pinnacle of practicality. Kinda passed out midway

>> No.23499574


Your point is solid, but I should point out that this is parade armor, meant for decoration and not battle.

>> No.23499576

I won't pretend to know why the waist does that. But I will mention that plate armor was used for, and was the pinnacle of personal defensive technology, for a good 200 years, at least.

>> No.23499595

> Women adventuring
> Anno Domini 2013
Fetishizers gonna fetish.

>> No.23499620

>that the classic plate armor isnt the pinnacle of practicality. Kinda passed out midway

You don't know what you're talking about. Making the waist flare out like you want would achieve precisely jack-shit.

>> No.23499630

I feel like this needs to be posted again.

>> No.23499632

>I won't pretend to know why the waist does that.

It's because the waist is narrower than the shoulders. No part of a suit of armor is wider than it needs to be.

>> No.23499636


The place where the waist flares out like that is called faulds, or lobster plates. It protects the hips and groin.

>> No.23499654

Thanks, I didn't know that.

The source of the apparent complaints isn't the presence of the plates, but that the point from which they emanate is not of uniform width with the rest of the trunk (in defiance of human biology).

>> No.23499669

It's not supposed to perfectly match human biology, it's supposed to make blades slide so they lose force and miss vitals.

>> No.23499675

I dont want it to flare out, Im just confused as to why there needs to be a huge bubble of metal above the waist.

>> No.23499679


Ah, I see. The reason it looks that way is that the faulds are made a decent bit bigger than the hips themselves, to allow for mobility. The "pinched in" part at the top is the actual width of the hips underneath. If they didn't do it that way, the trunk would have been way too stiff.

>> No.23499706

It is probably a bit wide there, yes.

>> No.23499733

The slant of the metal helps define what happens when a blade or other weapon hits it.

>> No.23499830

Expendables 3 is going to have Wesley Snipes. So, no...

>> No.23499844

Nice video

>> No.23499875

That is one sexy suit of armor. Nix the gilded ornamentation and it's a 10/10, would wear into the final battle.

>> No.23499898

Not on your head.

You know, where the brain is.

>> No.23499905

Take a look at her left hand.

>> No.23499914

Take a look at art of officers during combat in 40k.

>> No.23499964

Heels are disgusting.

>> No.23500078

heels are a practical necessity for riding a horse. they were hijacked by women.

>> No.23500089

No they aren't. You can ride a horse in fucking crocs if you're skilled enough and/or the horse is well-trained enough.

>> No.23500110

>tfw gay
>tfw playing barbarian beefcake
and they will never know.

>> No.23500130


I can fly a plane with my dick if I'm skilled enough, but that doesn't make hands an obsolete tool.

>> No.23500136

You "could" but you wouldn't!

>> No.23500171


I would actually like to see someone fly a plane with their dick.

>> No.23500309

Period-accurate female armour is also known as 'male armour'. Wait, I should correct myself: Period-accurate female armour is also known as 'stay in the house, the men are fighting'. With notable exceptions, of course.

I guess what I'm saying is that any fictional female warrior is already a concession to aesthetics. Even the ones in relatively accurate armour tend to have something figure-revealing/hugging about it that would get them killed instantly. So a mix, sliding towards one end of the scale or the other depending on the particulars of the setting.

Sorry for not being fucking binary, OP.

>> No.23500316

practicality has a aestethic all of its own

>> No.23500332

>a genre typically involving other worlds with tech levels and cultures that do not directly correlate to historical Earth timelines

Everything after your first sentence is useless cockspank.

>> No.23500352

>so practical you cant even see anything and have a hard time breathing!

>> No.23500367

>With notable exceptions, of course.

>> No.23500400

How about this?

>> No.23500411

+Drake Sword and Grass Crest Shield and we're set for YOLO

>> No.23500420


>> No.23500429

No it isn't. Because if you're going to pull the "hey, it's fantasy, nothing from the real world applies at all!" card, then you also have to throw out our RL definitions of 'practical armour' as well, making the whole thread fucking meaningless.

But if that's what you want, go ahead. I'll stop posting in a fucking meaningless thread while we're at it, and we can all be happy.

And you? Don't try to pretend there was a RL civilization out there where they let the women fight in full plate.

>> No.23500438


>> No.23500444

That is certainly... an aesthetic. I'll agree to that much.

To be fair, I rarely see helmets I like the look of in the impractical category either, though. It seems I just don't like helmets.

>> No.23500453


Side note: A buddhist chick at my college once said YOLO while talking about some guy she fucked.


>> No.23500454

>implying culture and physics are on the same level
Good show.

>> No.23500459

I'm a fan of practical. always was. Reasonable chicks are the ones you wanna stick around.

>> No.23500460


thing is, if women actually fought, and they did, a lot more than people think, it was mostly the underclass women joining their brothers and husbands with clubs, flails and pitchforks
if these could find a helmet or even just a shield they were fucking lucky, cauze luck was the only way for them to get their hands on armor of any kind, other than killing people wearing it, which is what people did, actually

other than that, in any occasion that a woman might need armor, she would wear, just as she does today if necessary, ''male'' armor, cauze its just as functional on female anatomy, just as a woman can wear a army boot if its the right size, its not a ''male'' army boot, or a ''male'' helmet - even if some weapons were considered male or female in certain cultures, but thats not armor

and then firearms came along and all that

in fact, boobplate would be a bad idea for a fighting woman, in any case, as situations like that call for binding or supporting said boobs so they stay fixed and rigid, as running and jumping and generally moving a lot hurts if boobs arent rigidly in place, and in boobplate they would bump around and hurt from friction

also, amazons are said to have practiced ritual boob removal, just the left one, but any way

>> No.23500466

>And you? Don't try to pretend there was a RL civilization out there where they let the women fight in full plate.


Just saying.

>> No.23500471


For me, practical is always the best choice.

>> No.23500476

Why are they holding gladius's and not spears?

>> No.23500484

Totally dependent on character, system, game, and people I play with.

Irritably, /tg/.

>> No.23500495

They're both aesthetics.

>> No.23500503

People like you are the worst kind of /tg/. An expert on nothing claiming his opinion is perfectly correct in complete ignorance of reality.

>> No.23500512

Because they would be.

>> No.23500523

Practical Aesthetics

>> No.23500532

An explanation, before >>23500429 exaggerates and makes a butt of himself again.

A woman wearing armor would have no reason to not wear the same shit a similarly-sized male would wear. With the exception of certain parade armor pieces where the male body was literally sculpted into the cuirass (and even then, a flat chested woman could), the armor would be largely the same. In more advanced and expensive forms of plate armor where the armor was built to the wearer's shape and size with more attention to detail, the only real shift would be allowing for a slight degree more room in the chest (if any) and a small change to how the lower plates fit around the different hip and leg structure. The armor itself, aside from a few details of configuration, would be the same: ergo, your first sentence is valid.

Everything else assumes the cultures in question follow the same model as those which forbid females from combat roles, and is thus cockspank because there's no physical need for this trend to continue existing in a historical period of another planet with different religions, laws and peoples.

>> No.23500551

Practicality IS aesthetics.

>> No.23500552

Many Norse societies also trained their women to fight, gave them the right to choose their husbands/divorce/et cetera, and families that could afford it could give their women mail and leather armor protection if they felt the need for it.

Also saying.

>> No.23500562

Women were actually more free and able to fight along their husbands during the middle ages than in the ages that followed, until the contemporary era.

>> No.23500576


It's a survival aspect. In northern climates, life was harsh and inhospitable enough that not teaching your women how to defend themselves was a recipe for disaster. Also it was a fucking good idea to not have your wife be a useless pampered piece of fluff in case you got injured.

>> No.23500577


There was that old lady who was like 70 years old and was still capable of leading the defense of a castle under siege.

>> No.23500578

There are still people who think the Victorian model of the middle ages as written by the period equivalent of Tolkien were being historically accurate.

To their defense, there are people who think Tolkien, elves and magic aside, was also historically accurate.

>> No.23500591

you know, this thread always kills me. It's a game, people. use the aesthetic approach that works for your group, and move along. Let other people have fun their way.

>> No.23500598

I see no reason this would be a detriment to other cultures, harsh and inhospitable or not.

The only reason it was ever frowned upon was societal and cultural norms exasperating the issue that men are generally slightly larger and stronger than women biologically.

Like when any A vs B argument happens anywhere, and someone compares the best of one side to the worst of the other.

>> No.23500617


I'd say in this case it is worse than nothing.
That thing could turn stumbling or even just getting pushed into a disabling injury.

>> No.23500618

B-but that implies the concept of people with different or even contradictory views and opinions is a good thing! We can't have that! How would things fit into my artificial model of the universe if we did that!

>> No.23500637

It's even being worn without proper padding underneath. The woman wearing it has made two poor decisions in regards to her breastplate now.

>> No.23500661


a simple, standard brestplate would also be way more comfortable for any actuall boobs she might have underneath that

>> No.23500671

The romans were a pretty big influence in making women less powerful and capable. As western Rome progressed they limited women from most active roles in society and a lot of the christian nations that later sprung up from the ashes seemed to go with that as well.

>> No.23501309

You think THAT armor to b practical..?
Boy you have reached the point of no return, go play some panty quest simulators

>> No.23501379

>implying you can't have both

>> No.23501404

What's that monster on her shield supposed to be?

It looks like one of those Russian sirens, but distinctly lizardier.

>> No.23501496

don't know, looks like some wired mer-dragon to me

also, I thought I had saved this but apparently not, I'm looking for two town guard style character, in pretty bulky armour that IIRC isn't plate and has blue as one of it's main colors

I think the armour was in a similar style to this

>> No.23501522

This so much. There is nothing more attractive than woman who can protect me from bears.

>> No.23501530

love me some fire emblem.

>> No.23501559

Damndest thing. I think I know exactly what you're talking about and thought I had saved it too, but apparently I didn't.
It's a man and a woman standing side by side, right?

>> No.23501573


>> No.23501600

my google-fu grows day by day, I found the one I meant, not sure if it's the one you meant

>> No.23501604

I also found these, which are pretty cool

>> No.23501616

covers a good deal (though the elbow, underarm, and crotch area need some work), doesnt look like it impedes your movement/rotation much. so, yeah, practical

>> No.23501662


>being renegade
>2186 CE

>> No.23501889

>cloth armor is shit
Dude, shut up.

>> No.23501918

I'm pretty sure I reached that point a long time ago. I love good-looking animals.

>> No.23501967

It is, in fact. Neat.

>> No.23501975

Very practical yet feminine/10.

>> No.23502017

Goddamn, Vallejo toning his muscle girls fantasy down is the best thing ever!

>> No.23502064


Would not adventure with

>> No.23502108

How is a barrel-chested down-syndrome girl(?) sexy? You could have picked a million different examples and you pick this.

>> No.23502146

>>You now know why boobplate happened in media.

Why again?

>> No.23502161

>Better'n most anime designs.

And worse than many more.

>> No.23502176

>he doesn't know about delicious flat chests

>> No.23502181

I never thought I'd say this stupid line, but for once it's actually a serious answer.

Because boobs, that's why.

>> No.23502195

I know about delicious flat chests. I'm a fan. But that's not what's happening here.

>> No.23502207

Practicality. Not because I don't like aesthetics, but because the majority of fantasy artists can't do aesthetically pleasing armor, and practical armor having a basis in real life where people cared about aesthetics just as much as we do can be aesthetically pleasing.

>> No.23502224

Like pic related? Apart of the over-sized lance, that's it.

>> No.23502251

I have a thing for ridiculously ornate and impractical gear.
Sue me.

>> No.23502256

Yes, though personally I'd tone down the pauldrons and fix the anatomy a little. But otherwise a very pleasing look.

>> No.23502263

>> No.23502273


>oversized, box-shaped pauldrons
>fauld doesn't cover upper thighs
>Don't know what is going on with those gauntlets, but the way her hands are positioned makes me think the artist can't draw hands
>rectangular slab shaped bevor thing
>no helmet

2/10 would not quest with

>> No.23502274

I prefer ornate, practical but fantasy at the same time. Opinions and taste dude, we all have our very one.

>> No.23502292

>but because the majority of fantasy artists can't do aesthetically pleasing armor

I know that feel, I'm very particular about what I thin looks "good"

>> No.23502293

I realize that people back then cared about aesthetics just as much. But when it comes to actually making armor for real people to really use, produced under limited time and resources, concessions were made. Concessions which aren't necessary when armor is purely fictional.

Sure, practical armor can look good, but it can never look quite as good as armor beholden to aesthetics only. I don't think both stats can be maxed simultaneously.

>> No.23502294


Thread resolved

>> No.23502309

I like both in their own right, but I hate armors that try to be both. Either be sexy or be practical, don't try to be practically sexy, because you'll just fail to be either. I already find practicality sexy enough that diluting it with cheesecake just detracts from both aspects and vice versa.

>> No.23502337

You need a healthy mix. Too practical, and it just feels generic and boring. Too aesthetic and you look like a clown.

It's a problem I'm encountering in PoE at the moment. Every damn piece of armor in the game is so plain, drab and boring.

>> No.23502350

>keep em separate, never mix em
>they only work mixed

/tg/ everyone.

>> No.23502355

>Concessions which aren't necessary when armor is purely fictional

A well designed tabard and cloth draped over and under certain pieces of realistic armor does wonders. People back then had a ton of time on their hands, and the concessions made for the rare moment where time is of the essence would only simplify a design, not make it aesthetically unpleasing.

A strong basis in reality does wonders for aesthetics. Removing it in favor of poorly thought out aesthetics just gives you the Star Wars prequels.

What concessions have to be made at all in the first place? Do we really need that boob window? The only concession being made is regularly is laziness due to a lack of skill for artists who don't work with some kind of organization - no pulling texture and color sources, etc.

>> No.23502367

>Either be sexy or be practical, don't try to be practically sexy, because you'll just fail to be either.
That's not true at all. People look dead sexy in practical things all the time. Uniform fetishes, etc.

What you mean is don't be slutty or practical at the same time.

>> No.23502377

Practically made from monster hides, spines and bones. Aesthetically alluring.

>> No.23502379

Read literally the very next line of my post. I said practicality is already sexy enough in its own right for you to try and slut it up.

>> No.23502382

>mention of what I take to be a video-game reminds me of LOTR: WITN
>remember the cool armour in it
>google for pics for this thread
>find this instead
>I only have >>23501496

Thank's Anon, you didn't even mean it but you're cool

>> No.23502417


male/female pairs that look reasonable and almost exactly the same


>> No.23502422


>> No.23502424


>> No.23502451

Finally someone posts Berzerk

>> No.23502520

>upper arms exposed
>torso and lower part of thighs exposed aswell as inner thighs
>Extra weight on the outer side of thighs
>Baggy clothing is good for mobility
>Underneath baggy clothing is nothing but skin and bones
>Would break legs with a slight impact.
>1/10 would not arm.

>> No.23502551

>anything with obnoxious buster swords

>> No.23502578

I'm fine with some impractical things if the people in the setting have practical gear and acknowledge the outlandish things they see as just that. Kind of like gear progression in Dark Souls where everyone starts out with practical arms and armor, but the more they fight demons and literal gods the more obscene and ridiculous their gear looks.

What I hate are settings where everyone uses mystical bullshit super ornate fantasy gear with pointless spikes everywhere. Just because.

>> No.23502653

Caska it's my waifu.

>> No.23502655

There is nothing practical about that raggedy getup Guts wears.

>> No.23502707

Why not? It looks like a series of old iron pieces of broken armor sewn together with simple cloth if not fashioned with a simple belt. Just what you'd expect from a merc with little money growing up.

>> No.23502710

While talking about bersek, reminds me of bad Gutts cosplays...

>> No.23502721

Tomboy female knights cleaning up and wearing frilly dresses for a day, complete with embarrassed pouting about how they look - unconvinced they're girly enough for it or hating how girly they actually look - is a miracle of the universe.

>> No.23502765

It's also part of my kinks, uncomfortable tomboys wearing dresses and the like.

>> No.23502773

>also, amazons are said to have practiced ritual boob removal, just the left one, but any way
You DO realize the Amazons were mythical, and not real, right?

>> No.23502803

They are based in real wolrd female warriors from some Scythian Tribes (like the Sarmatians).

>> No.23502811


Mine brethren

>> No.23502862

O well....

>> No.23502866

neither. Fight naked or go home.

>> No.23502874

I kinda prefer a bit of both

>> No.23502879


>> No.23502896

I always wanted to try and seduce a cute female sentry. The girls have all the fun.

>> No.23502899


>> No.23502905

Sexy AND practical! 11/10!

>> No.23502949


I have serious doubts that female sentries work the same way as males...

>> No.23502966

You just have to ask about her day so the rogue can slip past her while she is distracted by all her feelings and hormones.

>> No.23502984

Just be dark, mysterious, and interested in her problems.

Then make a few jokes and make her laugh, then start flirting, then whisper you'd love to take her around the corner and show her a good time.

>> No.23503004

Meh, female sentries doesn't seem to be a great idea anyway.
I think because sentries have to look fearsome or at least though. A cute girl with an armour with frills and all isn't anything like that. I would hit her, sure, but unless it's the all female bodyguard of some excentric leader...

>> No.23503057

You're just getting the wrong women as sentries.

>> No.23503088

>I think because sentries have to look fearsome or at least though

Or they could look like their employer has great wealth and resources, and showing off a small army of attractive women with the free time and financial support to be trained guards for your estate can do just that.

>> No.23503125


BE DARK and MYSTERIOUS.... seriously, you do know why ppl place Sentries in the first place? To keep "Dark" and "Mysterious ppl out

High chance you probably be flagged a hostile before you begin to talk.

Then ganked

>> No.23503176

Perhaps, but I have a hard time irl to see though girls. The woman in your pic it's cute, and appears more though than you average women, sure, but how tall is she? Also a good armour work wonders, but with a small frame like this girl seems to have, doesn't intimidate a lot (unless you are a kissless virgin, that's it).
That's why I said excentric leader.

>> No.23503374

I think dark and mysterious by law enforcement terms is a little bit different from a woman's idea of dark and mysterious.

One is a cutthroat with a dirty beard, a lazy eye and face shadowing hood. The other is a charming, moody, and handsome adventurer who talks like he's carrying some pain or angst in his past.

>> No.23503566

Boobplates are outright dangerous because the shape of the boobplates will create a structural weakness between the boobs, so that a direct blow to the center of the chest will bend the armor (the boobplates form a lever) into the sternum, probably killing the person with a boobplate.

>> No.23503619

Plus, if a woman would wear armor, she would wear a sports bra (or the medieval equivalent). This suit of armor looks like it is supporting her breasts, like a bra, which is stupid, because she wouldn't be able to fight for more than a few minutes without the improper breast support causing chafing and pain. Or maybe the character has ENORMOUS boobs that can feed all of Africa.

>> No.23503684

Why don't guards ever just wait until their shift is over to screw people they've just met?

>> No.23503792


Issues we may never understand....

>> No.23503860



There's almost always two or three guards, right? So if one turns it down, would the other as well? Would one guard be able to just stand by while his partner gets a blow job or a good fuck while he stands around doing nothing?

>> No.23503867

Because standing watch is boring, and that nice piece of ass you've just met may well go home by the time you've finished standing in the dark.

>> No.23504372

>Hair flowing out
>No helmet
>Useless pointy clasps on epaulettes
>Shield is strapped onto arm for maximum bone breaking fun


>> No.23504428

The Spartans wore sexy chest armour (and later cloth tunics), blame Hollywood. I guess Spartans are kind of a weird one in that they functioned much better with mobility than armour.

>> No.23505289

How about this, women can go bare chested into battle as long as they look like they are going to kill you (pic related)

fuck the leaning over leaning back look-at-the-tits pose

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.