Why are there not more realisticaly armored females in vidya?

>realistic
>armored females
Pick one.

>realistic
>her chest plate has been made structurally weaker so she doesn't hurt her boobies

Attached: 1553533842457.gif (511x512, 105K)

Women never fought in a war. Can you tone down your baits? They are showing a lot.

Here's your realistic female armor.
Specifically engineered for staying home and bearing children while the men fight wars.

Attached: MCI-139.png (555x555, 327K)

>Why are there not more realisticaly armored females in vidya?

Attached: 1399094703398.jpg (720x960, 139K)

Most women mellow out after a good dicking.

This. A chest plate is supposed to deflect strikes away from the body, not towards the middle of the chest.

Warrior women never ex-

Attached: Birka,_Sweden_Viking_grave_Bj_581_by_Hjalmar_Stolpe_in_1889.jpg (1140x1856, 384K)

Plebs got no imagination and cannot get their dicks hard unless the women look like complete and utter thots.

Because fuck women

Attached: 72160005_p0.png (1283x1800, 3.34M)

We are not the ones crying about realism though. Retards like you are. See the dichotomy and contradiction?

Attached: 1523303261323.png (1700x1273, 257K)

She identified as a man

In Fallout Tactics there's a BoS paladin who wears power armor at all times and has a voice modulator in her helmet to change her voice to sound like a mans. She chooses to do so because she knows men respond better to orders from a man and do not hesistate when having to make tough decisions regarding their teammates when there are no females.

Attached: Emerald_Solo.gif (75x100, 5K)

>We are not the ones crying about realism though
Yea Forums constantly complains about realism. Faggots even did it in Pokemon threads because you can have a dark skin tone in Sun and Moon

Attached: 1554422198598.gif (500x280, 2.99M)

1. That armour is not realistic.
2. Video game artists are uneducated morons.

I don't care but I like qts in armor and I like If the chicks ugly though I don't care.

Someone post the ornate frills armor picture

fuck, this dude has a thesaurus, pack it up boys. go home. we fucking lost.

Literally EVERY Viking was buried with weapons. Every single one. There are countless children and babies buried with axes and swords. It doesn't mean shit.

Lmao this is some straight up projecting and fucking sexual pathology holy shit

Games are supposed to be fun and sexy women are fun.

spot the unread low iq plebian
jesus christ

>"me want strong womyn characters!"
>make the women look like skinny boys
fucking stupid

this is how you make strong female characters

Attached: armor66.jpg (901x1000, 216K)

>Yea Forums constantly complains about realism
lmao sounds like someone got owned on twitter and had to take their retarded shit to Yea Forums

>We are not the ones crying about realism though. Retards like you are.

Leaving for a second the fact that no one is crying about anything yet, who the fuck are you kidding? Every time a woman is inserted into a historical setting there's a hysteria on this board. All I want is a bitch that doesn't look like a hoe.

I love my perfect goddess Lenneth Valkyrie!

Attached: 1524172508539.png (500x1000, 596K)

>women
cringe

Attached: comment_dEZ0LRUgvLRxfdzfCRwPDczQVAQAjlIE.jpg (1131x652, 784K)

Yeah, fantasy ones.

>All I want is a bitch that doesn't look like a hoe.
There's plenty of games that do that, sounds like you're projecting every time you liberal nerds see a scantily clad woman in a fun and intentionally trashy game you all sperg out

Attached: 1453179860346.jpg (500x714, 173K)

Yea Forums is Yea Forums.
Yea Forums is comprised of people like you and me. That's kind of a stupid argument don't you think?

"lmao fuck dude"
Yeah, you know you can't disprove any of that you beta orbiters.

If she doesn't belong in that historical setting and has earned this place only by her pussy then yes. History is History. It is absolute of Fantasy. Tomorrow I'll teach you about how to tell the hour.

Attached: 1535906165440.jpg (250x250, 13K)

>Something nobler remains childish longer
That seems backwards. Also he looks like an elderly Wolverine.

>taking some guy from 1788's word for it.
loled
when you have to quote some old white man from 231 years ago to prove your point aboout womens. HAHAHAHAHahahahahahAHAH

and you sound like a faggot

Ornate armor + full helm + high heels is the shit.

Attached: Screenshot_20190416-145637_Raid.jpg (1480x720, 619K)

Patrician taste.

>Yeah, you know you can't disprove any of that you beta orbiters.
>Argument based entirely on conjecture with a cool picture of a philosopher attached

Attached: 1335493076649.jpg (540x720, 58K)

Since when is liking women that don't look like they're turning tricks some liberal shit? You're the one who's projecting.

You live in the Middle Ages, user? How did you come across a computer?

cope

Attached: telm01o3yc501.jpg (1131x652, 493K)

That still unrealistic, boob playe is just a breach in defense.

Now pleasantly not retarded looking female armor I can get behind.

Magic, duh.

Don't play those games then, nobody's forcing you, and all you're doing is ruining it for people who do enjoy those games. It's extremely liberal with your obsession to policing spaces outside of your comfort zone

But you can't disprove it though. That's the bottomline. You have a problem with it. So disprove it.

Are valkyries made to be raped?

>tfw no strong barbarian momwife

Attached: 1544619948903.png (449x449, 377K)

>all you're doing is ruining it for people who do enjoy those games.

Literally all I said was that I like my bitches clothed. Stop putting words in my mouth, nigger. No one is out to take your shit, no one is saying thots shouldn't exist. How paranoid can you be?

How "barbarian" are we talking about here?

Attached: w5tcqx6.png (1000x1000, 719K)

Doth protest too much, fuck off to /r/gaming

I want Hrist to rape me

Attached: 1519998699779.jpg (1050x1200, 160K)

The guy couldn't even prove his points or cite anything outside of a vague picture of Nietzsche who's commonly misinterpreted especially around /pol/, that's not argument or discourse, that's just posting

No u. Sorry you couldn't find the strawman you were looking for, faggot.

>high heels in armour
Unless you're talking about riding heels you can get the fuck out of my face

Attached: 683569779.png (107x104, 11K)

>cry's about historical outrage on this forum
>lmao dude calm down I just want clothes on my women

Riding heels are practically the same shit my dude. High heels were men's fashion specifically because it signified the ownership of a horse.

All I said was that you faggots have no imagination. Stop projecting your crying-ass self onto me.

>cry's

I'm talking about the borderline stiletto heels some artists put on armour. Fuck that shit, it's impractical and looks retarded.

Im just here for the bikini armor images

>same thread today again
>same pics today again
don't you ever tire of being such an obnoxious fucking fag

>There are countless children and babies buried with axes and swords. It doesn't mean shit.
It means drakengard was realistic.

Attached: 0ec6758c5fec4037d28ca549a0d373f9785d089b5.jpg (480x834, 91K)

Got you senpai

Attached: 1554557254258.jpg (3359x4961, 2.06M)

>needing high heels
damn womanlets

What about centaur girls in neat armor?

Attached: D4Rw8eiW0AErvba.jpg (2148x2764, 639K)

Those are her cooking utensils

Why does she shave her legs arms but not her bush?

This is my fetish, Yea Forums. You can't stop me. Imagine the cute huffs of a woman escaping that helmet as she tries to kill you.

Attached: 1555040317009.jpg (1400x1400, 146K)

as long as you accept that it's not realistic

Attached: 40017043_p0.jpg (1240x1754, 803K)

imagine the smell.

Attached: 1ac5d5ac-9e92-4d1f-9154-72f3ada160f1.jpg (622x900, 91K)

It is realistic. You're confusing something that didn't happen with something that WOULD be the standard if it did happen.

All soldiers, regardless of physical fitness, are fielded with the basics. A knight, regardless of physical fitness, would be fielded in plate. You don't send an aircraft out with a window under the cockpit because it's a woman flying it and you need to see her panties.

Nigger wahmen never wore armor because the cultures that did were at the civilizational level to where they didnt need women or want women on the front lines
You cant have realistic female armor because realistically they never existed

Oh wow vikings a literal barbarian tier civilization
Come back to me when you find a female roman legionarie

Because she wants you to do it.

adult women are no match for teenage boys in any physical activity
women fighting adult men just isnt realistic

>You cant have realistic female armor because realistically they never existed
This is some bizarre mental gymnastics, it really is.

See That's a centaur, and centaurs never existed. Are you saying there's no realistic way of designing armor for their kind?

You wanted realism there it is no female knights

That's great, except that has nothing to do with designing realistic armor for the female form.

I imagine Ivan Veschekov of the Spetsnaz could snap your neck in about six different ways. Do you think your military still wouldn't arm you with a basic field dressing and equipment?

Attached: 1552070051087.gif (270x188, 1.78M)

>armor for the female form
Ceremonial armor has never been shackled by realism before, why start now?

there's no point in equipping women with armor
you're not going to have unlimited amounts of armor, especially plate armor that needs to be specifically fitted for the person
you would be much better off giving the armor to a man than a woman

There were female knights in some knight orders - it was just rare as hell.

You never answered the question.

Can you not design realistic armor for fantasy creatures?

no

Are you going to complain about unrealistic aerodynamic elements in a space fantasy game?

>you're not going to have unlimited amounts of armor, especially plate armor that needs to be specifically fitted for the person
That's great, except we're talking about video games and fantasy media.

Every single time this discussion is brought up, we get people trying to constantly deflect the discussion into real life and exclusively into real life scenarios. There is such a thing as soft fiction.

You're a retard. There are absolutely ways to design realistic armor for fictional creatures. Sci-fi as a genre is well out of our tech range and yet we can create grounded suits of armor for humans in those settings.

>Whataboutism

Barbarians with small armor that allows them to move is the best. Especially if the armor has magically enhanced magnet dust, to draw in blows and then recoil back at the attacker.

Attached: 1519919885838.jpg (984x1200, 220K)

you want realism, you get mad when people point out what you want isnt realistic
just accept that you dont want realism

>Average user gets drafted
>He's fat
>He's unhealthy
>He's completely unfit for combat
>Everybody can kick his ass
>Even the Sergeant tied to a desk who hasn't seen active duty in five years
>Yea Forums logic - user would be sent out in a bikini because it's unrealistic for him to be there

Attached: 1551825638796.gif (360x270, 1.63M)

>it's another episode of bikiniarmorfags autistically screeching about what is clearly meant to be a thread for dumping cute girls in armor
Literally worse than fatfags

Realism and reality are not the same thing. Do you understand this? You can create incredibly grounded and realistic scenarios that cannot happen in real life. There are countless books, comics, movies, video games etc. where they are 100% fiction yet they're praised for their grounded world building and making the impossible seem real.

>implying user doesn't fantasize about being a slut for the military and enemy soldiers like the faggot he is

Then dump some pictures that haven't been posted 1000 times before, or it's just a general for posturing about how you're soo mature for liking women with clothes on like omg I'm so above sexuality would you look at that annie may face hnnng I get my value as a person from what I choose to fap to

Because realistically, women in armor pretty much never happened

this is how boob armor is done, without cleavage in the middle since that means you are directing hits toward the center of your chest

>That's great, except we're talking about video games and fantasy media.
It seems to me you're the one that read the conversation incorrectly. Read which says "it is realistic" in answer to which says "as long as you accept that it's not realistic". You jumped in the wrong discussion to incorrectly protest that people want realism in vidya, as is often the case in this threads.

Im just an autist sick of the waifu fagging

>You jumped in the wrong discussion to incorrectly protest that people want realism in vidya
If the setting of the video game is realistic, or trying to be at the very least consistent, then the women would be using the same gear as the men. It is bad writing and a terrible aesthetic choice otherwise.

>B-but the women have magical enchanted armor so it doesn't need to be as protective!
So why aren't the men wearing this sick ass enchanted armor so they can wear basic dress clothes instead of plate? Why are they relegated to taking blows full force when that's nonsensical from a military standpoint?

>Realism and reality are not the same thing.
No, they're pretty much the same thing. Perhaps you want to say that fiction is not necessarily unrealistic? Fiction is something that isn't real but which may be close to reality or very far from it. You can say that. But reality and realistic are similar words, with similar roots, for similar concepts. If you something strictly *cannot* happen in real life then I don't see any basis to say it's incredibly grounded and realistic. There's a word for that, fiction.

>I'm here for the raid interview

Attached: gw098.jpg (1920x1080, 245K)

>If the setting of the video game is realistic, or trying to be at the very least consistent, then the women would be using the same gear as the men. It is bad writing and a terrible aesthetic choice otherwise.
I agree with everything in that sentence but you still jump in the wrong discussion to protest about the wrong thing with the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

If the setting is realistic, women won't be wearing armor.

huh, wow is really starting to show its age

>No, they're pretty much the same thing
From a story standpoint, no they are not. When it comes to writing stories or creating fiction, realism doesn't mean "it must be able to happen in real life." Realism means "if it DID happen in real life, this is how it would work."

>If you something strictly *cannot* happen in real life then I don't see any basis to say it's incredibly grounded and realistic.
You don't read a lot do you?

If an author comes up with a form of magic and then goes into great detail about its mechanics, what it's capable of, what its limitations are, what it's fuelled by, how it can be nullified, how it's channelled and used etc. and remains consistent within their work of fiction, then from a writing perspective that is considered a very "realistic" interpretation of something that is fictional.

Attached: 1555394739645.png (427x427, 157K)

Because women fighting in realistic armour is in itself a fantasy. The only difference in armour plate and bikini armour when it comes to women is you being a soi chugging fag that gets triggered at the sight of buff amazonian women.

I think I'm more triggered that the woman eats attacks like it's nothing while the game then tries to make me feel sad because the bro character dressed head to toe in the finest fantasy material armor died because of a stab to the chest.

>then from a writing perspective that is considered a very "realistic"
No. The term you are looking for is "internally consistent". A magic system can be cleverly written and internally consistent. It cannot be realistic because magic isn't real. Being realistic the adjective form of being real. If something is not anywhere near real then there is no argument to be made that it is realistic. Although people like you will often misuse that word when you wish to communicate "internally consistent" due to lack of skills at communicating what should be simple concepts.

it's a new gacha game made by literal jews

>realisticaly in vidya
because its vidya

>Realistic
>Definition 1 of 2 (varies)
>having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
It doesn't exclusively mean things have to be real. I'm sorry you flunked the higher education segments of your English classes. You can still retake them in college.

Wow, it took so long for someone to write it

consistent is not the same as realistic

vikings weren't a civilization, retard

imagine thinking you're hot shit when it comes to fiction without even understanding a word can have multiple meanings lmao

SeeGranted one of these posts is probably the guy I responded to samefagging.

This might be difficult for you to understand, but it's a reasonable guess that, if women were part of ancient armies, they would use amor that is very similar to men, for the very same reason why men use them in the first place, making a real world model unnecessary. I know, sounds crazy, but think about it a little bit.

Deep space travel isn't real and won't be for thousands of years. I can still show you countless realistic takes on the subject.

ok retard

"The wizard casts firebolt, which costs him 17 mana, because that is the cost of the firebolt spell"
"The wizard casts fireball, which costs him 31 mana, because that is the cost of the fireball spell"

This magic system is internally consistent. I dare you to call it "realist" because it is internally consistent you fucking reality fags.

This might be difficult for you to accept, but you're a fucking faggot.

We all know they just don`t like females in armor for religious reasons

Attached: 1df9f026-f533-48e5-acb3-6bf6902bb704.jpg (1000x1381, 310K)

What an absolutely pathetic strawman. This is not a subject that's been fleshed out, it's stats on a DnD sheet.

>The space ship moved two tiles forward because space ships can only move two tiles forward
>The carrier ship moved one tile forward, because carrier ships can only move one tile forward
I guess space exploration will never be taken seriously. Can you imagine thinking that subject is realistic in the slightest?

Something not real can be realistic. Everyone knows that. Something can be realistic and not be real, yes we know, this is not the argument we are having. Magic can't be realistic, that is the argument we are having, that is the exact context of the post you quoted, had you bothered to read. That is what you are replying to, that is what you are inherently saying with your disagreement, that magic is realistic. Magic isn't realistic. I'm sorry I have to be the one to inform you. It can be well written and internally consistent. Go ahead and say that, nobody will disagree.

that's like saying pirates were a civilization

Aasimar are cute! Cute!

>Something not real can be realistic. Everyone knows that.
And yet you contradict yourself almost immediately with
>Magic can't be realistic, that is the argument we are having

You're the one stating wrongly that something fictional cannot be written in a realistic manner. I'm rightfully telling you that you're wrong.

>that magic is realistic. Magic isn't realistic
The same contradiction repeated. Magic itself is not real, but it can be written with such skill that it can be deemed a realistic interpretation of a fictional tool.

>artist:Nisetanaka

Attached: 1554475317048.jpg (480x480, 31K)

It's not a strawman. This is the crux of the argument. Realistic does not mean "fleshed out". It should not matter to you one bit that something is "fleshed out" for assessing whether it is realistic, the subject only needs to be close to reality. The sentence "I stubbed my toe" is realistic and it consists of 4 simple words that are not fleshed out. You just said "fleshed out" because you are thinking of "well written" and "cleverly put together" when you think of realist writing. You should not because it should not be an indicator of quality. It should be an indicator of what is close to reality. You are just bad at communicating what you are thinking.

>Something not real can be realistic. Everyone knows that. Something can be realistic and not be real, yes we know, this is not the argument we are having.
>Magic can't be realistic, that is the argument we are having

Attached: 1554929949764.jpg (700x700, 209K)

Do you have examples of a good chestplate? Looking for some material to design a OC

>if women were part of ancient armies
That's not very realistic.

>You just said "fleshed out" because you are thinking of "well written" and "cleverly put together" when you think of realist writing
I wasn't aware that fleshed out writing and good writing were always distinctly separate entities. Do you seriously think I'm arguing from the perspective that the writing is shit and not well written?

I'm pretty sure the problem here is that you like making convenient assumptions that fit your own argument.

Attached: 1555439361984.jpg (1024x756, 45K)

There's not that many realistically armored men either though, which sucks for both because it looks pretty sick

The reasons for using the fictional tool, the behavior when using the fictional tool, the social ramification with using the fictional tool, these things can be realistic. The tool is not realistic. That is where you make the mistake in your arguments, you act as if everything involved with a fictional tool is one big blob that cannot be separated. It can be separated. I will separate it. I have no problem saying that many aspects of a story about magic can be realistic, particularly human behavior, yet I will also repeat that magic isn't fucking realistic, and this conversation is a complete waste of time for discussing otherwise. It seems you consider yourself so damn clever and above me because you assume I cannot see realism in a story that contains an unreal element. I can see it. I can see it and I will also say, the unreal element is not realistic.

op is a good example just make it flat, if she has big boobs then she better suck it up and use one of those bandages anime women use

Same reason there are hardly any realistically armored men in video games combined with the fact that games that actually put in the effort to depict realistic armor are going to be historically based games.
The most realistic armor for women is no armor.

Women fighting isnt even realistic

>The tool is not realistic. That is where you make the mistake in your arguments, you act as if everything involved with a fictional tool is one big blob that cannot be separated
No I think that's you. I've repeatedly stated magic is not real, but that the subject around it can be handled in a realistic manner.

>Magic itself is not real, but it can be written with such skill that it can be deemed a realistic interpretation of a fictional tool.
Right there at the beginning of the sentence I state outright that the core of the subject is not real, that it is fictional.

You just spent twelve minutes repeating back to me what I just stated like it's a counterpoint that shatters my world.

Attached: 1553620036419.gif (477x348, 627K)

Because there is no such thing as a realistically armored women.

during medieval times women were realistically in the kitchen.

Something not real can be realistic by being close to real. Magic can't be realistic because it isn't isn't close to real. There are no contradiction in these words. Read again. Find me magic that is close to being real and I will call it realist, you have my word. I suspect you will find it difficult to find real magic to prove that the real magic is similar to the fictional magic.

Who gives a shit?

They were realistically used for either political gain or helping their husband farm or doing household chores

>during medieval times women were realistically in the kitchen.
Actual retard.

Then why argue for "realism" in the first place, if you don't give a shit about it?

>Something not real can be realistic by being close to real.
>Magic can't be realistic because it isn't isn't close to real.
These are contradictory statements, pure word salad. Magic is not real, yet can be interpreted in a realistic manner through imagining how it would function in the real world. This fits the exact definition of your first statement, yet is contradicted by the second.

Attached: 1550533319254.gif (448x252, 1.99M)

Attached: 55963501_p1.jpg (1754x1240, 2.41M)

>I've repeatedly stated magic is not real
Have you repeatedly stated that magic is not realistic? That is literally the only thing being discussed here. Say it, magic isn't realistic. Not "magic isn't real", I never asked you to say that, I never discussed that at all. "Magic isn't realistic", that is literally LITERALLY the only thing in question. Say that and it's done. If you find that magic is well written, I suggest you say it is well written. That is a good compliment enough. It does not require using a word that implies it is similar to real thing, when it is not.

Have you ever touched a woman's hand? felt how small, fragile and soft it is when compared to yours? You should try that some time, and then imagine that little hand with it's shitty grip strength wielding a 3kg sword and swinging it around. You people are delusional. Absolutely bonkers. It's amazing you don't choke on things or trip when you try to breathe and walk at the same time.

>user's image says it's impossible to make armored women because there were no warrior women in history, giving no reference to designers on how to make proper female armor
>Point out how dumb that logic is
>Suddenly I'm arguing for realism
What?

That armor isn't realistic at all. If it was the shoulders would be bigger, and the mid section would be wide and hollow to prevent bones breaking when struck. As it is now, a good sword strike, although it wouldn't cut through, would crush her ribs and chest.

This armor is designed for functionality, mobility and to protect against demons.

Attached: 1542763275610.png (375x1023, 432K)

Magic can be interpreted realistically, which has always been my statement since this argument began. "Magic being realistic" is a whole other crux you brought up.

>argue about how to best make realistic female armor
>turn around and say you don't give a shit about realism
What?

>Why are there not more realisticaly armored females in vidya?
Because people get angry if they can't jerk off to stuff now, it is basically the center of all current politics. Everyone just wants their fetish to be pandered to

Attached: 1543342263806.png (956x532, 789K)

What's the function? Surely not to protect.

They are not contradictory statements. Look closer. Something not real can be realistic, true. This is not the same statement as "anything can be realistic". Perhaps that is your mistake? I never said "anything can be realistic". Some things cannot be realistic, on account that they cannot be close to something real, and magic is one of them. Your statement here
>Magic is not real, yet can be interpreted in a realistic manner through imagining how it would function in the real world
Does not prove me wrong. It is a statement you made up, it's not an argument and it's simply wrong. To be exact it's written incorrectly. Magic can't be interpreted in a realistic manner because there are no manner of using magic. To compare manners, you need two manners. Find me a manner of using magic and I will say when a written manner is a realistic manner.

>Magic can be interpreted realistically
Don't change the words. I have been clear. I dare you to say "magic is not realistic" and nothing else. Say exactly these 4 words. Say them and everything we disagree about is solved. You can even consider yourself the victor.

"magic is not realistic"

It's because of a basic contradiction and unawareness or unwillingness to tap in on the true niche market for it.

Women in realistic armour is a paradox because women in armour is inherently unrealistic. Women in any human setting - I'm using setting to reinforce the omnipresence of this ruling - are at best desperate reserve fighters who would not prepare for combat nor would be prepared for or account in combat duties. Suits of armour made for females are overwhelmingly ceremonial and symbolic, much like weapons for priests in sedantary agrarian societies. It's not that it's not possible to design realistic armour for women, as has been proven repeatedly, but rather there's no point in bothering. We have entered the realms of fantasy by the time we have fictional characters even remotely considering actually sending female humans into combat situations as an ideal or optimal choice.

Once we are in this realm of fantasy, we run straight away into the "why not make them nude?" stance. At the end of the day everyone wants to see sexy naked women. EVERYONE. Even children who haven't any sexual about them are curious (fuck off pedoes), and women and gays find tits and the female form inherently appealing. It's not doable in reality, but that's precisely what fantasy is for. You will never be a fighter pilot, but you can experience it through vidya games. You will never have a harem of warrior waifus, but you can through vidya games.

This reasoning falls through in certain instances because the players in question have more focussed interests. Tits in face constitutes a distraction if you're really just trying to sword fight or roleplay or something. Of course, if a player is trying to do something of that sort, then they likely don't care if a character is male, female or a jamblortian from argon XII. And if they do care, then there's probably a waifu angle.

Attached: 1553747225635.jpg (1448x2048, 320K)

You can add giant sword and impractical armor parts and it will still be miles ahead of armor bikinis.

Attached: Npc_zoom_3030056000_01.png (960x800, 148K)

>now

Attached: 1555181351119.jpg (500x500, 72K)

What then is this waifu angle? One in which tits are a distraction, but they still want to see a chick, but in *armour*. Well, I would hazard that this audience wants to see chicks in armour, and also see them wriggle out of it. They want to have their cake and eat it with regards to the female aesthetic of chicks in armour and chicks in sweet nothing. And that's something that no game designer is willing to provide.

- The designers who are willing to provide illustrations and designs of women in realistic or plausible armour are generally not willing to also provide said women in the buff
- The designers who are willing to provide illustrations and designs of women in the buff are generally not willing to also provide said women in realistic or plausible armour
- NO-ONE is prepared to provide animated transitions of women taking off armour, or even undressing in general, because of its unspoken and deeply-rooted taboo status in the west and to a lesser extent elsewhere

Ultimately women in realistic armour will continue to be doomed to features in the odd deviantart account or twitter feed and not incorporated into any game satisfactorily until a solution to this issue occurs or is addressed.

>Magic can't be interpreted in a realistic manner because there are no manner of using magic. To compare manners, you need two manners. Find me a manner of using magic and I will say when a written manner is a realistic manner.
Your problem here is needing direct comparisons to using magic for it to be realistic.

Only a few people have experienced what it's like to ride in a rocket and/or space shuttle. If you describe the events of a launch in a book with the most bare-bones terminology and have a regular average Joe read it, someone who is completely devoid of the experience and thus has no real world reference to the topic at hand, is it "not realistic" for them? The sensations and sounds are written there on the paper, yet the reader has to substitute their own ideas in so they can try and imagine how that would feel. They don't know what 8+Gs feels like, they don't know what it feels like to be glued to a seat and unable to move, they won't understand the sensation of all your blood rushing to your back.

This is where the power of writing actually comes in. Make comparisons between the sensations and what the average Joe HAS experienced. How 8Gs while sitting horizontal feels like a fat person just laid down on top of you etc. This is how you substitute the lack of reader's experience with comprehensible information.

How do you know? Have you ever hunted a demon?

>Once we are in this realm of fantasy, we run straight away into the "why not make them nude?" stance.
Because it makes your fantasy world look gaudy and shit? And every conceivable excuse for why they're dressed like that can be applied to the men as well?

I don't remember people losing their shit like a bunch of spergs if the girls weren't hot enough back in 2006 because Yea Forums cared more about cool games than talking to each other about jerking off.
Kids also put shit like "I like pokemon and magic the gathering" in their bios instead of "I'm a 13 year old demi sexual trans genderfluid otherkin nonbinary sub"
Growing up with constant access to internet porn has really fucked with kids

Yes

Except for everyone outside of America, Canada, Australia and the UK

Go away, non-reader

>because Yea Forums cared more about cool games than talking to each other about jerking off
Stopped reading there, newfag.

Attached: bd4 (1).jpg (666x666, 113K)

I mean successfully

The rest of your shit is just an elongated excuse for "muh titties."

I don't even care that video games have sexualised females, but this idea that there's any thought going through the creative's head besides "God I love tits" is asinine.

Name one video game studio that has a sequence involving a women stripping out of armour, or indeed anything other than standard porn, whore or fetish gear. I quadruple-niggerfucking dare you.

I said go away non-reader. If you don't want to read posts then your comments are empty.

Its not my fault you were the kind of retard that went to gardevoir porn threads instead of the other 99% of Yea Forums that was talking about cool games, if you were actually around in 2006 you missed out by not hanging out in all of the cool threads instead of jerking off to videogame characters with a bunch of autistic guys.

Attached: 48242009_p0.jpg (800x1000, 783K)

I've read your shit. That entire post is literally just "women fighting is fantasy so make them sexy."

Not necessarily, if men and women fulfilled different roles the armor might be different. If they had a harder time maneuvering in it then they would probably have less of it.

Regardless, all of this is irrelevant because you are applying real-world examples to fictional settings that may have different rulesets, which can add a whole other host of reasons as to why gendered sets differ.

Whenever people argue for realism in fantasy they always forgo suspension of disbelief in other areas. This is just inconsistent. How come these certain parameters of realism MUST be present while others can be lost?

This artist is the best, I wonder if I still have his twitter laying around here somewhere

Attached: 1547244102494.jpg (1448x2048, 332K)

>Women in realistic armour is a paradox because women in armour is inherently unrealistic. Women in any human setting - I'm using setting to reinforce the omnipresence of this ruling - are at best desperate reserve fighters who would not prepare for combat nor would be prepared for or account in combat duties.
In real life, sure. But we're talking about books, movies, video games etc.

Why is it that Yea Forums can buy into the political structures of a completely fictional beast race, but as soon as some "not-human yet looks exactly like humans" race on a fictional landscape exists and has women on the field, we're apparently stepping into clown unicorns frolicking on the surface of the sun?

>If they had a harder time manoeuvring in it then they would probably have less of it.
If you can't move in it, it's not shaped properly to your form. Less is always worse when it comes to plate considering how efficient its weight is per square inch. Chainmail is heavier on average.

Go away.

Is it a he? His artwork is gorgeous. Shame I can't browse twitter anymore.

Attached: Doa1aYYU0AE14tE.jpg large.jpg (1448x2048, 261K)

hey I do, good to see an action shot
get this person a manga, I wanna see adventuring girls

Attached: sns v gs.jpg (2048x1090, 320K)

based, fpbp, and /thread. Fuck these realistic armor cucks, slutty bikini mail or bust.

Attached: 1546410630991.gif (362x512, 1.86M)

Missing the point by a dutch mile. This is the elemental distinction between hard and soft fantasy.

You can introduce fantastical elements into a setting and insist that they follow realistic rules and mechanics. Do that all you like. But if you have fourteen year old boys and girls beating grown men in a fight, then you've done something different. You haven't introduced a magical element into a realistic fantasy setting, you've altered the fundamental rules of how humans if not all mechanics work.

>clown unicorns frolicking on the surface of the sun?
If "clown unicorns" are a mystical race with reknowned incredible properties then sure thing. It's still in the bounds of hard fantasy.

Attached: DqbLc8FU4AEnYiT.jpg (848x1199, 101K)

Improve your writing. You open up your post with the same tired argument that every anti-armor poster shits out and then you continue to just explain this point further as if to justify it.

How is anybody supposed to understand you're actually FOR armored women? I'm assuming you are anyway, that's what the images are telling me. It certainly doesn't come across like that in your post, not even in the slightest.

What the absolute fuck am I reading. Give me an example of a realistic magic system, and if you choose the most complex, consistent, and rigid magic system as the most realistic one, then you're officially retarded. How the fuck can ANY magic system be realistic? There is no real magic system to compare it to. In order for something to be realistic, it has to be similar and comparable to reality. A giant fantasy creature can be portrayed in a realistic way by comparing how it functions to an elephant or dinosaur or something. A magic system can be portrayed in a realistic way by comparing it to... who the fuck knows what.

Adding more rules and complexity doesn't make magic realistic, no. I could create a magic system so dense, so rigid and internally consistent, that it takes you decades of study to grasp, and it could still be about summing semen demons and shooting rubber ducks from your cock. Doesn't make it any closer or any farther from reality, because its all just fucking magic.

Attached: 1460907493544.jpg (525x777, 46K)

Absolutely

well, the hiragana in the display name reads "Jun"
that's about all I got for you, except this piece of a more eastern look I've not seen yet, here you go user

Attached: eastern style.jpg (1448x2048, 327K)

I understand where the power of writing comes from. It is good to write comparisons of sensations that the average joe has experienced, even when describing magic, but it will not make magic realistic, it will make it well written. I simply suggest that you use the word realistic for something close to real and well-written for something well written.

Link to their twitter?

>But if you have fourteen year old boys and girls beating grown men in a fight

>you've altered the fundamental rules of how humans if not all mechanics work.
95% of all fictional fantasy settings take great liberties with human feats of strength, endurance and intelligence.

Attached: 1555238076968.gif (400x225, 1.76M)

That is amazingly rich, thank you for the laugh. Now go away.

>How is anybody supposed to understand you're actually FOR armored women?
By reading, the thing you're incapable of doing.

>no helmet
Nice, but not quite there yet

Blessed soul, thank you

Attached: Drj1j2fUcAEgtjj.jpg large.jpg (1448x2048, 351K)

>A giant fantasy creature can be portrayed in a realistic way by comparing how it functions to an elephant or dinosaur or something.
So compare magic to bodily sensations? Pins and needles in the fingers, euphoria, an adrenaline rush, an upset stomach, being electrocuted/burned, drowning/suffocating, feeling lightheaded, cramps, static shocks.

Why do you need a fucking real Houdini experience to explain magic in a fictional setting in a way that people can understand?

reply with any picture of a girl in armour and I'll link you user

Attached: 1547243922393.jpg (2480x3508, 1.23M)

Wildly irrelevant

girl in armor are dumb, blacksmith girls are the shit

Attached: black0.jpg (320x453, 129K)

I've reread your post thrice, it still doesn't come off like you're for armor. You've literally posted a detailed version of "women in armor isn't realistic, here's the justifications for making them sexy."

>standards posting
You really are based

Go away.

Attached: 1476772073906.gif (245x250, 243K)

Attached: 1550072499771.png (3000x3506, 3.98M)

dude, your post doesn't make fucking sense if you're arguing for women being dressed properly in war. you really have just posted a long version of what people always say when it comes to women in war not being realistic

>female knight
>realistic
At least make them thieves or spellcasters, i.e. professions that aren't as dependent on physical strength. Those professions are also 'unofficial', whereas a female knight would have to be, you know, knighted and accepted by society, something that is rather implausible.

Attached: 13299340498.jpg (2000x780, 333K)

No, it really isn't.

>Fictional setting
>Man wrestles bear to death despite humans being completely outclassed physically by such an animal
>Perfectly fine

>Same fictional setting
>Females, who may just be slightly lower on the physical scale as the male above, but can still probably wrestle a bear to death
>Whole of Yea Forums loses its mind

Attached: 1551387715056.jpg (344x344, 39K)

>A magic system can be portrayed in a realistic way by comparing it to... who the fuck knows what.
Maths of couse. One spell costs 2 mana, another spell costs 2 mana, casting both spells cost 4 mana. This is structured, this is balanced, this is well written, this is internally consistent, this is "realist". Adding two and two makes four in reality, it makes four with fictional mana, therefore the magic is behaving real-like.

Attached: wizard on the subway.jpg (1000x1374, 523K)

Women in realistic armor will look the same as men unless the armor is specifically made to emphasise the female form (look sexy).

Superlative, here's your link
twitter.com/navigavi?lang=en
I just hate it when armourgirl threads die from bickering, I wanna see them filled with picture sharing

Attached: 1547226785668.jpg (823x962, 245K)

men have killed bears in hand to hand combat before

accurate post

Men have killed bears *with sharp implements

They've never wrestled one to death, considering a bear has about the equivalent strength of your entire body in a left hook

Boobs are naturally indestructible and do not need to be armored.

Attached: the cat knight by tong-yan-11.jpg (1500x1832, 426K)

Not true? The vikings were absolutely a civilization. They also weren't as unorganized as the retards in this thread are saying

>this thread

My friends, I will make it simple for you all.

Let's say you wanted to design functional armour for a female. That's possible, right? Yes, you could totally do that if you wanted to.

Now, in order to be functional, armour must protect the wearer by deflecting/blocking blows, and certain shapes can't do that very well.

If you were to design, say, a breastplate with a boob shape, then incoming attacks would be very likely to get guided towards the centre of the chest. A competent blacksmith who wanted to make female armour would know this and thus not do it, making the boobplate an unrealistic way to go about making female armour.

If you were to design something like in , the chest piece would guide attacks away from the chest and make the chestpiece functional as protective armour. This makes it a realistic way to go about making female armour.

See?

>realisticaly armored females
A woman wearing full plate is as realistic as a woman riding into battle wearing a bikini and high heels.

>I just hate it when armourgirl threads die from bickering
These threads are literally created for the bickering. If you want armored girl threads, go to /aco/ where porn of them gets posted.

if you needed a thesaurus to understand any part of that, you have below gradeschool level reading.

Nice, it's an active account, thanks.

Attached: 70046024_p0.png (1000x1066, 773K)

Go away.

Who said anything about "fine" or "not fine"?

>response to everybody who says his post is shit is "go away"
i know you spent a long time on it, but it's complete drivel that argues for something you're opposed to.

It doesn't really matter if blows are guided towards the middle of the chest. Nobody's going to want to strike that part anyway. The only time this would really matter is if the one striking has a lot more force behind the blow than what a human could muster.

Vikings refers only to the pirates not to the rest of that society

>realisticaly armored
>boobplate
Die

Everybody has a different idea of what a civilization is and personally I wouldn't call the vikings a civilization. The words imply, at least for me, a great deal of architecture and, at the very least, large cities with stone roads. And written works. Every civilization starts with a library.

Stop being a brainlet

First is more realistic because men would fight for a cute virgin like Jeanne'Arc but not for some slut in high heels

Not in the slightest, another user made a non-retarded counter and I dealt with it. That user has 0% ability to focus and is arguing with demons in his own head. He can go away. Or you can if that is you, in the event of which double go away for samefagging.

Counterpoint: Sport bras exist for a reason, having extra space for breasts to bounce around would be counterproductive.

Unfortunately, retarded men fight for total sluts all the time. In fact the majority of men fight for sluts, and the majority of women fought over by men are sluts. We're in the rarified enclaves of specific taste at the minute.

>Who said anything about "fine" or "not fine"?
The entirety of this thread and every thread before it, and every thread after it?

Let's be real here, very few pieces of fantasy fiction account for real human physical anatomy and its limits when it comes to combat, intelligence, feats of endurance etc. To state otherwise is intellectually dishonest, especially when we have countless cases of females dressed in armored lingerie beating orcs and other monstrous creatures to death with warhammers and other giant weapons. We've already established in these cases that these women are literally physically more capable than giant monsters. To then go on and say that the women in these stories are unfit for combat and shouldn't be dressed properly ever doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'm not arguing for or against armor being properly designed here, I'm saying the whole "women are physically inferior" argument when it comes to fiction is a load of crap.

Attached: 1551815779619.png (278x278, 158K)

Where's the fucking helmet you fucking moron?

Post armors with frills and poofy shit

>another user made a non-retarded counter and I dealt with it.
You told me to go away.

Which matters not a fucking jot because you're not arguing with """"""the entirety of this thread"""""", nevermind any other. You're arguing with me.

>He thinks he is smarter than men who lived before him, based on... I don't even fucking know on what
Modern söygoy has many delusions, but none of them are greater than this one.

Civilization ---> Civitas ----> City

There is at least one semi-believable claim that one man has killed an adult bear empty-handed, on account of having shoved an arm in its mouth and choked it. It is a legit tactic (and perhaps the only good one) for killing a large predatory animal. Still only has like 1% chance of working, the beast may as well kill you and/or rip your arm before it comes anywhere close to dying, and you can kiss that arm good bye.

>boob playe is just a breach in defense.
No it isn't.

Because you made the retarded posts. The other one didn't.

Plate is shaped to deflect blows away from the body.
If you deflect a blow into the center of your torso then you are absorbing the force behind it anyways, which hurts quite a lot.

That's not how physics works, dude.

The proper way to do female armor is to wear a japanese schoolgirl uniform on top of it.

Attached: perfection.png (1192x1742, 825K)

Who said I was arguing with the thread? Literally who are you quoting? Who are you arguing with? Where's the actual rebuttal instead of a stupid snide remark?

No wonder people can't understand what you're talking about. You're arguing with ghosts.

Attached: 1554697619045.png (610x591, 192K)

Attached: 22146229_p0.jpg (834x1128, 492K)

There has also been one time a female wore a full suit of plate armor into battle.
>inb4 muh cheerleader
BEADY EYES

Vikings weren't a civilization. Vikings were to old norse kingdoms pirates were to the caribbean. Also "viking" isn't technically a noun, it's a verb. As in going viking, as in raiding shit. Most of norse people did not go viking.

I'm sorry you can't handle being told that your posts make zero sense.

does anyone have that old greentext where /tg/ was figuring that it would be more effective as long as you armour that area more?

Attached: 71e09e0269215281bd9dd7b16d581367.jpg (500x640, 102K)

>one time
holy shit it happened once in this super special case

You, you absolute retard. The top of your last post, literally, in response to me asking you "who said anything about fine or not fine".

>snide
No, just basic cruelty. It's the same standard for everyone, myself and yourself. When you actually fucking read you'll get forgiveness, but still cruelty. You do not know what snide is.

Is this good?

Attached: 20161113202500_1.jpg (1920x1080, 379K)

Yeah just like a bear being killed by a human bare handed :^)

Handle it straight up like a beast. An insistence without a wind of reason in its lungs is the easiest thing to ignore in the world. Now go away.

MAMA!

sending steel down a graded path chews up tons of its energy. It'd effectively drain an arrow/bolt of its power to pierce, and prevent a sword from cutting through the metal.

Attached: relstop.gif (352x315, 70K)

>dead eye
>scars
>two handed sword
>somewhat ragged yet aesthetic armour
no user, this is perfect.

Attached: 1547513902174.jpg (848x1200, 542K)

>ummm women in armor is unrealistic
>now lemme go back to my game where I play a man that can turn into a demon so I can save the world from an organization of demi gods that plan to open an intergalactic rift

>Ask me who says X is/isn't fine
>State it's a common opinion in every single one of these threads
>AND THEN state my direct response to you
>Two separate entities existing within the same post, one about the quality of the discussion in these threads and then a rebuttal to a point you specifically made
>Just ignores the latter and acts like an aggressive retard
You're an aggressive idiot with a chip on his soldier. No wonder you're getting so much shit from everybody when you post like a teenager who has a B grade in English but absolutely zero social skills.

I'm pretty sure I'm right, if you want proof, wear a metallic bucket on your head and bang your head against the wall.
You'll find the materials alone are just transmitting the force to your face and don't offer much protection. The shape is very important.

Why not both?

Attached: johnson-ting-female-knight-fina2l.jpg (1754x1920, 576K)

Sup, faggot.

Attached: 36d3f56cb866f6aae73c8f67a4611c1d.jpg (736x809, 85K)

I never said something of the sort couldn't be worn underneath the armour. Perhaps wraps of linen, or maybe an actual garment that's a little more modern?

Either way, a curved breastplate like those worn by men except coming further out would be better than bookplate that could potentially guide attacks towards the throat. Better to curve outwards.

>Also "viking" isn't technically a noun, it's a verb.
That's a weird to argue. The exact etymology of the word viking is disputed, some think it may refer to a sea mile, a journey, a place, but I hardly see anyone claiming it must be a verb. It's been used as a noun since a long time ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widsith
>The poem refers to a group of people called the Ƿicinga cynn, which may be the earliest mention of the word "Viking" (lines 47, 59, 80).

best post so far
76 pictures and only 5 of them are actual video games

The lack of contextual perception to believe that I meant "who has EVER said fine/not fine" from the sentence "who IS SAYING" in the conversation we were having is staggering. I would advise basic psychiatric help with low-lying aspergers, it could help a great deal.

Attached: 1522506928411.png (396x396, 277K)

>tfw no strong barbarian momwife
There's a game with that

youtube.com/watch?v=KhanXjcXcFs

Attached: DemCom.jpg (2056x1588, 1.45M)

if you can recognize it's a girl when the helmet visor is up, the armor is bad.

Attached: best armor.jpg (960x1280, 228K)

Dumbass.
>WHAT THIS GUY DOIN? HE DIRECTING ALL DA ARROWTH INTO HIS THROAT!??!!

Attached: tower-of-london-15-century-replica-armour-cuirass-breastplate-and-CNRWGP.jpg (866x1390, 138K)

I just think binding the breast would be a better solution than making custom plate.
If we are really aiming for realism, signaling you are a woman in the battlefield is a terrible idea.
That's a Varahi ceremonial plate.

whoops posted the wrong pic

Attached: Demonion2 2.jpg (1168x1018, 206K)

Attached: 6be50c3fea457e5076153dca85cf3a4f.jpg (860x756, 145K)

>discovering that there is a cute girl behind that suit of armor
>seeing any actions that fully plated knight as feminine and cute knowing that it's a cute girl
Even better if it's a serious and cool girl for that gap moe

Attached: band.jpg (1100x1800, 926K)

Attached: 62725a2a50cede68c6cfe041236058d9.jpg (800x1000, 191K)

Hey just chiming in to say that your posts really don’t make sense. Write better. Your point is very unclear. Now tell me to go away.

are you dumb lmao?

>you made a wild leap into the subject of changing the fundamental rules about humans in fantasy settings

>this user stated most fantasy settings do this

>you claimed it was irrelevant despite the fact you yourself brought this subject up

>user explains it isn't irrelevant, because it's a recurring subject in the thread and posts a basic comparison of how it goes, and he's only doing this because you, once again, brought this subject up

>you ask who says this

>user once again explains it's a recurring argument in these threads made by most people, which it is

that english degree doesn't hide the fact that you're a spergy faggot. you've managed to make this thread about ten times worse than it was before, quite an achievement. once again proof that all armor fuckers are retards.

You are missing an important piece.

Attached: german-sallet-with-bevor--mw-120469-1.jpg (480x651, 29K)

Attached: e17edae594627b6382d489891ab3bd37.jpg (800x1000, 182K)

No, it doesn't hurt a lot. You'll have padding below your armor. The center of your chest is about the least worrying part to get hit, because the most it can do is stagger you.

Attached: 12ccb4dafd185502e3e149c0c462c4f3.jpg (800x1000, 214K)

>That's a Varahi ceremonial plate.
Is it real or not?
That's still "directing arrows straight to the throat". The helmet has NOTHING to do with that.

I guess it's really ceremonial?

It's incredible how he's able to churn out flawless grammar and sentence structure, yet none of it forms anything meaningful. I'm having to reread every one of his posts a dozen times to maybe get a grasp of what he's trying to explain. His writing style has all the markings of someone suffering from genuine autism. He has no understanding of digestible information or purveying context.

Attached: 1549495104277.jpg (276x230, 17K)

This is so sexy

so let me sum this up

>men bitching about fantasy shoved into reality
>women bitching about fantasy shoved into fantasy

ok

Attached: lUlyB5X.jpg (1920x1080, 587K)

Gud art

Okay go away.

Attached: 1553309018356.jpg (780x1170, 338K)

>That's still "directing arrows straight to the throat". The helmet has NOTHING to do with that.
I want you to think about what you just posted.

Start posting one first.

Attached: 68242396_p0.jpg (1000x1243, 198K)

This
This
Fucking this
Oh my fucking god this.

Attached: 68381510_p0.jpg (1198x1000, 139K)

It's real, therefore it's realistic. More boobplate exists than women wearing concealing armor in combat.
Explain how a helmet sitting on top of the gorget prevents things from hitting the gorget, dumbass.

Attached: 68381510_p1.jpg (800x1185, 146K)

>woman with a metal arm in a war
>this is not realistic enough! We want realism!
>woman in a chainmail bikini
>who cares about realism lol it's a game
Can you guys please decide what you want?

Oh this is fun.

- user latched on the realism issue by arguing that warrior women in armour is no less realistic that fictional races, and I directly countered that. No wild leap, user made the point and I resolved it.

- Whether most settings do *whatever* is still completely irrelevant, we're not remotely debating that topic

- user fails to grasp this point so I pose him to check if I've said that or not

- He misses the point again because he has holes in his brain you can park a chrysler in

I like how you try to prop your argument up by flattering me; you don't need an english degree to use basic english.
>made the thread worse
I've posted numerous pics of girls in armour, and when user started throwing his fit I just told him to go away. user wouldn't let go of the topic, nor would they actually sharpen up and address what is actually written. They are a nonreader and so are you. On top of this you cast snotty assertions now on all "armour fuckers" whatever that means in your little head. Improving the thread a whole bunch, eh? Now honestly: go away.

I love been subtweeted on Yea Forums.

Attached: 1531440984128.gif (280x307, 2.62M)

>Explain things terribly
>Nobody understands what you're saying
>Act smug about it
What are you getting out of this?

Attached: 1554838709378.gif (360x202, 1.58M)

Attached: 1538948761289.png (507x565, 25K)

>- user fails to grasp this point
could it be that you didn't make sense?

>No wild leap
You literally compared it to changing the fundamental abilities of humans, which is ludicrous.

Cute teeth.

It's not up to me to wipe the arses of babies on the internet. If you want to improve your reading comprehension, you can start by asking nicely and accepting some feedback.
>smug
Not smug, cruel. You are held to the same standards as everyone, including myself. You have every chance to improve yourself.

love the clothing on this one op. maybe i'll add it to waifuband.

Attached: warband.webm (960x540, 2.96M)

Women fighting is changing the fundamental abilities of humans. I don't know how to soften this blow for you.

Bunnyish, like the best grils

Women have beaten men at hand-to-hand combat before, I guarantee more often than men have beaten bears.

I'm fairly certain your text-based diarrhoea is what needs improving. Quite astounding that someone most likely from the UK(?) is capable of outputting such massive swaths of text and yet none of it is mentally digestible.

I thought you stated this subject was irrelevant to the discussion? Because you've just dived back into why it was even argued upon to begin with. Human physiology is rarely ever accounted for in fictional. The humans are usually superior to their real life counterparts from all manners of strength and intelligence. This makes the "women are weaker and useless in combat" argument redundant, which is what the other user stated earlier.

My fucking niggas

what game is this?

Beyond being irrelevant: find statistics on the RATIO of win:loss for women vs men and men vs bears. Then you're talking evidence.

skyrim

>upset so just baiting
Cute.

>Human physiology is rarely ever accounted for in fictional.
And it's still irrelevant.

>I need your armor, your greaves and your unicorn

>Women fighting is changing the fundamental abilities of humans
So this is relevant according to yourself.

>Human physiology is rarely ever accounted for in fictional works
>And it's still irrelevant.
But this isn't.

Seems more to me that you don't like being contradicted, personally. To the point where you will shift the entire subject around to what suits you.

If we assume that both sexes are automatically superior versions of themselves in fiction wouldn't women still be useless in combat by default since they'd still be worse when compared to men? It's not like the best women come even close to the best men in sports outside of a few select activities like long distance running.

>gets his feefees hurt so now everybody must be baiting
get acid attacked

Sure. Let me just have the buffest woman I can find at the gym attack a fat gamer NEET. That's already 1:0 for women.
As long as some women can beat some men while pretty much nobody can beat a bear, your argument is invalid and stupid.

>If we assume that both sexes are automatically superior versions of themselves in fiction wouldn't women still be useless in combat by default since they'd still be worse when compared to men?
By what metric? Because it's not uncommon for characters in these settings to go toe to toe with larger creatures in physical combat and come out victorious. If both men and women can defeat say, a troll, in a close encounter, are the women truly worthless against the men of their own race? Are the differences even worth considering at that point?

sup faggot

Attached: 2505643186_5055932e81_o.jpg (741x1024, 205K)

It's fantasy. Making women stronger is part of that fantasy. Making little boys and old guys stronger is also part of that fantasy. There's literally no reason to maintain an irl power balance other than autism.

pecs are hard tho

Females in armor are fine, females in bikinis are fine.
UGLY females in anything is the true sin

Attached: 1536589473835.jpg (166x231, 6K)

>manboob armor

Something I can rally behind.

Attached: 1551354533316.png (640x478, 431K)

I am astonished at your level of sheer mental incontinence user, truly. You shine in the field of pretending that one statement refers to something completely to that statement - or perhaps it isn't pretend, it's an actual issue. Stupidity, or sheer cognitive dissonance? It's an open game at the moment.

Case in hand:
>user asserts - without evidence - that """most""" fiction features humans who defy real physiology

I point out that this does not matter to a discussion of what is and is not defying physiology and thereby in hard or soft fantasy.

You then proceed to rail against an argument no-one made but which you seem paranoically determined to see whereever you look.

>you don't like being contradicted
Why would I be responding at all if I DISLIKED being contradicted? What part about "everyone receives cruelty, me and you alike" don't you understand? Oh wait: all of it, because you're a non-reader.

Ancient people weren't very good at armor

Lol lovely projection. This is low end bait now so no more responses, go away.

I really, REALLY don't know how to break this to you user. The fat gamer neet would probably win. You know nothing about the range of strengths of adult humans by sex.

>Women have beaten men at hand-to-hand combat before
Are you willing to throw around an estimated guess? Let's talk numbers. Let's make a scenario. A completely random man and woman are thrown in a mixed martial art combat ring, they are at least 20 years old, their difference in age is less than 1 year. They wear underwears and fight empty-handed with their life on the line. How often do you see women winning? 50%, maybe 10%, maybe 1%, maybe 0.01%? Entertain us. I mean you're the one saying some women have beaten men, the subject clearly interests you, but what you say is anecdotal, it could be formulated better, so I'm giving you a platform to elaborate and prove how much we're wrong. I just want to help.

>leather straps that dig in and chafe everywhere
>weakass clasps in critical places
>floating belts
>spikes that dig into her thighs when she moves, visible on image
>heavy ass thing on one shoulder
How is that thing designed for mobility.

Objectively correct and brilliant, you win a fridge

Attached: 1543808815553.jpg (650x433, 30K)

Doesn't matter what their armor looks like as long as they're pretty underneath it.

>non-reader
Everybody you encounter is a non-reader because it's literally impossible to tell what you're even arguing. You leap to and fro from point to point like a schizo and it's impossible to get a bead on what your point even is. God knows how many people you get into an argument with daily on here.

Whatever, keep thinking you're some high brow intellectual. Keep "winning" internet arguments because other people just get bored talking to the brick wall with the smug attitude.

If women did have armor made for them, then it would have been designed to accentuate their feminine features, the same way armor for men back then was designed to accentuate masculine features.
Women just stuck to male armor back in the say because so few of then ever actually wore it that nobody had any need to design it for women.

Remember, most of the people wearing plate armor were nobles and knights. Even if women were a major part of the van, a noblewoman could afford to have boob shaped plate since it'd be just as fine at deflecting wooden arrows as the male equivalent, and that's all that matters since she's probably not going to be fighting all that much anyway. She only needs to look beautiful and imposing to inspire soldiers.
And the knights are mostly going to sit on horses doing calvary shit, or sitting back to defend the nobles.

The main female combatants would be up front wearing hand me down chain shirts and gambesons that didn't fit quite right, just like the men.

But does it protects against slime?

Attached: Rachelslimy.jpg (500x333, 17K)

>user asserts - without evidence - that """most""" fiction features humans who defy real physiology
>I point out that this does not matter to a discussion of what is and is not defying physiology and thereby in hard or soft fantasy.
so why did you bring the subject back up right here of your own volition when you said it's not relevant to your point? you even made the exact dumb argument that makes it relevant.

Well I mean if one dispatches trolls with less effort than the other then surely they are superior right? You're still right in that it doesn't really matter but there has to be some power dynamic/established system in order for any story to make sense.

It doesn't need to be an irl power balance but there still needs to be some semblance of logic. If somebody just does an ass pull and says that a 5 year old girl is stronger than a 30 year old man without either giving any explanation (magic, bane serum) or a visual cue (the girl is super shredded and the man is a complete wimp) then it's just garbage storytelling.

twitter.com/navigavi
I think this is him?

This thread has been full of lovely and pleasant people who are capable of reading, as are most threads in fact. And plenty of people who disagreed with points I raised still had basic reading ability. Sorry you feel left out I guess. Keep projecting your own inability, really double down on that ignorance rather than just asking for help.
>Keep "winning"
Winning is a concept entirely removed from this discussion. OP asked about the lack of armour girls in games and why, I provided an answer breaking down why. Everything thereafter is just sharing evidence and getting to the bottom of facts, which is what we have done, though I don't think you have realised this since you seem to STILL think I'm arguing about whether girls with the strength to be warriors are common in fiction or not. Keep projecting your own inadequacies as my being a "brick wall" however.

Cause it's not hot OP.

>The fat gamer neet would probably win.
Holy shit, you're actually delusional

No user. A fat gamer NEET would not beat the top 5% of women. You would not beat them.

You clearly don't understand statistics. 90% of women have a worse grip strength than 95% of men. Meaning 10% of women have a stronger grip strength than 95% of men. All studies that show women are useless in the military say something like "only 2 passed" and shit like that, meaning women exist that pass physical tests many men can't.

Women actually, realistically, have an edge when it comes to endurance and resisting fatigue, because of body composition.

Given all this, you still think it's unrealistic for a fantasy game where power levels are distributed super unevenly to have some female warriors? That's delusion level.

>This thread has been full of lovely and pleasant people who are capable of reading
is that what you call the 6+ people who have argued with you since your original post because none of your larger posts make sense?

absolutely pathetic and delusional. imagine being such a faggot who not only pretends that people like him, but even started half these arguments by insulting everybody else first because they couldn't understand his disjointed mess.

You've pretty much caused half the shitflinging in this thread by accusing others of being unable to read your posts when they truly make no sense. The only "nice" posts towards you have been towards your posts with almost no text content and just images.

>realised this since you seem to STILL think I'm arguing about whether girls with the strength to be warriors are common in fiction or not.
You literally brought the argument back up here

Well sure I agree more women in video games should be super shredded, and the ones wearing bikini armor are way too thin.

tl:dr;
I think your question is ambiguous and could be interpreted as either "why aren't there video game women dressed like historical warrior women" or "why aren't there video game women dressed like historical warrior men", and there are probably a variety of answers plausible answers to both questions.

As I think has been demonstrated so far in this thread, your question is open to several different interpretations--hence the arguing taking place. The first, and, I suspect, most common interpretation of your question, restated as best as I can to leave no room for ambiguity, is "Why are there so few video game depictions of women, in fantasy settings mimicking or otherwise stylistically influenced by the medieval period of European history, armed and armored *as the actual women who fought in wars during the medieval European period were armed and armored*?". The answer for this question would, in most cases, likely be "Because women in medieval Europe did not fight in wars, or very likely at all, unless out of sheer desperation, and thus there is precious little historical evidence for the existence of armor from the medieval European period made specifically for women".

Another interpretation of your question, which seems to have been taken by at least one (and probably more) user(s) in this thread is, again restated to remove ambiguity, "Why are there so few video game depictions of women, in fantasy settings mimicking or otherwise stylistically influenced by the medieval period of European history, armed and armored *in a similarly protective manner to the men who fought in wars during the medieval European period*?" As with the previous question, there are likely several answers. Some plausible sounding ones I can think of off the top of my head are "Men have, over the course of the history of video games so far, primarily been the ones creating video games, and men, throughout the course of video game history at the very least, in general have liked to see scantily clad, conventionally attractive women when they are able to" or "Many games, while opening up to creative, fantasy leeway in certain areas, have preferred to stay closer to reality in other areas, such as the participation of women in combat" (this one being more of an explanation as to a complete lack of female warriors, rather than a relative scarcity of "realistically" armored female warriors as compared to the abundance of scantily clad female warriors).

I didn't, that is a totally different point. I don't know how to break this to you a third time by now but you have INCREDIBLY low reading comprehension.

"Most works of fiction have humans who defy real physiology"
"Women who are able to fight on a level with men on average or even be stronger than a significant fraction of them are defying real physiology to a serious extant"
"If humans defy physiology then they are in the realms of soft fantasy and can do what they please, so female armour is still unrealistic"
All completely different statements, and all completely capable of coexisting. Your asserting the first statement (that most works of fiction featuring physiology-defying humans) in no way interferes with, contradicts or alters the last one in the slightest.

You've just been spoonfed the entire argument. I thoroughly expect you to spit it all up nevertheless.

Different user.

Bikini armor is fine in a setting where males also wear bikini armor.

Correct

Double down! You can defy reality user, all you have to do is believe that women have upper body strengths remotely close to the average male!

Yes, yes he categorically would. A "fat gamer NEET" has an upper body strength probably in maybe the 35% of the male range? That's still beyond the MAXIMUM of women by 25%.

>a fat gamer NEET has upper body strength

it's not about the statements existing, it's that you stated the argument even being brought up is irrelevant and yet you've made direct stances on it and repeated them. why make the argument when you just said it's irrelevant?

this is why nobody understands what the fuck you're saying. you make arguments for shit that you just said is irrelevant and then continue doing it anyway. your posts themselves are littered with worthless information that muddies what you're trying to say.

There were almost no quantitative female fighting force in history. Especially during the feudal eras

Since when does that mass of the upper body = upper body strength. They would lack in pretty much all areas except their exceptional weight and would be winded in like 5 minutes. I mean, it's pretty obvious you've been baiting this whole thread but jeez man at least pretend to try.

Attached: 1510814710135.jpg (255x222, 15K)

Genuine question: Are you baiting? I don't think someone could genuinely act this much like a pompous cunt.

What about like right now, and apply the knowlege we have about fighting women to those eras. Just because it never happened didn't mean it wasn't plausible.

Kid yourself that you and one other user are six people, if you really need to. I wouldn't be talking about delusion if I were you?

It's not my fault if they literally CAN'T read m8. They shitfling over being told they can't read when it's categorically the case. I don't have to run basic english language lessons to retards and spergs on Yea Forums. really the fact that I have offered to walk posters through things if they get their heads out of their arses is charitable e-fucking-nough.

>pretends people like him
People do like me. Sorry you're butthurt that I won't be your friend. (actually I will if you start paying attention)

>""""You literally brought the argument back up here""""
I literally didn't, this has been explained to you maybe two-three times now and I am astonished at your inability to get this. It must just be sheer intellectual dishonesty, but motivated by what retarded whim is impossible to conjecture.

look at what he said here and you tell me

Sure? Not related to the talking point ... s, at all but whatever.

>what is "significantly greater muscle and bone density across the entire body, including the upper body
>what is "being taller and heavier"

You've explained it to me approximately once, and like several others in this thread - nothing you are stating has any semblance of a structure. It's like reading English thrown into Google translate, changed to German, changed back to English, and the grammar was corrected. There's some form of a point buried in there, but the way it's worded is atrocious.

I hope you truly are baiting.

Attached: 1554484833059.png (540x465, 290K)

>being taller and heavier
It's called "on average" for a reason. Look around walmart, tell me if you can't find any women taller and heavier than the mental image you have of the fat gamer NEET.
>having muscle density
Well, you need muscles for that.

>You clearly don't understand statistics.
I didn't say any statistics. You wound me user. I only asked what you think. I wrote a scenario and I asked what you think. I wrote it to help you elaborate and show how much we are wrong. I still want to know your answer. It is an hypothetical scenario so it can only be answered with a very vague estimate. That is fine. Out of curiosity, what is your vague estimate?

Because that argument ("most humans in fiction have physiology defying strength) IS irrelevant and that's what putting those three statements side to side demonstrates. This is what "spoonfeeding you the evidence and reasoning" looks like. Bringing that dubious factoid up doesn't change the fact that defying human physiology .... is *****defying human physiology***** which puts it in the realm of soft fantasy.

>nobody understands what the fuck you're saying
That nasty habit of projecting your own incapacities onto others user. You are far too forgiving of yourself, you have to confront your own issues. Not everyone is nice enough to criticism your shit for you, certainly not IRL.

>you make arguments
I didn't start *one* argument. I posted my reasoning on why there are few realistic armour girls in games, and an user sperged out.

Mass makes a huge difference and it still isn't even the focus of the point. It's density.

Oh I didn't realise you were the Queen of Sheba and I'm not allowed to disagree or contradict you! I'm so very sorry, your maje- oh wait you're just an user who can't take their poor reasoning and reading faculties being highlighted.

there is nothing realistic about female warriors in the first place

>entire thread
>because women in armor is unrealistic
actually based, a society that let the women fight in their wars (when they arent utterly desperate) is one that doesnt last long

>I posted my reasoning on why there are few realistic armour girls in games
you posted the glorified verbatim of the average Yea Forums argument on why women are inferior and you wonder why you're here right now?

Your scenario is completely irrelevant, because we're talking about a fantasy setting here with combat trained women on fantasy steroids, not random 20 year olds fighting other random 20 year olds.

Women in combat and hence for the most part women wearing armor is already unrealistic

The mass nor density of a fat NEET who does not exercise will not win him a fight against literally anyone who does

Ok, we just have to add male pregnancy to make it realistic again

>apply the knowlege we have about fighting women to those eras
what? that we should've known better than to try?

Battle witch

Attached: SWAT.png (509x1270, 353K)

>Bringing that dubious factoid up doesn't change the fact that defying human physiology .... is *****defying human physiology***** which puts it in the realm of soft fantasy.
The topic of women in combat and armor has been explained from the start that it's a fantasy ideal. Nobody has argued from a real world standpoint considering this is a board about video games. So why are you pointing out that this is all fiction like you're explaining something nobody else has been saying? Redundant information like this presented in the manner you post it and then arguing with everybody with your weird mannerisms is why this thread has gone to shit.

So basically you're so frightened by someone disagreeing with you, providing basic evidence and reasoning that works out, and maintains conviction in the face of distractions and shitflingings, that you've buried yourself into deep denial. "It must be a trick, a devilish TROLL on the internet has worked his magic to ruse me! That's it because no-one else would disagree with me and my esteemed mind!" You have become the middle-aged soccer mom terrified of Yea Forums.

In the average walmart, you will struggle to find a women even average male in height, let alone above average. The only women you'll find above average in WEIGHT is fatasses. In muscle and bone, not in a 100 years.
>Well, you need muscles for that.
Which 90% of men have in greater doses than ALL women, and 100% of men have in greater doses than all but the top 50% of women. I keep telling you, you don't know jack about the statistics.

And now we are back full circle to you non-reading the point. You still stick doggedly to your ignorance and never once, in the face of "that's not what I said", aim for a reasonable discussion. Bully for you non-reader, now go away.

>So basically you're so frightened by someone disagreeing with you
How can you disagree with me when you haven't even directly argued with me? That was my second post directed at you. We haven't discussed anything to disagree about.

Again, your post structure is terrible. It might help if you didn't pause every followup sentence with an insult and break the flow of information.

So you are going to consciously ignore physical feats that women have pulled off today to make a 'Le epik funny' post? Because if that's the case then peace. But if you aren't acting like a retard and just actually are one then i'll explain.
Women didn't fight, yes.
Women fight today, yes.
We're placing the top percentile of women fighters in this hypothetical situation, back then.
There is 0 reason why in a hypothetical society where men and women are raised homogeneously, that there would be any significant enough differences to where women wouldnt be able to fight. No one is arguing that women are 'stronger' than men, but if we chose the strongest and most suitable women to fight there should be no reason that they wouldnt outclass the average male.

>i didn't say that
but you literally did. it may not have been your intention, but your entire post from start to finish was

>women are inferior and it's not realistic
>therefore women in armor isn't realistic
>men like tits

i'm sorry you have short term memory.

It certainly will against women.

>why are you pointing out that this is all fiction
Because the fact that it must be soft fantasy fiction (that's the critical part to stop hard fantasy arguments about beastmen existing) undermines the very central *claim* itself of realistic armour. The average joe schmoe can't fap to a woman in armour. So designers generally don't make those designs in games, and when they do it's invariably limited and frustrating for the reasons listed in that original post (which have not even remotely been touched upon). That's why folks who like chicks in armour like OP, myself and maybe yourself too have a paucity of content. If you still don't follow this then you are a lost case.

They can be dressed in whatever the devs like, as long as the design is at least tasteful. Bonus if they don't look too jarring when compared to the male outfits.

Attached: m2a-sreng-and-neamhain-concept.jpg (1000x900, 139K)

Jesus Christ this Britfaggot is fucking insufferable. Can't wait for you faggots to get banned from the internet because it offends some mother group.

can't you decide who you are using as a straw man?

Yes I'm sure the fictional fantasy warriors would be in the bottom 50% of women, and not the top 10%.

And I was comparing fatasses with fatasses. Average male height in the US is 176cm. A 177 cm fatass would be taller and heavier than the average male. I don't think they're that hard to find.

Let me remind you that this discussion started because you said more men can beat bears in hand-to-hand than women can beat men so yes I AM comparing the top percentile of women with the bottom percentile of men.

>Women fight today, yes.
eh
>strongest and most suitable women to fight there should be no reason that they wouldnt outclass the average male.
You realize national teams regularly get their asses kicked by mediocre 14-15 year old boys', right? I think it's a yearly thing here in soccer.
No. No they don't.

That's literally all you had to say, that's a perfectly legible string of two and a bit sentences. Would have just been nicer if you said it earlier so this whole shitflinging could have ended between all these other anons.

Yes, female armor is sadly only designed for the average normie to get his rocks off. I personally prefer women in practical yet form fitting armor because I have a skin concealment fetish which lends well with bodysuits and masks.

Attached: 1549578749906.jpg (300x450, 21K)

So you've dived headfirst into an argument you haven't been a part of and do not understand, make opaque comments that can be easily mistaken for those of the other two anons I've argued with and then expect me to somehow magically distinguish them? Whether you're just talking shite or not, it's immaterial. Your "argument" is "you're not making sense!!!!!" insisted without any backing reason. If you use basic manners and respect I'll give you an english lesson so you can follow the simple english used in my posts, otherwise cope harder.
>post structure
You used the same phrase exactly earlier in this thread maybe twice, odds of you being a samefag now high (and still irrelevant).
>an insult
Not insults, cruelty. You will be forgiven when you begin to stop being shit.
>break the flow of information
Letting you know how outrageously slow you're being IS information. Cherish it.

Y'all faggots discussing and arguing should stop and just post what kind of armor on women you like, you bunch of unloved amoebas, go raid your mothers panty drawer or something

Attached: 1547225448924.jpg (1600x1042, 127K)

>>Women fight today, yes.
>eh
Yes
>You realize national teams regularly get their asses kicked by mediocre 14-15 year old boys', right? I think it's a yearly thing here in soccer.
No. No they don't.
When did soccer players become the top percentile of women

I really like your taste, user.

The "No they dont" was meant to be part of the quote i was doing for what you said

>So you've dived headfirst into an argument you haven't been a part of and do not understand
I've read your posts throughout the thread, I'm well caught up.

>Your "argument" is "you're not making sense!!!!!"
Because your posts have poor readability, so you are in fact not making sense.

>You used the same phrase exactly earlier in this thread maybe twice
There aren't many ways to say post structure. Writing structure is the only other alternative that comes to mind, keep note that it's 1am here and I'm flagging.

Just swallow your ego and write more cohesively.

This post makes perfect sense for example.

>When did soccer players become the top percentile of women
National representatives are a bit beyond just top percentile.
It's a sport. What do you think the kids beat them with, experience?

Tone is important

If your game is meant to be gritty and realistic then yeah no metal arms

But if your game has demi gods fighting time traveling cyborgs to save reality then let me see some tits

>realistically armored females
There's no such thing. Never in the history of civilization have women ever worn plate armor. Not even Joan of Arc wore it. Paintings of her wearing such armor are complete fantasies.

Attached: 1524322192846.jpg (992x1078, 252K)

You would me again user. You wound me when you said I did not understand statistics, when I said none, and now you wound me when you say my scenario is irrelevant, when earlier you showed interest in comparing numbers in real life, yes you did, you compared the number of women that beat men to the number of men that beat bears. Those are numbers in real life. I also discussed number in real life. I only give you a better scenario to prove how much we are wrong about the difference in strength between men and women, and you wound me again and again, oh, but I want to help you. I only want to know your answer my friend. Your estimated statistic to the scenario, what is it?

>Never in the history of civilization have women ever worn plate armor
No? What's this then?

Attached: DbrQ80J.jpg (599x800, 85K)

Just buff it out.

>There's no such thing. Never in the history of civilization have women ever worn plate armor.
That doesn't suddenly make the concept of women wearing armor unrealistic.

Women in full armor is fine.
Women in rags and a chainmail bikini is also fine.
You can even meet halfway and do full armor with frills and feminine touches.

I draw the line on making female armor revealing just for the sake of being revealing while still saying it's 'armor'.
We're in the age of the internet. If I want to jerk off, I'm an alt+tab away, so don't make your armor like you were assuming boobs are a suitable substitute for consistent art design.

Attached: repairherarmor[1].jpg (619x300, 86K)

Of women fighters, no they aren't. And that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about if Daquan can dunk on some national womens basketball player, I'm asking if the average male can FIGHT AND WIN against someone like Cris Cyborg or Amanda Nunes.

>You can even meet halfway and do full armor with frills and feminine touches
Thats worse than either indivually. At that point you might as well go full armor to make it make sense or stick to the whole bikini thing to pander to the other side.

Thank you for paraphrasing what you think my original post statement was so I can handily show you bit by bit why ithat's wrong.

>women are inferior
STRONG projection on your part revealing the depths of delusion and desperately fighting phantom enemies detached from myself and every point I've made. Never said that or anything remotely like that. The word "inferior", charged as it is with a moral-normative judgement, indicates a sensitive moral fear on your part, which is probably the root of the irrational defensive behaviour. If you had picked the phrasing: "Women are weaker in fights than men" then that would be at least accurate to the message of my post, even if I still didn't say that either. But the choice of the emotive "inferior" on your own part is critically telling.
>therefore women in armour isn't realistic
I actually caveated that women could have armour under certain circumstances IRL, just that it would be very odd to go out of ones way to make armour for females specifically given its near ueselessness. Modern armies for instance have armour for women, however misguided its use.
And note aside from the is the use of a blunt, unnuanced "realistic/unrealistic" distinction, bypassing the categorics of whether something unrealistic is a mere addition to reality or outright changing its basis.
>men like tits
You've skipped over quite a bit there, namely
>That's why men like to see women in games outside of roleplaying scenarios with a hard focus on realism, which can still be sexually charged anyway
You also missed out that EVERYONE likes to look at tits, and also the follow-up point that it's a niche audience who appreciates women in armour

In short, a retarded assessment on a nuanced point that clearly flew over your head. If you're still battling with why I'm being so cruel to you in my comments, it's because you deserve cruelty. And forgiveness, but in time. Learn to not kneejerk when an user is cruel to you.

Completely unrealistic, is what it is.
Yes it is. OP might as well be lamenting that video games don't have "realistic dragons."

Attached: Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. Signum.jpg (956x991, 174K)

>kids
Eh it was a top U-17 team, not a random highschool soccer club.

Attached: 1431009130003.jpg (1278x1280, 222K)

Serious question, are you Indian? You have that unintelligible writing style that they have.

why the fuck does he get up then fall?

>Dragons can't be realistic
Ah, a literary smoothbrain.

I didn't say bikinify armor. I said make it look feminine.
That doesn't mean the tits need to be sticking out with only the areola having a single plate of steel.

Attached: tacticsogre_class_knight_8_JPG[1].png (641x566, 290K)

oh yes we definitely need another argument about the definition of realistic
>"just because it's not anywhere close to reality doesn't mean it's not realistic"
>"if something is drawn well or well written it's realistic, that's what the word means right"
>"wtf does realism has to do with reality"
>"realistic is not unrealistic but realism is not necessarily not unreal, are you for real, really unreal, that's real bro
>"let's assume for no reason that you think realism necessarily mean real, well it doesn't, I don't know what else you're trying to say but your argument is btfo"

My bad, you posted a pic of tera armor so I was confused about what you meant.

Do you have problems reading? It's not a unique occurrence.
>Of women fighters
They wouldn't fare any better there. They just don't have the physical aptitude.
>someone like Cris Cyborg or Amanda Nunes
>the "big" one is 66kg
I don't think the average soldier would even break a sweat, and that's a piddling amount of CQC training they've got.

Serious answer: I'm not. Now I'd like your serious answer to my simple scenario.

>average male is average soldier

>Realism and reality are the same thing
Wait, retards here seriously think that? Holy shit Yea Forums they don't joke when they say you guys have the lowest IQ across all boards.

Realism can be an exchangeable term for internal consistency, this is pretty common knowledge if you read.

The armor in ffxiv is pretty good

Attached: ffxiv_dx11_2016-03-04_00-13-48-495.jpg (1920x1080, 926K)

You're making an anti-civilian squad now?

Your simple scenario has nothing to do with the discussion. Nobody in this thread says that the average woman is stronger than the average guy. You are just baiting and derailing.

Yet another stunning feat of moving the goal posts! This time user has taken his "the BEST FEMALE FIGHTERS IN THE REAL WORLD will beat some smelly NEET" argument and transformed it into "Fantasy females with no need to stick to real limits will beat real people who are bound by them". What a brilliantly stupid "save" for a flailing argument! That's the way to counter basic statistics being levelled against your unevidenced assertions.

>I was comparing fatasses with fatasses
In your head, and not in your posts you typed on Yea Forums.
>Average male height in the US is 176cm. A 177 cm fatass would be taller and heavier than the average male. I don't think they're that hard to find.
And you're now talking about the odds of finding tall, fat men because...? Remember that YOU'RE arguing the case for top women being able to beat some grade of men, so selecting for tall men is unnecessarily harming your own point.
Or is it that you're now trying to pivot to a man vs man fighting scenario? Because men differ wildly in overall level of muscle and bone density, even while still comfortably outclassing all women beyond the bottom 10% of males. With men it's a case by case basis for assessment because of the sheer variance. Not so much for women, and certainly not so much for women vs men.

> you said more men can beat bears in hand-to-hand than women can beat men
That low reading comprehension again, Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ it never fucking ends. It's Sweet Bro falling down the stairs and I keep watching and saying "it keeps happening". No matter what I say you will misinterpret it willfully to me saying something I didn't.

Cowardice is cute!

This, there are so many people in denial in this thread it's immaculate.

its the only reason people play that shitty game

Ssshhh you will confuse their little heads
Just enjoy the shitposting

>user continues to wonder why his posts are a muddle of information when he randomly splashes 50% of the text with "sik as fuk" insults to make himself feel big

Holy shit do you have short term amnesia?

The argument started fucking here:

It'll probably be an anti-demon and collect-15-wolf-pelts squad to be fair

Well I'm sure you'll achieve a lot more than the people who stay at home. That's apparently what matter.

I didn't have to say a fucking thing beyond my initial post, because my initial post was straightforward Queen's English that anyone without ADHD or a serious condition can parse. I extended offers repeatedly to go over areas of verbal snag to anons provided they exercise basic manners. Instead you have behaved like a screaming chimp unhappy that won't respond in kind the entire time. That one random paragraph, out of ALL of these posts, happens to arbirtrary satisfy your "well NOW I get it" criterion of sheer idiosyncratic stupid is what makes me confidant in my earlier diagnosis of autism.

At the end of it all, the only reason why you decided to oppose what I had to say at all, and why you're suddenly playing ball and just talking about the OP topic AT LAST, is because you thought I was an anti-armour guy and thus YOUR HATED ENEMY. I literally pity you for your insecurity and group-minded smallness, whether we share any common sexual proclivities or not. To people who just want to fap to a foot, you are that guy who attacks anyone who WON'T fap to a foot. To people into mild anthro, you are the guy who gets defensive when he suspects he's talking to a non-Furry. The moment I eased your sense that I'm on your "team" and not on the "bikini armour" team you changed you tune, regardless of the content of what was actually be said. This is why communities are full of closeminded "policing" retards that can't get on with each other. That is irrevocably sad and I am so very sorry for you.

That said, I still love you because you understand why concealing skin is so important for sexiness. However skin concealment is just the first step, like the wrapping paper before unwrapping the gift.

Attached: 1552569516150.jpg (712x1000, 193K)

I'm sure you believe you are well caught up.

>There aren't many ways to say post structure
To one with a limited vocabulary.

>Just swallow your ego
You are infinitely less cruel to my "ego" than I am, and equally so for your own ego. It is you who arrogantly proclaim that because you cannot follow plain english it is "unreadble", without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Here's a hint chucklnuts: THIS IS WHERE YOU EITHER PROVIDE SAID REASONING - by going through the body of text you claim to be ilegible and highlight parts you think are unparseable/you just can't read - OR ELSE GET LAUGHED OUT FOR YOUR SPURIOUS ASSERTION. Can you take that hint?

>"but THIS post makes sense!"
Dense, dense as cement.

>body of text
>spurious assertion
Kek

What a peculiar projection, user.

You responded to a post discussing the "real world women fighters vs a hypothetical fat NEET" fight as if it was the different "women are more likely to beat men that men beat bears" fight. I'm still amazed at the sheer lack of rigour it takes to embarass yourself like this.

>"""Circlet"""
Fuck out of here.

Attached: ffxiv_01202019_222847_862.jpg (2560x1440, 925K)

The NEET thing was mentioned here first:
It was the same fight.

You're doing what the post is predicting.
>"let's assume for no reason that you think realism necessarily mean real"
To say that realism has to do with reality, to say it is a comparison with real things, is not the same as saying that realism means it's real. Nobody is saying that. You're the low-IQ for hearing what nobody is saying. And no, internal consistency is a different and separate concept. It is absurdly simple to prove that even you don't believe that. Read this magic system . If you refuse to say "this is a realistic magic system" then you perfectly agree with everything I've said in this post. You're just confused, you probably use the word realist as a personal indicator of quality, because you've seen good drawings or good writing called realist, so anything good must be realist, and you keep incorrectly using that word when deep down you won't stick to your beliefs. Prove to us that you do believe it means internal consistency. Say clearly that "is a realistic magic system", because it is a simple but internally consistent numeric system with mana, or say nothing.

Perhaps this is the simple root of your problem - that you don't even know basic english words and phrases when you encounter them,

"body of text" = any amount of text, typically at least a few sentences up to paragraph level, including entire books at the upper limits.

Example of a body of text: my initial posts here: , comprisng a few paragraphs of writing and thus constituting a "body of text" as referenced in prior post.

"spurious assertion" - an assertion (a claim put forward in an argument) that is spurious (ridiculous, unfounded). You claim that the prior text is "unfollowable", an assertion that is spurious until you can evidence it. Will you chicken out as you've done repeatedly in this thread, or will you put your money where your mouth is?

A completely irrelevant distraction called up by that user as a distraction from the fact that his point about women beating men vs men beating bears got checked. Complete side arguments and another slimy evasive tactic.

Swords aren't and weren't 3kg unless they were great swords, chucklefuck.

kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=CS88WGSM&name=Cold Steel Two-Handed Great Sword - Man at Arms Collection

This is one of the biggest swords available from a company known for over-building their swords and making them heavier than is historically accurate, and it's not even 3kg. Most swords were, at worst, 1-1.5 kg.

kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AM7&name=Albion Musuem Collection - The Cluny

This is a hand and a half sword and it's a bit over 1 kg. You've never held a sword, you've never swung a sword.

notanotherhemablog.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/hema-inclusiveness/

You don't even type like a human dude

actual brainlet detected.
gb2/twitter

This:

shut the fuck up and post more cute girls in armor

What I've been saying all thread.

Btw would we object to girls in non-armour military uniforms or police gear?

Attached: DrZRjRSV4AAVunQ.jpg large.jpg (1386x1713, 431K)

>having a "body of text" comprised on anonymous Yea Forums posts
>non-ironically calling replies on Yea Forums "spurious assertioms"
And when user calls you out, you start defining "spurious".
And you wonder why people don't reply to your actual arguments.

>CURRENT YEAR
>OMG GUYS THAT QUOTE IS OOOOOLLLLLDDD
>THAT MEANS ITS NOT APPLICABLE TO CURRENT TIMES
let’s just throw out Pythagorean’s theorem while we’re at it.

>I draw the line on making female armor revealing just for the sake of being revealing while still saying it's 'armor'.
Sorry bro, but female gladiators wore revealing armor for the sake of being revealing. You're just going to have to deal with the reality that women smarter than you would know how to manipulate the enemy and their allies better than you do.
Joan of Arc wore a suit of armor, dude. It was given to her by Charles VII, who had it forged to be as strong as any knight's full armor, and when she died, it was stored in the abbey of St. Denis.

You're literally trying to defeat me by flattering me and degrading yourself by comparison, beating your chest over how much your knuckles drag. It's sad, and also not related to the thread. Post girls in cute armour like the rest of us or go away.

Attached: 1550776129173.jpg (600x902, 60K)

is she cute?

Impeccably.

Attached: 1552235034049.png (1191x1536, 1.03M)

>trying to defeat you
I only pointed out how ridiculous you were being with "body of text". Everything before that was other people.

we want cute and sexy women showing their skin, faggot

Attached: 1470328079908-4.jpg (712x789, 97K)

Which you failed at spectacularly, for the same reason you failed at everything: by making assertions, expecting them to stick without evidence, and then blubbering like an infant when your incredibly obvious bluff is called. Purely in the name of distracting yourself from the points previously levelled at that, resulting in a chain of concatenatively stupid statement on your part that get rebuffed everytime. It's still not to late to turn it around tho. You could either subsantiate the assertions you've made without desperate insecure displays, or you could examine them honestly and concede the point raised, or you could just shut the fucking fuck up and post. More. Cute. Girls. In. Armour. Anything but more butthurt flailing.

Attached: DkW98M-UUAESFPz.jpg large.jpg (1400x990, 138K)

At the END of the sequence. You are like a little baby, wanting the nudity all upfront at once with no balance, moderation and restraint. You are like footfags who want women to walk around barefoot all the time even though that would be disgusting and result in grubby, malformed feet. We are the equivalent of footfags who understand that socks make the foot all the more special. Learn self control.

Attached: DkpZWmlUYAAj_ri.jpg large.jpg (1100x605, 58K)

Attached: DpzLs68VAAAPVVy.jpg large.jpg (1500x1500, 281K)

Get a load of this heathen not living in the middle ages.

I don't know user she'd look real good in bikini armor.

That armor would be terrible IRL and get her killed instantly.

You are like one of those killjoys that tends to ruin the mood of every social gathering the attend because they can't stop preaching for 5 minutes. Some skin being covered can add to the allure, but with what you like they might as well be in a full burqa.

>armour
why do you spell things like a frenchman?

It's almost like there's 2 ways to write some things, depending on where you're from.

True and irrelevant

YOU are the smoldering butthurt who's turned up to a party about one kind of thing and bitching that it's not and we should party about something else. Then you cry when the party rebukes you. Get some self-awareness you solipsistic NEET.

Attached: DqB9wuMVYAAoShc.jpg large.jpg (1048x1500, 319K)

Oh and you're a truly smallminded idiot for thinking that because I criticise wanton bikiniry I must be advocating a burka.

Attached: DqKtGnGU0AEkv2l.jpg (843x1200, 176K)

and the french one is never right

>he says posting about "covered" women on Yea Forums
If you want people to play nice with your prude fetish go to redd!t.

Dragon Age Inquisition has surprisingly decent female armour.

Attached: Cassandra_inquisition_promotional.png (320x320, 215K)

Attached: Dra_F4MUcAA-0o0.jpg large.jpg (1414x2000, 247K)

It's british english you dumbfuck. French is "armure"

It was a figure of speech retard, the point is that you want them covered in such thick layers of clothing that all sex appeal dies and they may as well not even exist.

the unnecessary inclusion of a "U" in armour is French

it's French English. may as well go suck a Norman's cock while you're at it.

So no counter to what was said, just more screeching from the lost autist who wonders why he's mad in a thread not for him. Keep pretending that drawings of well-figured women in skin tight armour and uniforms is prudish.

Attached: 1541888819293.jpg (1037x1536, 536K)

How retarded are you? There is no such thing as "french english".
I swear you americans took the pretending out of "pretending to be retarded".

>he calls this shit "skin tight"

Attached: 26d769d64d5b39de922485a4ed87b317273491e75def2dc8431dccfb69a142af.jpg (316x410, 34K)

It's reddit to have painfully normy taste and lose your spaghetti over niche interests and tastes

Yeah your literal comparison sure was a figure of speech. Do you even realise how much of a deceptive shitstirrer you actually are? You're STILL HERE getting mad at things you don't like and not actually contributing or else fucking off.

Attached: 1541885925864.png (740x940, 235K)

>this is how boob armor is done, without cleavage in the middle since that means you are directing hits toward the center of your chest

You know nothing user because that's not what matters. What matters is the thickness and that bit of detail was from armor smiths themselves.

>armored females
>realistic
Choose one.

Attached: W O A H.png (614x692, 754K)

>might as well
Yes it was a figure of speech, or are you illiterate in addition to having shit taste.

HURR HE MUST ONLY MEAN THIS ONE PIC AND NOT ANY OF THE OTHER THE BALLPARK 100+ IMAGES IN THIS THREAD HURR
I really marvel at you retards, you're so angry and you don't even realise why

Attached: 1544567188327.jpg (4096x2869, 1.13M)

Because realistically women didnt wear armor because they werent soldiers

you don't appear to need to pretend

ef.com/wwen/blog/language/why-us-and-uk-english-sound-so-different/

no because its fantasy and doesn't need realism

incels

I haff more for hyou

You know exactly what is meant by that phrase

Yeah, you suggesting that if someone isn't in a bikini, they MIGHT AS WELL be in a literal shapeless bollardlike mass of cloth that conceals all hint of figure and is also not armourlike in the slightest is such a """"figure of speech"""". Certainly not a shit comparison attempting to equate a taste for hot women in armour with weapons looking ready to kickass to radical islamic prudery where women are chattel in the kitchen, and certainly not a comparison driven by retarded desperation and/or pathetic dishonesty. Now begone.

Attached: 1541900289013.jpg (2402x2030, 2.5M)

Attached: 1541900157329.jpg (550x782, 378K)

>You know exactly what is meant by that phrase
Yeah, it means true to life. Something you would see in the real world.

The word you want is 'authentic.'

there are plenty of unarmored peasant wives
boob plate is not realism

is the shield huge or is she just a womanlet?

she's like 2'

Influences are not their own language.

>high heels
>ever

Attached: scumtime.jpg (1148x1246, 475K)

what if they have brain implants that make them fight good?