Immersion and plate armour (Spoilers - don't read if you've played less than 1 hour of TW 2)

[Venethor]

First of all - it`s just a game. Not a real life - just artifical system, and as every system it has some assumptions.
Second - the main element in this system is a story (lore, plot, characters etc.) and all other elements created to support that. So, it`s not a sword-fighting simulator.
Third - the game should be fun to play. I mean, something that sounds cool could become surprisingly-boring or just not work out well, when it comes to realisation\play-testing.

And when it comes to armor\weapon designs - only here i found a few opposite visions on this topic. Imagine the difference when it comes to the whole target audience.
I`m idealist myself, but let`s be realistic - nobody will make a game just for the few hardcore fans.

I mean - I`m glad, that in non-creative, line productionised world of gamedevelopment there is still a few companies with a wise business politics, which allows them to be free from the creative point of view.
And therefore I personally agree to close my eyes on a few assumptions)

P.S. English isn`t my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.

I respect your point but I resent the notion that realism always has to be boring. I never suggested turning it into a fechtbuch-simulator, then we'd have to get rid of all the pirouettes and flashy jumps too. The thing is, the pirouttes and all that other epic stuff can actually be explained lore-wise, steel armour becoming softer than Skyrim's voice talents can't.

 

[sardas]

I respect your point but I resent the notion that realism always has to be boring. I never suggested turning it into a fechtbuch-simulator, then we'd have to get rid of all the pirouettes and flashy jumps too. The thing is, the pirouttes and all that other epic stuff can actually be explained lore-wise, steel armour becoming softer than Skyrim's voice talents can't.

And I respect your opinion too. Maybe it sounded this way, but I wasn`t going to persuade anyone and you personally - just offered to everybody to take a look at the problem not only from the gamers point of view. And maybe then, a huge amount of questions would just disappear) That`s all.

 

[username_3652313]

This is where the old piercing, slashing, blunt weapons would be welcome along with armors that were better against certain weapons than others. The absolute worst sin for anyone even remotely familiar with real weapons and armor is slashing through plate armor or even chain mail. You CANNOT slash through those types of armor. YOu can pierce them with specialist weapons such as picks and very narrow swords that taperer quickly. But slashing is just painful to watch and I blame Hollywood for that. BLunt is of course the best as a lot of damage can be done even if you don't necessarily do much harm to the armor itself. The concussive force can shatter bones.

 

[shawn_kh]

I respect your point but I resent the notion that realism always has to be boring. I never suggested turning it into a fechtbuch-simulator, then we'd have to get rid of all the pirouettes and flashy jumps too. The thing is, the pirouttes and all that other epic stuff can actually be explained lore-wise, steel armour becoming softer than Skyrim's voice talents can't.

The armors soldiers wore back in those days were not Iron man suits, they actually were easy to penetrate because they were thin and made of impure iron or in best cases steel. If you see a real one you'll realize they are very thin because the soldiers would not be able to walk if they made them thick and heavy to the point were swords could not penetrate them. Even arrows penetrated these armors and killed soldiers. These armors were worn to protect the soldiers from soft slashing blows, and the strategy to kill was to penetrate the armor with pointed blows.

 

[agrippadarippa]

To OP, actually there are several finishers (though it's irregardless of whether Geralt's facing plated opponents) where he uses the sword in "mordhau" fashion - inverted and holding the blade, using the crossguard as a hammer. For the most part I agree - for a game that pays as much attention to detail as W2 I would've loved to see plate armor offering significant advantages against bladed weapons (or conversely for swordsmen to use adapted techniques against plate); however with the nature of the game it wouldn't really have been feasible like you said. I kinda just commit it to suspension of disbelief

 

[Venethor]

The armors soldiers wore back in those days were not Iron man suits, they actually were easy to penetrate because they were thin and made of impure iron or in best cases steel. If you see a real one you'll realize they are very thin because the soldiers would not be able to walk if they made them thick and heavy to the point were swords could not penetrate them. Even arrows penetrated these armors and killed soldiers. These armors were worn to protect the soldiers from soft slashing blows, and the strategy to kill was to penetrate the armor with pointed blows.

This is where a certain Lindybeige video comes to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahyhBeBsys

Also, you might want to check up on videos of people actually testing the armour (Stay away from the infamous "Katana vs Longsword"). As Lindy points out, no-one would ever pay a fortune for something that didn't work. And why would someone ever invent half-swording if you could just slash through armour? I am aware that half-swording was used out of armoured combat too but many of the techniques are primarily for taking down armoured opponents. And why'd the mace or the rondel dagger ever come into use then? Keep in mind that at some point plate armour effectively replaced shields, why? Because you don't need to wield a shield when you can wear it (Also having two hands to wield your poleaxe, longsword, short lance, etc. is nice)

 

[ezop]

Well, let's wait what are the Warhorsestudios with their hussite rpg coming with. Many of these things you're discussing here are nice ideas, but most of them definitely won't be in the Witcher 3. We all know that.

Look at this video and dare to say, it does not look promising.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpJCYkMFFmo[/media]

 

[bengeddes]

The armors soldiers wore back in those days were not Iron man suits, they actually were easy to penetrate because they were thin and made of impure iron or in best cases steel. If you see a real one you'll realize they are very thin because the soldiers would not be able to walk if they made them thick and heavy to the point were swords could not penetrate them. Even arrows penetrated these armors and killed soldiers. These armors were worn to protect the soldiers from soft slashing blows, and the strategy to kill was to penetrate the armor with pointed blows.

You say that as if arrows were weaker than swords when penetrating armor. Longbows were devastating weapons precisely because the arrows could punch through thick armor in a way that a sword thrust never could.

 

[Jobbert.907]

It's not really an immersion breaker for me. It would be cool, but I'm fine with CDPR focussing on other things. As long as armoured opponents are tougher than mangy bandits in rags I'm good.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I don't think changing the way combat works for heavily armoured opponents is a must, other than them taking reduced DMG (which was already the case in TW games). But CDPR should at least take it into considertion during cutscenes - I think a lot of people just assumed we were talking about gameplay changes specifically.

 

[Sirnaq]

I don't think changing the way combat works for heavily armoured opponents is a must, other than them taking reduced DMG (which was already the case in TW games). But CDPR should at least take it into considertion during cutscenes - I think a lot of people just assumed we were talking about gameplay changes specifically.

Pretty much this.
Also i'll just leave it here

 

[shawn_kh]

You say that as if arrows were weaker than swords when penetrating armor. Longbows were devastating weapons precisely because the arrows could punch through thick armor in a way that a sword thrust never could.

I never said arrows were weaker, but they are certainly lighter and less durable than a long sword. Long swords were created and evolutionized to cut thought armors. Here's a quote from Wikipedia.
"The blade of the longsword is straight and double edged. Over time the blades of longswords become slightly longer, thicker in cross-section, less wide, and considerably more pointed. This design change is largely attributed to the use of plate armour as an effective defense, more or less nullifying the ability of a sword cut to break through the armour system."
Here are examples of penetrated armours.

Here are some videos:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c#t=75[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reec-2QBGw4[/media]

 

[shawn_kh]

This is where a certain Lindybeige video comes to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahyhBeBsys

Also, you might want to check up on videos of people actually testing the armour (Stay away from the infamous "Katana vs Longsword"). As Lindy points out, no-one would ever pay a fortune for something that didn't work. And why would someone ever invent half-swording if you could just slash through armour? I am aware that half-swording was used out of armoured combat too but many of the techniques are primarily for taking down armoured opponents. And why'd the mace or the rondel dagger ever come into use then? Keep in mind that at some point plate armour effectively replaced shields, why? Because you don't need to wield a shield when you can wear it (Also having two hands to wield your poleaxe, longsword, short lance, etc. is nice)

Aryan wan not wearing a chainmail while Geralt stabbed him though his chest, he was wearing a steel plated armor. Don't rely on the info this guy gives you, because he's just an enthusiast. And we should keep in mind that not all armors are created equal. The hardiness of an armor depends on how pure and tempered it is and during what time period it was created and the same thing goes for the sword that is used. So we cannot say there is no way that a sword can penetrate an armor, or a sword can definitely penetrate an armor, because it all depends. Plus Geralt was hitting Aryan for a long time, it may have softened the chest-plate.

 

[Venethor]

Aryan wan not wearing a chainmail while Geralt stabbed him though his chest, he was wearing a steel plated armor. Don't rely on the info this guy gives you, because he's just an enthusiast. And we should keep in mind that not all armors are created equal. The hardiness of an armor depends on how pure and tempered it is and during what time period it was created and the same thing goes for the sword that is used. So we cannot say there is no way that a sword can penetrate an armor, or a sword can definitely penetrate an armor, because it all depends. Plus Geralt was hitting Aryan for a long time, it may have softened the chest-plate.

Aryan was indeed not wearing chainmail. He was wearing plate and possibly some mail beneath it making Geralt's thrust all the more impossible. Also, I'm not relying on Lindy's facts I'm just relaying his indisputable point. I'm sorry but I don't find your arguments very convincing.

Edit: Also, longswords were never meant to "cut" through plate and now that you yourself have posted one of Thrand's videos you might want to have a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avnjDouvuRc

 

[Garrison72]

CDPR is getting rid of the cut scene finishers, so it's pointless to argue over this in detail.

 

[shawn_kh]

Aryan was indeed not wearing chainmail. He was wearing plate and possibly some mail beneath it making Geralt's thrust all the more impossible. Also, I'm not relying on Lindy's facts I'm just relaying his indisputable point. I'm sorry but I don't find your arguments very convincing.

Edit: Also, longswords were never meant to "cut" through plate and now that you yourself have posted one of Thrand's videos you might want to have a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avnjDouvuRc

If you combine a chainmail and a steelplate, you would not be able to lift your arms let alone strike with a heavy sword. You seem to forget that chainmail and steel plated armor are heavy, and they restrict your movement.
The sword he's using is not a european long sword. It doesn't even have a sharp pointed head.
This is an example of european longsword:

Persians had to deal with Roman legionaries which were heavily armored. So they really relied on archery and specific types of sword specially Persian scimitar.

The heaviest part of these swords are the tip of the sword to eat away at the armor. It automatically does what half-swording does. Swords were successfully evolutionized to deal with heavily armored soldiers.
Neither side won the Persian-Roman wars, although the Persians mostly relied on light armored soldiers and Romans relied on heavy armored soldiers. So heavy armors are not superior. I personally believe that heavy armors are useless, restricting, heavy, and tiring plus they get hot really fast.
But at the end of the day you're entitled to your opinion.
Good luck friend.

 

[Venethor]

If you combine a chainmail and a steelplate, you would not be able to lift your arms let alone strike with a heavy sword. You seem to forget that chainmail and steel plated armor are heavy, and they restrict your movement.
The sword he's using is not a european long sword. It doesn't even have a sharp pointed head.
This is an example of european longsword:

Persians had to deal with Roman legionaries which were heavily armored. So they really relied on archery and specific types of sword specially Persian scimitar.

The heaviest part of these swords are the tip of the sword to eat away at the armor. It automatically does what half-swording does.
Neither side won the Persian-Roman wars, although the Persians mostly relied on light armored soldiers and Romans relied on heavy armored soldiers. So heavy armors are not superior.
But at the end of the day you're entitled to your opinion.
Good luck friend.

A suit of plate armour rarely weighed more than 30 kilos. The armour portrayed in the Witcher 2 appears to have patches of mail under the armpits. Thrand failed to penetrate the armour with his sword. Although it was not a European longsword it was clear that penetrating the armour would require a specialised weapon. The reason many late European longswords taper as much as they do isn't so that they can better penetrate armour but rather so that they can more easily get around the armour and hit the joints and gaps. Penetrating plate armour with a sword in combat just isn't feasible. You'd never be able to launch a thrust with the requisite force when fighting a moving opponent who doesn't want to die. Even if you could penetrate a stationary suit of plate armour, your opponent would most certainly be moving a lot resulting in many your blows, those that actually hit, striking from bad angles.

With regards to heavy armour not being superior - it mostly is. Armour doesn't hinder you as much as Hollywood would have you believe and, as mentioned before, why would anyone ever bother inventing weapons capable of penetrating armour if any old longsword could do? Keep in mind that the longsword was primarily a sidearm. The armour is articulated and it's made to fit. There's records of people dancing and doing summersaults while wearing plate armour. Also, you cannot compare the armour of a Roman legionary to that of a late medieval European man-at-arms wearing a full suit of plate armour. I don't know where you get all of your information from but you might want to find some new sources because what you've been saying just isn't correct.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Eh, Roman Legionary armour, while different and not uniform was not really heavy armour. The heavy infantry which comprised most of a legion wore what could be considered medium armour. Also take into account that their greaves were not like plate ones and were just to protect the ankle or lower shin to the bottom or over the knee.

 

[Venethor]

Gooseman has spoken.

 

[username_3682323]

To be fair you generally hit characters more then once to kill them. But I would like a veriety of armor. I know geralt won't be wearing giant plate armor (nor do I want him to) but medium to light sounds good