Aractain

Seriously though, fake boobs usually look silly on most of the 'glamour models' I've seen. Its about proportion, the size of the females frame compared to the size of the boobs (unless you can get the 'pointed tear' shape then you can go several sizes above your frame - lucky you!). Just sticking thier chest out does more than implants from what I've seen. Err... yeah and thats why "hot female battle gear" is so nessesary, because compared to the

Heels solve all problems. Which is a large annoance because its quite a change in walking style and 3D bone structure (for animation) so its not easy to take a flat foot skeleton animation and give them heels. That means games like WoW can't put heels in as an option and EVERY castantic female in TERA has to have a 6 inch spike stiking out of thier feet ... which is nice... BTW in response to "overly feminised female armours" I say that the majority, from what I

[quote who="keithburgun" reply="192" id="2766278"]I can't believe this thread wasn't completely laughed off the boards and locked. Why not hot MALE armor? Sexists.[/quote] If people wanted hot male armour they would post a thread about it, surely? Anyway, back to rounding up the prudes. Also the kinds of armour I like to see females in is not porn. Porn is easy to get. Hot armour is like 'internet fashion' and is more about sen

This thread died. I think it was killers fault. Some might say they are a "temple built upon a sewer" but females are actualy quite useful, they are capable of lifting things, talking and learning complex ideas and concepts. Unfortunatly they are also very attractive and they have shoes. This complicates matters somewhat. Thus we come to what they wear... (edit: I had a point when I started typeing but I have no clue now)

[e digicons]8|[/e] I was serious once. Everyone thought I was jokeing.

Yeah, LARPers... Im like Live action what? LOL What a bunch silly... oh the females dress like that ?

Yes human females should not be in melee. Its proven that only Elven females were ever in combat. Often female elves were specifically drafted from their tree houses to fight the dragons that plagued the lands in the south of france and the plains of Hungary. However I don't think this was modeled in the game so I doubt realism should be a concern for the armour since they couldn't even get basic historical stuff like dwarves right.

As a comparison someone should post some thong armour pics for comparison... (edit: comparison is a word that needs to be repeated for compariosn) It really comes down to a question of what fits the world and the character if its a confident women in a world where sexuality isn't bad (unlike ours) then she would probably not wear much to display that confidence like she wears jewelry to show her wealth and a tabard to show her allegiance. But its up to her.

Ah, these kind of threads (usually on MMO forums) never cease to amaze me - just look how big they get. People REALLY care about image. Personally I tend to treat most games as fashion shows. Males and females are generally exagurated and sexualised (confidence being the main part of that) in their own gender specific ways. Males who have no real 'sexuality' (it was taken from them at somepoint I guess) have their strength and size instead. Females have thier curves. Thus sexy curvy females a

I totaly agree, if you bought an MMO and it wasn't complete you would be like "WTF?" and the devs would be like "patches!" and you would be like "NO! I want to play with no patches!" and the devs would be like "OMG" and "Facepalm!" and you would be like "OMG" and "WTF?". Totaly. But this isn't an MMO... So it stands to reason that you would expect it to work out of the box.

Clearly they took it down thinking that nobody would remember it and they would make HUGE profits! They would have gotten away with if it wasn't for those damn kids!

Grats all

Developers... handing out patches... that's no basis for a system of government. It does me good to see that your meger forces protecting the tactical battles were easily defeated by logic and Truth. It is said in the scrolls of yore; "Tactical battles shall commeth, and when they commeth there wi

Anno 1440 venice had the shared faction thing aswell, was interesting but mutliplayer was a sandbox there and didn't last long. I find it much more fun with seperate empires but with preset alliances that share vision, wars - just not resources. Civ4 is a great example of how to do it well. Total War is an example of how to do co-op terribadly.

Latest MMO developer: We have awesome new game! Player: Where is the 5 mans? Devs: Errr.. well.. They didn't ork very well so we took them out. Player: But 5 mans are awesome... Why did you take them out? Devs: We tried to make them work but ultimately we found that if the healer of the group wasn't very good, well, then the group would wipe and that wasn't fun. Player: ..... So you removed them? Devs: Yes. Player: Because a player might

Thats what I don't get. His reason was "people will flame" but with an option they could not flame because there would be no tactical battles if switched off (or they have no one that wants to play the same way as them - can't flame Stardock for that can you?). With an option the coopers and communitys wont flame either. Maybe they would flame that they arn't good enough or whatever but thats not the point, why would anyone flame about a feature that you can turn completly OFF or have

That was not an insult - you talk, rightly, about how Brad dosn't really do TBS multiplayer and how hes probably not the best guy to decide how to make one. However there are more people than just Frogboy, there are other people working on Elemental. Perhaps some of those actually LIKE multiplayer who would be guiding this more? What is there input into this? If TBs are the same as single player they should be as fun as single player, the only thing mentioned about them was that they

He said "I don't find Elemental's multiplayer in 1.0 to be fun in general." I don't see him mention tactical battles as the cause, just a cause for whiners, lol. Other than special items and the like the TBs would be the same as SP no? Maybe someone else on their team gudied the multiplayer process more than Brad since he dosn't really like multiplayer in this kind of game anyway?

I think a game like this without tactical battles is not really a full game, its like playing X-Com without the tactical battles. Its like reading a book or watching a film and skipping all the action scenes. It removes a significant context from the game. If multiplayer isn't fun WITH tactical battles, I don't see how removing them makes it MORE fun. When its an 'hosting' option I don't see the problem. Yeah for random people but I always thought the biggest multiplayer audiance (as