Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Peach
Armor doesn't have a place in Fable, as Fable clearly takes place in a time where armor does not exist. The weapons used in the game places it as taking place in a time that's equivalent to the 1800s. Hence, long after armor stopped being used because there was no point to it.

Also, magic-users are always very lightly armored (or wear none) anyway.

Then I get man armor has no place in fable 2 kinda stuff so an argument obviously ensues as I feel they could still include armor.

Originally posted by NemeBro
1. Gameplay mechanics sir. Also... What armor in Fable 1 was actually magically enhanced? Even the best armored suit, the Archon's Armor, which was one of a kind, was just a really strong metal, platinum.

2. Funny, since you know, fat load of good armor did the Heroes Guild when villages mowed them down with guns. Also, Fable was at least trying to be historically accurate with regards to the technology.

That may be true, the armor was cooler, I just think they should have made the clothes cooler.

3. In terms of the tech/style of the periods they are supposed to represent? They at least try to be.

Those are full of unknowns so we don't know how powerful the mob was nor do we know how powerful the heroes were at the time.

I agree the clothing could have been a lot cooler. Coming off the first one I was thinking man this is going to be awesome and the letdown was epic. When I beat it I was like wtf it's over already. Story seemed rush and the villain sucked.

I get that but I feel the armor was a reason the first one was so awesome and I always favor arrows and swords over guns and swords.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
And yeah, don't know why 50 lbs of well distributed armor should keep anyone from being an effective magician.

Just because the armor is well distributed doesn't mean the scholar who's spent his life's passing reading books is going to be able to move around properly in it, especially if spells they cast require specifically dexterous gestures.

Besides, Wizards rape enough as is, it'd be incredibly broken not to make them squishy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I understand that but my point is still valid. It's a fictional game where armor can still be used.

Those are full of unknowns so we don't know how powerful the mob was nor do we know how powerful the heroes were at the time.

I agree the clothing could have been a lot cooler. Coming off the first one I was thinking man this is going to be awesome and the letdown was epic. When I beat it I was like wtf it's over already. Story seemed rush and the villain sucked.

I get that but I feel the armor was a reason the first one was so awesome and I always favor arrows and swords over guns and swords.

2. The mob was, literally, a bunch of villagers (Villages are not big) with guns. The entire point of this event was to show that the Guild and its methods were outdated.

3. Yeah, although I will admit combat in Fable 2 was overall better, Lucien was a very disappointing villain compared to Jack of Blades.

4. Well that's just personal preference. Cannot blame the game for not catering to your own preferences, the lack of armor was not the problem in this case, it was the lack of cool clothing in terms of aesthetics.

Originally posted by XanatosForever
Just because the armor is well distributed doesn't mean the scholar who's spent his life's passing reading books is going to be able to move around properly in it, especially if spells they cast require specifically dexterous gestures.

Besides, Wizards rape enough as is, it'd be incredibly broken not to make them squishy.

Indeed. Not to mention, if they are decent mages, they likely could cast barriers that are stronger than regular armor.

If someone is being a stupid moron who needs to go away, is it bashing to tell them they are a stupid moron who needs to go away?

Probably, yeah. At least refrain form the stupid moron bit.

Anyone here ever play a game called Divinity 2: Ego Draconis?

Did not get too much attention, since I am pretty sure it came out the same time as Dragon Age, but it is AWESOME.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I understand that but my point is still valid. It's a fictional game where armor can still be used.

Just because there could be armor does not mean there should be armor. Your delusion of necessity is an unfortunate thing and I hope you grow out of it.

I adore dragons, therefore all fictional games should have dragons. Why? Because they are fictional and it is possible. Makes sense, right? So where's my dragons? Why can't Sam Fisher fight a dragon? Or Solid Snake? It is not realistic, after all, right?

lol. I hate all of you, but I still love coming here so much.

Ahh, I love the smell of freshly pwned morons in this forum.

Indeed, tis the scent of TRIUMPHANT VICTORY!

Or something else cheesy and inappropriate. Hm. So, I exploded my strictly ant-metal brother's head last night, and made him love a metalband.

YouTube video

Originally posted by NemeBro
Anyone here ever play a game called Divinity 2: Ego Draconis?

Did not get too much attention, since I am pretty sure it came out the same time as Dragon Age, but it is AWESOME.

I haven't played it, but I've heard of it, and I want to. Isn't it the one where you can turn into a dragon?

Originally posted by XanatosForever
I've actually enjoyed the books (Twilight), they're a guilty pleasure for me.

So Xanatos, I herd u liek Twilightz....

Lurking the MVF, were you?

Yes, I did enjoy reading the books of the Twilight saga. I don't recall ever saying that I didn't.

As long as you don't feel the same about the movies, then you're fine.

YES! Another person that shares my opinion of the movies being infinitely worse than the books.

The books were still crap though. 313

link-rape

You wimp.

And nah.

The movies are infinitely superior because Robbie is a pretty kewl gai

wesker_taunt

Robbie does not make up for the fail that is Kristin Stewart. Ergo, movies are infinitely inferior.

She apparently hates Twilight as well.