Destroyable Armor – Why we should destroy it


I was quite surprised to find people rushing to comment that a certain terrible screenshot was actually demonstrating destroyable armor (I guess if you already knew about it, and hence knew that her armor had been destroyed… so it doesn’t really help with marketing).

Now we have mentioned destroyable armor before… but maybe it’s best we do a little more talking on it since apparently it’s a thing that’s been sold as making sense.  Surprisingly, the first appearance of this trope in video games (that I’m aware of) was inflicted up a male character.


A manly man named Arthur who was on a quest to save his love, Prince Prin Prin (actual name!), from a foe no less than Satan himself (who lives in Hades… just go with it! I promise nothing in the game will make any more sense than this summary. Nothing at all.)


It was released in 1985 and is probably one of the most frustrating video games ever to grace an arcade (you can play it here if you don’t believe me, and imagine putting money in every time you run out of lives)

Arthur had a full suit of plate male armor that would, upon the impact of any attack or even light touch of an enemy, fly off and leave him running around in his whitey tighties (later re-inventions would give him boxer shorts).  Destroyable armor didn’t make sense in Ghosts ‘N Goblins and it’s not going to make sense anywhere else.

While “soft” armors like kevlar weave and leather will become less protective over time they don’t fly apart for a very simple reason.  Anything that hits your hard enough to dislodge armor from your person has hit you hard enough to kill you.  Even the force to dislodge regular clothes by impact (rather than deliberate tearing off) will easily kill you in a most spectacular fashion!


Armor isn’t a car, it doesn’t have crumple zones. Your armor being blasted off you and you coming out relatively unscathed means that you are literally tougher and more resistant to damage of all sorts than your armor is.  

That’s the story you tell when you show a character get hit and their armor falls off.  It doesn’t matter if it applies to all genders (though it always seems to be women chosen for the “demo”), it just doesn’t make sense and is more distracting than simply going without armor.  There are so many better ways to convey damaged armor:


Missing enamel/coloring, destroyed ornamentation, blood marks, changes in the silhouette on parts etc all convey that the armor is damaged and becoming less and less useful without also conveying that the actual point of the game is to try to see your character naked without them dying.

– wincenworks

A thing we didn’t reference in yesterday’s redesign post is that Kanpani Girls indulges in a very particular version of destroyable armor trope – creepy “defeated” sprites of humiliated waifus with their clothes and “armor” shred to pieces. I’ll put Flavie and Marica’s “defeated” looks under the cut for comparison with the previous post, because it’s genuinely disturbing. 

So this week’s throwback is a reminder that there’s no reason to incorporate armor which suspiciously falls apart during (or after) a fight in fiction, especially on female characters. And people who do it have an obvious agenda to show off flesh, not battle damage, which could be easily conveyed in non-pervy ways. 



R.I.P. Bingo.

Ah, Kanpani Girls, how we missed you. It’s been over a year since we last saw you, and you certainly have gotten…. sigh. Even though her heels aren’t that tall, it pisses me off that they added heels to historically flat footwear. I’m sure they help with agility or something. I also filled in “random patches of skin uncovered” because there was actually effort put in into showing some stomach. BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.


Did we mention this game has “defeated” sprites for its eyecandy mercenaries?


But this is a deep strategy game, you guys. Very Serious Business. Especially with how the game actually looks:


Man, that brown and red outfit sure reminds me of something


Original Character™

do not steal.


What is video games’ problem with sniper women?

They can’t just be competent combatant ladies who shoot stuff (like male snipers in media always are), there needs to be some “sexy” gimmick to them, apparently. Like navel-deep cleavage and brainwash, breathing through skin or, now… being helpless schoolgirls with clothing damage and panty shots galore? 



(And no, no available info suggests it’s an erotic/porn game)

The game itself looks dreadfully dull. And since only footage I could find of it seems to be sponsored by the publisher, it’s safe to say that sex doesn’t really sell, otherwise this would have had fans.


So, Mai Shiranui is the latest crossover character in the latest Dead or Alive game, continuing their trend of amazing double standards in character design.


I think the fact that the trailer’s only priorities are to reassure us Mia doesn’t wear anything close to conventional panties and jiggle physics (did I mention that Team Ninja also try to maximize upskirt physics?)

They also released a trailer for new bunch of costumes and a stage crossing over with Attack on Titan – so naturally they need to assure their intended audience that the otherwise sensible costumes will be destroyable.  So that’s going to be thing that we’re going to have in this reality.

Oh, and for those who worrying we’re demanding compromises on an artist’s important vision and forcing censorship

Tomonobu Itagaki doesn’t like this either and thinks it’s ruining the series that he started:

“Thank you everyone. I’m so glad to hear your voices. Please support our DOA together. I have to say. DOA can’t survive with money earned by continuously selling too much sexual DLCs. DOA can live with respects from all of the DOA fans. So, please make them aware of what they have to do for the future of DOA.”

– wincenworks

Oh Spirit Stones, the true commercial (and creative) diarrhea. We could pick random cards from it and not run out of bingos for months.

I decided to go with this here Zodiac-themed (goddess?) character in particular not only because of lots of stabby parts and wasted themed design potential, but also cause her descriptions make the design even more hilarious:

Aries (first card):

You say it is the duty of a god to go to war? No, I only go because of my loyalty to Taurus. He only knows how to protect others. He doesn’t know how to protect himself. I go for him.

For the record, the Taurus guy, who’s apparently one of the only two men* among Zodiac cards, looks like this:


Also: female character motivated by a male character, how creative!

Aries+ (the second card):

Be weary of the skies! As the war drags on and armors are destroyed, her attacks will only get stronger.

Whose armors are destroyed, though? Hers of her opponents’? My bets are on hers.


*The other one is Leo, cause associating The Bull and The Lion with masculinity is so original! And both characters wear believable armors, of course.