[quote]One thing I'm confused about is what combat circumstances are you envisioning because last time I checked, Destiny is a game involving mostly guns apart from phalanx's and knights. [/quote]This thread was made nearly a year before the game was released. It can be hard to tell. Even then, Destiny has melee combatants. It also has vehicles that can push guardians into stuff or opportunity for someone to fall and hit something. [quote]The same could be said about Mass Effect, it was a games purely based off of firing weapons and projectiles. I do agree with you in a sense if we were talking about blades. [/quote] Mass Effect also has combat and opportunity for soldiers to be hit by stuff (flying debris while in space, for instance). [quote]However, you're assuming that only the breasts are being protective. When producing armor chestplates, yes, it's objective is to glace off blows. However, the way they produce armor they have more than just cloth and iron. Padding and insulation is developed so that when or if a blow is to land in the chest area it will insulate x amount of force before breaking. That being said, a sternum plate is mandatory.[/quote]I never assumed that only the breastplates are being protected. Sternum plates are great, yes, but that doesn't beat preventing things from hitting the sternum in the first place. Having more than cloth and iron doesn't change how physics works when you've got a concave breastplate pointing to your sternum. [quote]Documented in fencing, the art of striking and parrying, they in fact use a chestplate identical to the Mass Effect image you attached. Regardless of whether or not were talking about blades here, which I assume we are because this agreement would be invalid if were talking about firearms, the sternum is highly protected. This was made to insure you're not wearing a "death trap" so to speak. Also if were speaking strictly then its redundant to assume we're taking strikes to the chest. [/quote]For one, fencing generally isn't lethal. And [url=http://www.absolutefencinggear.com/shopping/product_info.php/products_id/74]this[/url] is generally placed under [url=http://challengingmyselfinbulgaria.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dsc_7798.jpg]something like this[/url]. Even just the jacket helps make sure that the fencing sword doesn't just easily go between the breasts. And it's not strictly strikes to the chest. A fall forward, against something, etc. can result in severe injury if the breastplate is pushed hard enough. So even for practicality out of combat it can be incredibly dangerous if a hard bra isn't accompanied by a convex plate over it. [quote] In every combat training they tell you to block with your hands and forearms, no excuses to have an exposed chest and if so, you die because you've made an error. Of course that's in a perfect world though. As far as knowledge on the anatomy of female, I'm well versed. If I didn't have any knowledge on this I wouldn't have commented.[/quote] Sometimes you're not going to have time to cover yourself, even if you're not being assaulted. So why the hell is it okay to not give female soldiers in certain game universes/general convex breastplates that better deflect things, but give it to male soldiers? Why are we defending lifting and separating breasts into hard boob cups and calling it an appropriate breastplate? There is no actual benefit to lifting and separating the breasts in combat. You can't justify it, only excuse it. In games, its only benefit is to identify a figure as female. Even then, you can just do freaking uniboob if one reaaaaallly wants to make a point of breasts being there. [quote]EDIT: as far as my input with the exos. I was merely stating that the gender identification such ass the breast on the female exo is quite obsolete seeing is how they're machines and have no need for it.[/quote]Yeah, exos were never really my concern with this matter.