#especially considering D2 only has four common sets per class

[robotsprinkles]

Analysing the Evolution of Destiny’s Art Style, Prelude 3: Common Armour

So I’ve managed to compile a (maybe) decent amount of references/images of common rarity armour in D1 and D2 for use in the art style analysis thing.

I’m still missing a lot of the pieces from D1 because, again, there is no website or playlist or anything that has images or video for every piece of D1 gear (again lowlidev gear viewer is too low-poly and the texture/material detail basically doesn’t exist). Also a lot of these images are low-res because I took them from fextralife, which seems to think 700x324 is a reasonable size for images.

If anyone’s got/knows where to find higher quality images/images for armour pieces I’m missing, I’d greatly appreciate it.

Images and thoughts under the cut

(I’m aware these images are in a less than ideal format)

So before I make any real comments on the differences in the design of Common armour between the two games I want to make note of two important things:

a) as is immediately obvious, D2 has barely any sets of Common armour in comparison with D1, with 1/2 sets in each class almost looking more like Legendary sets in how different they are in aesthetic compared to the other two (the Wise/Brave/Daring sets and their damaged equivalents), making it significantly harder to note general trends in D2 Common armour since I’m essentially left with two sets per class. (Yes, I’m aware most D1 armour is just reskins with slight modifications)

b) Lorewise, it makes sense for the refugee/renegade/aspirant/wastelander sets (and basically any other non-legendary non-exotic armour from Vanilla) to look like ass, because they’re all essentially improvised, slapped-together garbage guardians managed to build in the aftermath of the opening to the Red War, since all the foundries and whatever other factories were producing armour in D1 would’ve all been out of action.

To account for these factors, I’ll be comparing the Refugee/Aspirant/Wastelander/Renegade sets with the “improvised” starter armour from the D1 tutorial (Born Spark, Prototype, and Lightmail), and the Wise/Brave/Daring/Damaged sets with all the other sets, since it’s about as fair of a comparison as I can manage with this.

A quick interesting lore note: D1 states that the starter armour is “fabricated/built by your ghost from available mass”. This armour, regardless of class, includes at least some metal or rigid polymer plating, and some form of mildly complex techsuit (made from materials reminiscent of hardened leather and kevlar, and a bit of metal).

In D2, however, outside of the gloves, the armour (refugee, aspirant, renegade, wastelander) mostly consists of simple textile armour, cable/cord/rope, and occasionally plates made of something reminiscent of plastic/some other polymer or some kind of rigid fibre weave. The techsuits (or rather, undersuits since they don’t appear to really be that technical/complex), seem to be made of a more conventional clothing material, appearing softer, like they’re made from a more cushioning-oriented material (almost like a jumper/sweater)

(Also, I’m not certain of this, but I believe I’ve heard or seen mentioned somewhere that the Wise/Brave/Daring sets in D2 are more akin to ceremonial/parade armour than field gear, which would make sense, but I’m not sure whether this is actual canon or just a claim someone made when discussing this topic. If it’s true, and they are indeed ceremonial gear, then I guess the comparison gets a bit iffy)

Now, onwards:

Warlocks

D1 Common Warlock Armour

(Pretty sure I messed up and the first Logic Singer II legs are Logic Singer I. also I typo’d Vector Oath I as Vector Oatj I but eh whatever)

D2 Common Warlock Armour

Quick notes:

Comparing the Wise/Damaged helmet from D2 with the D1 helmets,

Different plates on the Wise set flow into each other more, 

The armour plating on the D1 helmets look thicker than on the Wise helm

The D1 helmets feel more machined, with more hard edges, flat(ter) surfaces, mechanical greebling like bolts/rivets, cutouts, and inserts

The visors of D1 warlock helmets feel reminiscent of roll cages, with the bar going through the middle and the visible shell surrounding it, which is itself then surrounded by the main armour plates of the helmet

These armour plates do  not generally sit flush against the cage, instead having some level of overhang from it, giving everything more body/weight, and counterintuitively making everything feel more solid

The visors themselves are slightly more inset from the innermost layer of cage/armour in D1 than in D2, making the D1 visor/cage feel more robust

D1 helmets have more significant panel lines/separation than D2; the gaps are larger, the lines are thicker, and so on.

Titans

D1 Common Titan Armour

D2 Common Titan Armour

Quick notes:

Comparing Brave with the non-lightmail/scoutmail sets (though most of this applies to them as well)

D2 titan armour (plates) generally cover more of the titan’s body than D1, where armour seems more, I say reserved but that’s probably not the right word. Essentially, Titan armour plates in D1 seem more economically placed, as an example, leg armour generally focuses more on protecting the fronts and sides of the legs moreso than the backs of the legs, and vambraces focus on the outer forearm

On a related note, the plates in D2 titan armour are generally larger (but not thicker) than in D1. This can be seen in the breastplates of D1 only really covering from below the collarbone to somewhere around the bottom of the sternum, while the breastplate on the Brave cuirass extends all the way across the traps, acting as its own shoulder straps.

Again, plates seem to flow into each other more instead of being stacked/layered or protruding out from each other, as seen in the Brave cuirass, where the breastplate and ribplates flow into each other seamlessly (I know, I know, technically the panel line is a seam, you know what I mean). Also sean on the spauldrons. (of D1, fieldplate is the closest to flowing plates, as seen in the cuirass, where the different plates mostly stick to the same level with not much protrusion/stacking)

In addition, the armoured vest (worn over the techsuit) which the true cuirass was attached to in D1 is either not present or had significantly reduced presence in D2, resulting in D2 titan cuirasses being attached directly to the techsuit, supporting the claim that D2 armour feels less layered than D1

Hunters

D1 Common Hunter Armour

D2 Common Hunter Armour

Quick notes:

Something that’s true for both the other classes but is easiest to demonstrate with hunters: D1 armour tended to have more blatant “function components” (probably not the best term for it. I’ll probably change it at some point). Basically, components that look like they have a specific (if unspecified) function which they were added to the armour for. This is most evident in hunters’ helmets having very visible gas masks and armoured goggles/visor, as well as the buckles, straps, and pipes present in a lot of the armour pieces, (This can also include rivets and bolts and the like)

The previously mentioned use of larger, more enclosing/covering plates, and plates flowing into each other, is further evidenced in the Daring cuirass/vest. The breastplate, while being made of two separate plates, looks almost more like a single plate that’s just been painted two different colours due to how flush the plates are with each other and how thin the panel line is. I will note that D1 hunter chests are actually quite similar in form and coverage to the Daring set, however, they also have more visible and significant panel separation, as well as extra Bits and Bobs attached to them, helping give them a more “functional” feel

A quick general note I’m sure most people will have noticed: D1′s Common armour is actually generally brighter and/or more colourful than D2′s in a lot of places (to give some examples, Fieldplate 0-3, Firebreak, Logic Singer II, and Scalpel Wing III)

This last note is true of all classes, but is most relevant to titans, as hunters and warlocks generally conceal their techsuits beneath cloth in the majority of armour sets: Techsuits in D1 were significantly more complex on average than in D2, being made up of more parts, and having their own armour. I’m tempted to guess that this is due to D1 armours’ nature as a modularly constructed system, where artists would regularly reuse assets between sets, and usually had a base core for every armour piece which they would add to, whereas D2 armour generally being built from the ground up as a complete set would have resulted in making a complex techsuit for every set being exhausting for the artists. This is, again, just me guessing. I’ve no idea if I’m correct.

This all being said, I’m aware I might’ve let my bias towards D1 armour slip in a bit here in my wording. Sorry about that. On the other hand, I don’t think even people who think D2′s armour looks better than D1′s think the refugee/aspirant/renegade/wastelander sets look good, so

Now,

A quick aside regarding “functionality”. Often, when people discuss “realistic sci-fi armour/vehicles” they will often claim armour (and vehicles, but this post is about armour so) that makes more use of flat surfaces is more realistic and functional/effective/protective than round surfaces, and that armour with rounded plates is less effective.

These people are wrong.

Well, somewhat.

The thing is, flat surfaces possess very good (and superior) deflective capabilities within a certain margin of impact angles, but as a result of being flat, become less effective at deflecting force the more perpendicular the angle of impact is. Rounded surfaces, on the other hand, are generally effective at deflecting impacts from most all angles, excepting instances where someone gets really lucky and lands a blow in just the right spot (which is generally not very large. this is why flanged maces and pronged war hammers exist; the flanges/prongs help catch against the curve of the armour and transfer more of the strike’s force into the plate, instead of the force being deflected by the curve). 

So curved surfaces are generally more effective at deflecting impacts/energy, but people generally feel like flat surfaced armour is stronger/more effective/whatever. I assume this is due to a combination of of shape language, common association, and so on.

However, flat surfaced armour does, I believe, have one advantage over rounded armour: It’s generally a lot easier to mass-produce.

(this last bit has been a rant about things that don’t matter motivated by me reading too many reddit threads where people say rounded armour is less effective than flat armour, and also that one youtuber who talks about sci-fi spaceships and spacebattles who said that the covenant ships from halo — and other similarly rounded/organic-shaped ships — were badly designed from a functionality standpoint)