Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.
seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
What rules? I'm pretty sure that there are no fantasy rules about the conservativeness of what people wear. Tolkein didn't make up rules, he wrote a story. In his story people wore...whatever it is that they wore. That is irrelevant to any other person's stories.
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.
I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females. All armor should be equally skimpy on males and females. I want my manflesh in adhesive *** pasties, too.
stabbykitteh wrote: »Always appreciated that Bethesda managed to skip the chain-mail bikini thing in TES (for the most part) and am happy ZOS followed suit.
IS THAT SO?
Maverick827 wrote: »You might have a better argument if she wasn't essentially wearing a thong.
Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
What rules? I'm pretty sure that there are no fantasy rules about the conservativeness of what people wear. Tolkein didn't make up rules, he wrote a story. In his story people wore...whatever it is that they wore. That is irrelevant to any other person's stories.
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.
Maverick827 wrote: »
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.[/quote]
Maverick827 wrote: »
Maverick827 wrote: »
External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."
You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?
murklor007neb18_ESO wrote: »Well, there is a HUGE difference between these two:
- Slutty skimpy outfits (ie every Asian MMO in existance)
- Just showing some skin (ie western MMOs).
As an example, skimpy armor that's seem to consist of fishscales and spider webs (random Tera armor I browsed for):
http://tera-online.cc/gallery/castanic-fl/3728-castanic_f_l17.html
Showing some pretty boob skin yet still being a very beefy outfit (GW2 Nord cultural armor):
http://www.gw2armor.com/norn/female/c2/light/display_looks.php
So which is this poll about?
You read the one part of that page that doesn't apply to the topic. Read the others.Maverick827 wrote: »
External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."
You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?
Those are retcons, and are entirely different from internal consistency.You are demanding consistency in a game where the lore outright conflicts with lore from previous games in multiple places, including the alliances (Dunmer freed their Argonian slaves just to work together to take the throne in Cyrodiil for the High King of Skyrim?), the implication that Dagoth Ur has already come around preventing AlmSiVi from accessing the Heart of Lorkhan, stating outright that the Lusty Argonian Maid wasn't actually written by Crassius Curio during the Third Era, and many other discrepancies both minor and major. Really?
murklor007neb18_ESO wrote: »Well, there is a HUGE difference between these two:
- Slutty skimpy outfits (ie every Asian MMO in existance)
- Just showing some skin (ie western MMOs).
As an example, skimpy armor that's seem to consist of fishscales and spider webs (random Tera armor I browsed for):
http://tera-online.cc/gallery/castanic-fl/3728-castanic_f_l17.html
Showing some pretty boob skin yet still being a very beefy outfit (GW2 Nord cultural armor):
http://www.gw2armor.com/norn/female/c2/light/display_looks.php
So which is this poll about?
Apparently and im guessing here you want lore appropriate armor,
if you took the time to read Tera lore you'd know why Castanics both males and females where armor that isnt ESO lore friendly
Maverick827 wrote: »
External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."
You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?
so you're implying there is a secret clan of bikini clad ninjas out there wading into combat wearing 3 cloth triangles and some string?
HandofBane wrote: »I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females. All armor should be equally skimpy on males and females. I want my manflesh in adhesive *** pasties, too.
Provisioning allows us to craft Venison Pasties. Would wearing those as armor be a fair compromise for both genders?
Maverick827 wrote: »
External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."
You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?
so you're implying there is a secret clan of bikini clad ninjas out there wading into combat wearing 3 cloth triangles and some string?
Have you been to the Amazon? Did you know some amazonian tribes are still cut off from the world? They fight naked, they hunt naked. After all these years, they're still, naked.
Maverick827 wrote: »You read the one part of that page that doesn't apply to the topic. Read the others.
Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
What rules? I'm pretty sure that there are no fantasy rules about the conservativeness of what people wear. Tolkein didn't make up rules, he wrote a story. In his story people wore...whatever it is that they wore. That is irrelevant to any other person's stories.
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.
So you seem to have missed my point COMPLETELY.
I mentioned tolkein as a way to show the differences context makes when using the word fantasy. A tolkein-esque world is a world of "High fantasy" with things like magic and elves, etc etc. Not "hey you shut up tolkein said no skimpy armor!" The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself. if the answer is simply i gotz magic ahrmur spellz, then no one would need to wear armor, and it wouldn't exist. Since the ES world has armor, that obviously isn't the case.
Maverick827 wrote: »
External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."
You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?
so you're implying there is a secret clan of bikini clad ninjas out there wading into combat wearing 3 cloth triangles and some string?
Have you been to the Amazon? Did you know some amazonian tribes are still cut off from the world? They fight naked, they hunt naked. After all these years, they're still, naked.
what are their mortality rates like? do they have massive battles over territory with large armies? do they siege keeps, use flaming oil and other nastiness on eadch other?
Where, please show me, does it state, claim, or even suggest that the "skimpy" outfit is for Females Only? The "implication" is from your own mind.Eorea wrote:No
I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females
BUT, This isn't Tolkein, Middle Earth, nor is it LoTR.Eivar wrote:seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
What rules? I'm pretty sure that there are no fantasy rules about the conservativeness of what people wear. Tolkein didn't make up rules, he wrote a story. In his story people wore...whatever it is that they wore. That is irrelevant to any other person's stories.
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.
So you seem to have missed my point COMPLETELY.
I mentioned tolkein as a way to show the differences context makes when using the word fantasy. A tolkein-esque world is a world of "High fantasy" with things like magic and elves, etc etc. Not "hey you shut up tolkein said no skimpy armor!" The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself. if the answer is simply i gotz magic ahrmur spellz, then no one would need to wear armor, and it wouldn't exist. Since the ES world has armor, that obviously isn't the case.
OK, go tell it to Gandalf, that his armor is not enough metalic and that if you would you can hit him anytime.
Noone says the magic armor is widely available so everyone will be using it.
The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself.
Skimpy armors
BhakuraBhakura
Skimpy armors 199 votes
Yes ... 45%
No .... 54%Where, please show me, does it state, claim, or even suggest that the "skimpy" outfit is for Females Only? The "implication" is from your own mind.Eorea wrote:No
I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for femalesBUT, This isn't Tolkein, Middle Earth, nor is it LoTR.Eivar wrote:seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
It's simply choice for some people to have other styles, beyond the few motifs we already have, for their gear.
Maverick827 wrote: »If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.
What rules? I'm pretty sure that there are no fantasy rules about the conservativeness of what people wear. Tolkein didn't make up rules, he wrote a story. In his story people wore...whatever it is that they wore. That is irrelevant to any other person's stories.
The world is full of people that dress and act differently from each other. You want realism? That is the reality. People look, dress, and act differently than you do. It would be highly realistic to see that diversity in the game.
So you seem to have missed my point COMPLETELY.
I mentioned tolkein as a way to show the differences context makes when using the word fantasy. A tolkein-esque world is a world of "High fantasy" with things like magic and elves, etc etc. Not "hey you shut up tolkein said no skimpy armor!" The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself. if the answer is simply i gotz magic ahrmur spellz, then no one would need to wear armor, and it wouldn't exist. Since the ES world has armor, that obviously isn't the case.
OK, go tell it to Gandalf, that his armor is not enough metalic and that if you would you can hit him anytime.
Noone says the magic armor is widely available so everyone will be using it.
lol gandalf has nothing to do with TES, that's a different world with it's own rules....but if you read the books he does very little direct combat, so why would he need armor?
I guess I should quote myself:The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself.
that world i'm talking about there, thats the ES universe, where people need armor.
Skimpy armors
BhakuraBhakura
Skimpy armors 199 votes
Yes ... 45%
No .... 54%Where, please show me, does it state, claim, or even suggest that the "skimpy" outfit is for Females Only? The "implication" is from your own mind.Eorea wrote:No
I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females