Plus, as a guy I have NO ISSUE looking at hot girls in skimpy armor. I can suspend my disbelief skimpy armor is protecting the girl just as I can the magic fire is harming my PC. But if you rather cover the girls up in the name of 'realism' and wish to forgo eye candy, well, that's another topic. *chuckle*
I completely understand that, as I said earlier. However, that's looking at it from
your perspective instead of the character's perspective, which is fine; of course the idea of eye-candy is great to most on paper - and visually
. However, I tend to look at it from a female character's perspective in order to "bring the game world to life," and I imagine most females in these worlds would feel quite ridiculous and sleazy wearing next to nothing and would not willingly objectify themselves as "eye-candy" for male entertainment - it's just not believable to me that women would want to portray themselves this way when they also want to be taken seriously as warriors at the same time. This isn't coming from a "feminist/woman's rights" point of view either; I just want a game world to be populated with characters (male and female) that feel like they could be "real" people. Besides, sometimes a woman who is more covered up is more attractive than someone who is almost naked because of the sense of mystery - the tease of just a little skin makes you want to see even more
. Classiness and self-respect can also be an attractive trait.
I like to immerse myself into a game world when it comes to RPGs, and I realize not everyone cares as much as others about "believability" from either a practical/functionality perspective or character "role-playing" perspective. It's just my personal preference to have armor that can conceivably function as "armor" from a visual standpoint in order to make the game world feel and look more believable, and I don't buy the argument that "It's fantasy, and the highly revealing, practically nude armor is "magical" and offers a protective ward somehow." Using "fantasy" as justification is a lazy explanation for something that just doesn't make sense from anything other than an eye-candy perspective, and I find game worlds that strive for sensibility over visual spectacles more engaging.
On a side note, I have NO issue with 'realism' in a game, I generally am on the 'realism' bandwagon but some things I rather have fluff over substance, and this is one of them.
This is all i wanted to hear
. There's nothing wrong with certain things not being 100% realistic if it is a personal preference to have fluff over substance in certain areas. But that's the point I'm getting at - it
is fluff over substance, and I personally prefer substance and believable female characters, and I don't buy "It's fantasy!" as a legitimate excuse to do
anything in a game world that strives for some form of believability.
There can be a time for skimpy armor
and have it make sense within the context of a game's fiction; Skyrim has a great example of this with the Forsworn. The Forsworn are a barbarian-like people who live entirely off the land with limited to no access to armor forges or smithing tools. This, combined with their cultural traits, adds the "believability" factor to the skimpy armor. The "world consistency" comes from the fact that Forsworn males also wear minimal, simplistic armor; if males from this culture were wearing elaborate full plate armor while the females did not, then it wouldn't be believable or consistent anymore. This is an example that can satisfy both the "realism/believability" crowd
and the eye-candy crowd - proving that sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too