The cover art for Elder Scrolls: Arena is embarassing.

[Scars Unseen]

Heavy-enough armour would slow her down far more than it would a stocky knight. Chain mail is useless, it will not protect from either sword or bow. It is plate armour or nothing.

But plate armour sacrifices her main advantage: speed.

Hang on.. are you actually trying to argue the case that this would be practical?

Firstly, she's not dressed for speed. From the shine on the material, I'm guessing its supposed to be leather, but even with linen or silk moving around in thigh high boots or non-stretchy stockings would be no joke. In fact, her outfit seems designed to be an absolute nightmare to move around in, unless it's made of lycra, which I imagine has yet to be invented in Tamriel.

Her straps also don't seem to offer any support and are deliberately loose-fitting, not that she apparently needs any support since her breasts have discovered anti-gravity (or silicone, as we like to call it). Why is she wearing those things? If it's for modesty, then it's not going to work as soon as she starts moving around and it will just be annoying and uncomfortable.

The issue is not so much that she's lightly dressed but that she looks like she should be modelling at a really low-rent fetish convention.

The funny thing is that I love the roleplaying game Exalted, where the art is so fetishistic and cheesecake it makes this one look like gritty realism. But I guess this comes back to what I've been saying.. fetishism is not necessarily objectification. If all of your characters look ridiculous then fine, the problem for me arises when you draw three male characters in quasi-realistic armour and then wheel out Daisy McSwordboobs simply to get some tits on the cover.

Not arguing with the bulk of your post, but I just thought I would point out that 10th century Byzantine infantry (and most cavalry, if I remember correctly) wore thigh boots as their only leg armor. They folded them down for marching. Not exactly the same thing as what the depicted woman is wearing(how did she put those things on?), but still...

 

[Kahunaburger]

You and others are far too quick to judge, wrapped up in your prejudices and unable to overcome your lechery, first thing you see is tits and ass then that is all you can see...

Yes, I'm entirely sure that the goal of the cover artist was something other than sex appeal. Clearly this woman has recently robbed a sex shop at swordpoint, and is therefore wearing this get-up for reasons that are completely justified in context.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ahh, I see. You're bullshitting.

You could have said so from the start, instead of stringing us along. Rusty swords, I don't know, what kind of game do you think this is? This is the fantasy adventure genre, they fight foes like these:

You think a leather jerkin will do anything for that?!?

The druid is and old man in long restricting robes but the woman gets singled out for lack of combat suitability, as per bloody usual. This art isn't sexist, only many of the people who view it are! The instinctive response is
"that woman is for sex and only sex because I find her sexy, now I have to rationalise why I think that is with bullshit about combat practicality"

I'm surprised we haven't seen a "get back in the kitchen/bedroom" "joke" in this thread.

Geez, I dunno man. Take a closer look at that picture. That sword looks rusty as hell.

As for the magic user...I have to say, I blame D&D for this whole ridiculous "wizards must wear pajamas" tradition. I've never really understood why that's supposed to be. Apparently spellcasting necessitates a lot of flamboyant gestures and acrobatics that armor would only hinder. Why a big blowsy robe is supposed to facilitate this is beyond me. Have you ever tried to do calisthenics in a bathrobe? It's not a pretty picture.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Now here YOU are pushing credibility, acting as if all thigh high boots are more restrictive than plate armour, with your description of "an absolute nightmare to move around in" sounds like you are describing someone with a full length cast on each leg! You know you CAN get long boots that articulate fully on every joint.

There's no articulation the arm, which is made of the same material.

You've never worn leather, have you?

I know I shouldn't be surprised at such predictable sexism, but you outright accuse her of having a boob job, bravo.

I don't know if I should laugh at this. Honestly, I've faced so many allegations of being a ferocious man hater on this site that it's genuinely a bit weird to see someone try and accuse me of being sexist towards a woman.

Frankly, I find it far more sexist to pretend that breasts look like that without invasive surgery, particularly considering that increasing numbers of women are now having said invasive surgery in order to appeal to people like you.

Again, people keep misusing/abusing the word "fetish" and seem to use it purely in the sense of "sex I don't approve of".

What sex don't I approve of? I'd love to know.

I don't know what the hell you REALLY mean but skimpy clothing does NOT fit any definition of fetishism. Or at least no accepted definition outside of your head. You are just using it to imply something is dirty when you know you have no chance of proving it. Yeah, lump the female form in with fetishes like rubber and auto-erotic sexual obsession. Again, another low blow.

Post-feminist twaddle..

Also, fetish. Two meanings.

1) Related to the fetish scene, in which many people openly dress in accordance with their own sexual fantasies, for example by wearing leather or PVC, corsetry, cross dressing or even just wearing overtly sexy or slutty clothing, or indeed nothing at all.

The term 'low rent' is a judgement on quality, not on morality. I'm surprised that's not incredibly obvious, I can only assume you presumed more than I did.

2) An (over)fixation on a particular type of sexual activity, originally from Freud but taken out of context and used within popular culture to describe any kind of sexual particularity, often without any pejorative meaning.

Actually, it's you who seems to have a problem with 'rubber' and 'auto-erotic asphyxiation'. Aside from the obvious risks of the later (which I believe any consenting adult should be free to accept) I'm fine with those things.

The knight is a walking cliche, the glowing eyed druid is wrapped in impractical pile of curtains and the barbarian is ridiculous in his 7-foot tall scale (even a silly horned helmet), but typically the woman gets picked one because she DARES to show some of her body.

She's not a real person I'm afraid, she didn't DARE anything. An artist sat down and drew her in order to sell people like you a product. That's the issue. You also can't 'pick on' a fictional person, they have no feelings to hurt.

It says a lot about what that artist thought you would respond to that you have three 'walking cliches' who just happen to be male wearing armour and clothing and then one walking cliche who just happens to be female wearing virtually nothing.

It says even more about you that you seem ready to go down with the ship defending it on the basis of some fictional woman's right to sexual expression in a picture you claim is not sexual anyway. I suppose she's anachronistically wearing makeup and has shaved her body hair purely to frighten her enemies and reduce wind resistance respectively.

You and others are far too quick to judge, wrapped up in your prejudices and unable to overcome your lechery, first thing you see is tits and ass then that is all you can see...

As opposed to what? The great strategic utility of wearing thin strips of relatively inflexible leather and thigh-high boots as opposed to say, loose fitting linen or indeed nothing, and seriously.. you've gone from implying I'm terribly prudish to implying I'm a letch in the space of a couple of paragraphs. Which is it?

If an artist drew something with the purpose of showing you some T&A because it might make you buy a product the least you can do is admit it, then we can decide whether it's empowering, and in this case I'm going to come out early and say no.

 

[Treblaine]

Now here YOU are pushing credibility, acting as if all thigh high boots are more restrictive than plate armour, with your description of "an absolute nightmare to move around in" sounds like you are describing someone with a full length cast on each leg! You know you CAN get long boots that articulate fully on every joint.

There's no articulation the arm, which is made of the same material.

You've never worn leather, have you?

I know I shouldn't be surprised at such predictable sexism, but you outright accuse her of having a boob job, bravo.

I don't know if I should laugh at this. Honestly, I've faced so many allegations of being a ferocious man hater on this site that it's genuinely a bit weird to see someone try and accuse me of being sexist towards a woman.

Frankly, I find it far more sexist to pretend that breasts look like that without invasive surgery, particularly considering that increasing numbers of women are now having said invasive surgery in order to appeal to people like you.

Again, people keep misusing/abusing the word "fetish" and seem to use it purely in the sense of "sex I don't approve of".

What sex don't I approve of? I'd love to know.

I don't know what the hell you REALLY mean but skimpy clothing does NOT fit any definition of fetishism. Or at least no accepted definition outside of your head. You are just using it to imply something is dirty when you know you have no chance of proving it. Yeah, lump the female form in with fetishes like rubber and auto-erotic sexual obsession. Again, another low blow.

Post-feminist twaddle..

Also, fetish. Two meanings.

1) Related to the fetish scene, in which many people openly dress in accordance with their own sexual fantasies, for example by wearing leather or PVC, corsetry, cross dressing or even just wearing overtly sexy or slutty clothing, or indeed nothing at all.

The term 'low rent' is a judgement on quality, not on morality. I'm surprised that's not incredibly obvious, I can only assume you presumed more than I did.

2) An (over)fixation on a particular type of sexual activity, originally from Freud but taken out of context and used within popular culture to describe any kind of sexual particularity, often without any pejorative meaning.

Actually, it's you who seems to have a problem with 'rubber' and 'auto-erotic asphyxiation'. Aside from the obvious risks of the later (which I believe any consenting adult should be free to accept) I'm fine with those things.

The knight is a walking cliche, the glowing eyed druid is wrapped in impractical pile of curtains and the barbarian is ridiculous in his 7-foot tall scale (even a silly horned helmet), but typically the woman gets picked one because she DARES to show some of her body.

She's not a real person I'm afraid, she didn't DARE anything. An artist sat down and drew her in order to sell people like you a product. That's the issue. You also can't 'pick on' a fictional person, they have no feelings to hurt.

It says a lot about what that artist thought you would respond to that you have three 'walking cliches' who just happen to be male wearing armour and clothing and then one walking cliche who just happens to be female wearing virtually nothing.

It says even more about you that you seem ready to go down with the ship defending it on the basis of some fictional woman's right to sexual expression in a picture you claim is not sexual anyway. I suppose she's anachronistically wearing makeup and has shaved her body hair purely to frighten her enemies and reduce wind resistance respectively.

You and others are far too quick to judge, wrapped up in your prejudices and unable to overcome your lechery, first thing you see is tits and ass then that is all you can see...

As opposed to what? The great strategic utility of wearing thin strips of relatively inflexible leather and thigh-high boots as opposed to say, loose fitting linen or indeed nothing, and seriously.. you've gone from implying I'm terribly prudish to implying I'm a letch in the space of a couple of paragraphs. Which is it?

If an artist drew something with the purpose of showing you some T&A because it might make you buy a product the least you can do is admit it, then we can decide whether it's empowering, and in this case I'm going to come out early and say no.

I'm with you on the man hate, I can't stand men either. Women are much better.

I think you are being sexist, no one gets a free pass as it's the same as "I've got a black friend...". You laden this character with the burden of invasive cosmetic surgery when she is in a fantasy world where biology and physics are pushed to the limits of ridiculousness, that is sexist whoever says it. You wouldn't make such snide comments about a man who is so impractically dressed. If people feel the need to imitate things they see in a FANTASY adventure games then that is a serious maturity problem, like trying to copy superman by jumping off a bridge.

I don't know what material the character is supposed to be wearing but is it not plausible that it may be flexible? I did briefly own a leather jacket (before my sister nicked it) I never felt resistance in articulating joints, also ankle supporting leather boots that didn't restrict ankle movement any more than my previous cotton boots. Contrast with how much the momentum and gravity of thick steel plate armour would sap speed and stamina. Soft clothing gets looser with wear... heavy armour only seems to feel heavier.

Judging by the impropriety of crusading politicians, it's the prudes who are most sex-obsessed. They can only think in sexual extremes and repress it terribly, overcompensating. Their prudishness comes from the their approach to sexuality, conflating sexuality with activities they assume what they see is an invitation, how they react to that is the prudishness part.

I mean you bring up the "fetish scene" for no reason other than muck-spreading dropping in scandalous terms. You've certainly made the first definitios up as it's broad enough to include anything "overtly sexy or slutty". The secondary definition that mostly matches the actual definition also doesn't wash as nothing in this art even hints at "overfixation on a particular type of sexual activity". Some leather clothing does not a leather-fetish make.

67% of the men in that piece of art shave their face, while the warrioress may or may not shave her pits, you can't see. It doesn't show her pubis or lower legs, what other body hair is there? Are you expecting a hairy chest? Now that would be something. I didn't notice any makeup and I never cared much for it, I just noticed the war paint on her cheeks, that looks awesome might I add.

PS: I'm not claiming this isn't sexual. She IS sexual. I'm just countering the assertions that her sexuality voids or compromises her warriorhood or that it's something to be embarrassed about. THAT is an idea I feel I must stand up against, any other character in the Fantasy Genre can have all sorts of ridiculous accoutrements but if it enhances a woman's sexuality then all of a sudden that seems to shift people's perception of that character in their mind. As if in so many people's brains a woman cannot be "sexual" and "warrior" at the same time. The classic oiled body-builder Conan the Barbarian can be sexually virile AND warrior, but it seems the prejudice against women is they cannot be both.

Lecherous is too narrow a term I suppose. I mean the attitude throughout society that a woman's sexuality trumps anything else she can be, any other agency of, say, a character is superseded by her role as sex objective. The prejudice seems to be with most men: "this isn't a beautiful fighting comrade, but my future wife" and with some women: "oh she won't be a fighter, she'll just hitch up with a man" and so on.

Well that's precisely what I don't want but I'm becoming increasingly aware that society is not ready for this. I hope I have made myself clear.

 

[NuclearPenguin]

It's never too late to criticize or praise something.

Have you heard the things some people have said about Final Fantasy VII long after it's release?

Or what Spoony has said about all of the ones that came after it?

Heck, what's the job of the nostalgia critic?

The nostalgia critics job is..
Dundundun..
A comedian!

Final Fantasy VII isn't being criticized for portraying poorly clothed women.

The thing is, this was ok 17 years ago. It should still be now, but to some people, it isnt.

 

[Ruwrak]

PROTIP: Look at the content of the original post before commenting, at the very least look at the title of the thread.

We're talking about Elder Scrolls: Arena here

Dude, PROTIP is so trollthousandten. Expert Tips are now all the rage.
Got a bad day or something and had to take it out on me? There are lots of people who don't post ON TOPIC at all. At least mypost still refers to the boxart of the same series. I probably got a few threads mixed up with eachother, which will explain why I talk about Skyrim, instead of arena. Allow me to present you a supplement, hoping it will satisfy your 'omghewasonlyabitontopic' annoyance.

"Plus it just looks way better then the Arena one. It's easy to see what they were going for.
Back in the days you could do that and still sell far better. Nowadays you even got boxart critics, or hell some parents union moan about the games hurting their childrens souls."

Now if your crusade has come to an end, I believe ther are 234 threads (at least) more for you to correct on human errors. Let's move on with our lives shall we?

 

[Treblaine]

Ahh, I see. You're bullshitting.

You could have said so from the start, instead of stringing us along. Rusty swords, I don't know, what kind of game do you think this is? This is the fantasy adventure genre, they fight foes like these:

You think a leather jerkin will do anything for that?!?

The druid is and old man in long restricting robes but the woman gets singled out for lack of combat suitability, as per bloody usual. This art isn't sexist, only many of the people who view it are! The instinctive response is
"that woman is for sex and only sex because I find her sexy, now I have to rationalise why I think that is with bullshit about combat practicality"

I'm surprised we haven't seen a "get back in the kitchen/bedroom" "joke" in this thread.

Geez, I dunno man. Take a closer look at that picture. That sword looks rusty as hell.

As for the magic user...I have to say, I blame D&D for this whole ridiculous "wizards must wear pajamas" tradition. I've never really understood why that's supposed to be. Apparently spellcasting necessitates a lot of flamboyant gestures and acrobatics that armor would only hinder. Why a big blowsy robe is supposed to facilitate this is beyond me. Have you ever tried to do calisthenics in a bathrobe? It's not a pretty picture.

Well, it's probably because it looks cool. Video games are a visual medium, it's there for the sense of drama, to give emphatic emphasis to the spell casting which as well all know is impossible, but this helps the suspension of disbelief!

 

[Kahunaburger]

[post-feminist gibberish redacted]

I don't know what material the character is supposed to be wearing but is it not plausible that it may be flexible? I did briefly own a leather jacket (before my sister nicked it) I never felt resistance in articulating joints, also ankle supporting leather boots that didn't restrict ankle movement any more than my previous cotton boots. Contrast with how much the momentum and gravity of thick steel plate armour would sap speed and stamina. Soft clothing gets looser with wear... heavy armour only seems to feel heavier.

[post-feminist gibberish redacted]

Leather armor =/= leather jacket. Much thicker. People (generally) didn't wear it because it gave them mobility, they wore it because they couldn't afford better stuff. Chain/plate/etc gives you enough mobility to win a fight, which is incidentally why people wore it to fights when given the option to do so.

Light infantry and cavalry were the exception - they tended to wear less armor for mobility purposes. But you didn't see them walking around in bikinis, because (as it turns out) armor needs to cover your body to protect your body from pointy things.

So in terms of coverage, female warriors tended to wear things like this:

or like this:

...which is incidentally basically the same thing male warriors wore. Go figure.

 

[Da_Vane]

It's not the bad art that was the issue, but the hypocrisy that went along with it. The sheer amount of complaints from people who basically disliked one form of art, yet were perfectly happy with another.

There was one issue of Dragon Magazine, for example, where they put in a cover of a half-naked man as a representation of Apollo the Sun God to do with the theme of the issue, and it sparked uproar from fans who complained about the cover being too obscene, even though half-naked women are clearly okay and have been shown on the cover of the magazine month after month.

It was kind of hilarious, because suddenly a whole bunch of people complained about the idea of men being treated like women, and terms like homoerotic and homosexual started appearing because people can't deal with their own issues.

It's the same with all forms of media - it's okay to do things to other social groups, but as soon as it's applied to your own social group, it's some how wrong. If that is the case, then it's also wrong to do it to the other social groups too. Make your mind up - is it acceptable or not. Either way, apply the standards to all and get over it.

Semi-naked fantasy art just reminds me of the good old days when people didn't worry about things like weather and sword blades, because they obviously had enchanted thongs and bras of warmth to get through the bad times! When every hero looks like a stripper or a swimsuit model!

 

[Treblaine]

[post-feminist gibberish redacted]

I don't know what material the character is supposed to be wearing but is it not plausible that it may be flexible? I did briefly own a leather jacket (before my sister nicked it) I never felt resistance in articulating joints, also ankle supporting leather boots that didn't restrict ankle movement any more than my previous cotton boots. Contrast with how much the momentum and gravity of thick steel plate armour would sap speed and stamina. Soft clothing gets looser with wear... heavy armour only seems to feel heavier.

[post-feminist gibberish redacted]

Leather armor =/= leather jacket. Much thicker. People (generally) didn't wear it because it gave them mobility, they wore it because they couldn't afford better stuff. Chain/plate/etc gives you enough mobility to win a fight, which is incidentally why people wore it to fights when given the option to do so.

Light infantry and cavalry were the exception - they tended to wear less armor for mobility purposes. But you didn't see them walking around in bikinis, because (as it turns out) armor needs to cover your body to protect your body from pointy things.

So in terms of coverage, female warriors tended to wear things like this:

Spoiler: speculative drawing of one case in history, drawn in 1989

[/img]

or like this:

Spoiler: speculative woodcut of Joan of Arc made 54 years after she was executed

...which is incidentally basically the same thing male warriors wore. Go figure.

You know "redacted" is a just a nice way of saying "censored"?

You know "post-feminist gibberish" label is just an anti-intellectual way of dismissing opposing opinion?

IMO: We can never be post-feminism as long since as there are women in the known universe we will need feminism, just like there will always be Civil Rights even after the Civil Right Movement ended. So DON'T frame me as someone who seems to want to just end the debate as if I'm above it! It's disingenuous.

You know those drawings don't count as photographic proof and if they were, they are about as relevant as the Periodic Table to the druid casting fire and lightning out of his fingertips. This is a fantasy adventure of magic and monsters! You can't go by specific counts of factual relevancy, you have to have the "Giant Enemy Crab" moments! You go by rule of thumb. Magical realism, not "gritty realism".

And you can't cherry pick examples when throughout history it's clear full-plate armour was always rare not least for cost but also for impracticality (you were at disadvantage without a horse), it fell out of use entirely from 1700 to the 1915 (just metal helmet) but body armour didn't really return till the 1980's. It's not beyond all suspension of disbelief that a warrior in magical-fantasy medieval era could be without plate armour head to toe!

Clothing is irrelevant to armour, clothing's presence (or lack-thereof) is purely cosmetic unless it is winter climates and it hardly looks frigid there with the high scorching sun and deep shadows of a cloudless sky.

 

[Pearwood]

It was just the style back then, realism was a dirty word. It's called fantasy for a reason, and their target audience happened to like semi-naked women. Internet porn wasn't there to pick up the slack you see.

I'm aware of that, that doesn't mean it isn't considered ridiculous by today's standards. If this thread existed 20 years ago it'd be different but we're just having fun looking back at some stupid artwork from the early days of a series that's generally liked. At least that's why this thread caught my attention and I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one.

As for your other point, I don't think it's especially sexist for people to use female sexuality as a marketing tool; it works so you can't really blame advertisers for doing their job. I do have problems with the people who say "Oh it's just as bad for men" because really no it isn't. I said in a previous post that other than cosmetics and products aimed specifically at women men aren't sexualised very often. A man with body image issues would find it a lot easier to avoid being exposed to that kind of pressure than a woman.

 

[IamQ]

While I should say that it's horrible, demeaning, all that junk, all I can say is that I find it hilarious. They must have done to on purpose. I love it!

 

[Kahunaburger]

You know "redacted" is a just a nice way of saying "censored"?

Actually, it's an editing term. It seemed necessary.

You know those drawings don't count as photographic proof

You do realize we have actual ancient armor, right? Scythian women and men who went into battle were buried with their weapons and armor, so we have a pretty good idea what that looked like. Hence the difference between reconstruction and speculation. Archaeology FTW! So far, we haven't found any chainmail bikinis/chainmail manthongs in a Scythian tomb to the best of my knowledge. (Joan of Arc is even easier since we have contemporary accounts as well as archaeological evidence of the type of armor worn at that time period.)

This is a fantasy adventure of magic and monsters! You can't go by specific counts of factual relevancy, you have to have the "Giant Enemy Crab" moments! You go by rule of thumb. Magical realism, not "gritty realism".

Well, I'd certainly be worried about catching Giant Enemy Crabs from anyone I found running around the pseudo-middle ages in a chainmail bikini or manthong.

And you can't cherry pick examples when throughout history it's clear full-plate armour was always rare not least for cost but also for impracticality (you were at disadvantage without a horse), it fell out of use entirely from 1700 to the 1915 (just metal helmet) but body armour didn't really return till the 1980's. It's not beyond all suspension of disbelief that a warrior in magical-fantasy medieval era could be without plate armour head to toe!

...aaaaaand we're back to arguing that it's realistic for someone to be running around in the pseudo-middle ages wearing a leather bikini for protection. Yes, the heaviest armor available was not always the practical option, as I pointed out (light infantry/cavalry etc.) But you almost always went for some coverage even if you had lighter stuff, because an important step in charging into battle is putting as many things as possible between you and the sharp stuff pointed at you.

(Although fun fact: there was one historical example of people fighting naked. It was the practice of some Celtic warriors to go into battle unclothed. This was commented on by Romans at the time, as you'd imagine. Beyond making some Celts easier to kill, making some Romans feel inadequate, and sending the message that "I'm the sort of crazy dude who charges into a line of swords with my d*ck out" it's pretty unclear what this accomplished. But of course, no Celtic warrior has ever been recorded using a chainmail bikini, largely because those didn't exist.)

Clothing is irrelevant to armour, clothing's presence (or lack-thereof) is purely cosmetic unless it is winter climates and it hardly looks frigid there with the high scorching sun and deep shadows of a cloudless sky.

Well, if you can see someones entire outfit, it's often a pretty good indication that they aren't wearing armor, which is a strange choice for a melee combatant. Maybe it's casualimpractical friday at the pseudo-medieval arena. Although I'm still more of a "she just robbed a sex shop with a samurai sword" theory.

 

[Treblaine]

You do realize we have actual ancient armor, right? Scythian women and men who went into battle were buried with their weapons and armor, so we have a pretty good idea what that looked like. Hence the difference between reconstruction and speculation. Archaeology FTW! So far, we haven't found any chainmail bikinis/chainmail manthongs in a Scythian tomb to the best of my knowledge. (Joan of Arc is even easier since we have contemporary accounts as well as archaeological evidence of the type of armor worn at that time period.)

This is a fantasy adventure of magic and monsters! You can't go by specific counts of factual relevancy, you have to have the "Giant Enemy Crab" moments! You go by rule of thumb. Magical realism, not "gritty realism".

Well, I'd certainly be worried about catching Giant Enemy Crabs from anyone I found running around the pseudo-middle ages in a chainmail bikini or manthong.

Sooo, do you have a real response to this point or are you just going to make a snide attack that she must have some sort of sexually transmitted infection? Again... real classy of you [/sarc]

This IS the fantasy adventure game, not "AUTHENTIC MEDIEVAL COMBAT SIMULATOR 2000!" it's not about being realistic or authentic to historical battles of our earth's history!

And you can't cherry pick examples when throughout history it's clear full-plate armour was always rare not least for cost but also for impracticality (you were at disadvantage without a horse), it fell out of use entirely from 1700 to the 1915 (just metal helmet) but body armour didn't really return till the 1980's. It's not beyond all suspension of disbelief that a warrior in magical-fantasy medieval era could be without plate armour head to toe!

...aaaaaand we're back to arguing that it's realistic for someone to be running around in the pseudo-middle ages wearing a leather bikini for protection. Yes, the heaviest armor available was not always the practical option, as I pointed out (light infantry/cavalry etc.) But you almost always went for some coverage even if you had lighter stuff, because an important step in charging into battle is putting as many things as possible between you and the sharp stuff pointed at you.

Noooo... we are back to you acting like she is some utter betrayal of medieval history, as if the Druid casting FREAKING MAGIC and the Viking with horned helmet just slipped your mention. And who cares if they are there or not, apparently if you set a work of fiction somewhere vaguely in what might be the past then they have to follow by strict historical precedents... even though it isn't even set on Earth or even in the same universe. Magic. How does that work?

This is not "pseudo-middle ages", this is Tamriel on the planet Nirn, not just in a different time or a different solar system but in a completely different universe where the fundamental laws of physics that while like our universe are similar they are not the same.

(Although fun fact: there was one historical example of people fighting naked. It was the practice of some Celtic warriors to go into battle unclothed. This was commented on by Romans at the time, as you'd imagine. Beyond making some Celts easier to kill, making some Romans feel inadequate, and sending the message that "I'm the sort of crazy dude who charges into a line of swords with my d*ck out" it's pretty unclear what this accomplished. But of course, no Celtic warrior has ever been recorded using a chainmail bikini, largely because those didn't exist.)

Clothing is irrelevant to armour, clothing's presence (or lack-thereof) is purely cosmetic unless it is winter climates and it hardly looks frigid there with the high scorching sun and deep shadows of a cloudless sky.

Well, if you can see someones entire outfit, it's often a pretty good indication that they aren't wearing armor, which is a strange choice for a melee combatant. Maybe it's casualimpractical friday at the pseudo-medieval arena. Although I'm still more of a "she just robbed a sex shop with a samurai sword" theory.

I think the record is clear in what it accomplished, the Romans completely failed to conquer Celtic Britain of; Ireland, Scotland and the North of England. And these warriors liked to fight in the starkers and definitely had no access to significant body armour. Romans can make as many snide comments as they like: they got beat by people with no armour. Roman armour tactics depended UTTERLY on the centurions staying in perfect formation, as one-on-one they were no chance against a naked celt warrior or even warrioress. Romans lost VERY RARELY won a battle where they broke formation.

So there, for all the historical sticklers aghast at the utter "madness" of ever not being clad in as much armour as you can possibly afford, you have your historical precedent, that does show it is not completely ridiculous to achieve anything without armour.

 

[MassiveGeek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg
Take a look at it right here.

Do you see that? Of course you know what I'm talking about.

That lady, right there in the front. She's wearing almost nothing. That looks like porn.

And the whole thing just looks crass and bad. But especially the fact you have three fully clothed dudes in the back, and a half naked girl for "tee nund eeh" on the front. Right up front.

I am sure glad Bethesda learned their lesson and stopped doing this right away. All the other cover art for their others looks cool, like an old book. And not downright sleazy like this.

I mean, good Lord.

Just thought you Skyrim fans might like to see just how far the franchise has come in terms of cover art.

Quite honestly, it's not that bad.

I personally really like the cover, I like the artstyle and the character designs, even if the womans "clothing" is silly compared to the dudes in the back.

I don't really care about stuff like this, and I'm certainly not embarassed about it. There's really nothing wrong with overly sexy designs of women and men. Because miraculously, men get to wear almost next to nothing as well;

Remember?

Calm your tits. It's just a cover.

 

[Kahunaburger]

This IS the fantasy adventure game, not "AUTHENTIC MEDIEVAL COMBAT SIMULATOR 2000!" it's not about being realistic or authentic to historical battles of our earth's history!

Ah, so now the purpose of the cover art is to depict the game content. In my experience, charging into melee wearing nothing but a smile is probably a bad idea in an Elder Scrolls game. But wait! Maybe she was really encumbered, and her armor had a low value:weight ratio. She's probably already beating herself up over not springing for those scrolls of Mark, Recall, and Almsivi Intervention, and I probably shouldn't be rubbing salt into the wound.

Noooo... we are back to you acting like she is some utter betrayal of medieval history, as if the Druid casting FREAKING MAGIC and the Viking with horned helmet just slipped your mention. And who cares if they are there or not, apparently if you set a work of fiction somewhere vaguely in what might be the past then they have to follow by strict historical precedents... even though it isn't even set on Earth or even in the same universe. Magic. How does that work?

This is not "pseudo-middle ages", this is Tamriel on the planet Nirn, not just in a different time or a different solar system but in a completely different universe where the fundamental laws of physics that while like our universe are similar they are not the same.

...which would be a good argument if there were a lore reason for a melee combatant to be wearing something out of a sex shop, which there isn't. Unless she's a cultist of Teenageboyicus, Daedric Prince of Buying Games Featuring Samurai Swords and Chicks in Bikinis on the Cover.

Celtic warriors...charge[ing] into a line of swords with [their] d*ck out

I think the record is clear in what it accomplished, the Romans completely failed to conquer Celtic Britain of; Ireland, Scotland and the North of England. And these warriors liked to fight in the starkers and definitely had no access to significant body armour. Romans can make as many snide comments as they like: they got beat by people with no armour. Roman armour tactics depended UTTERLY on the centurions staying in perfect formation, as one-on-one they were no chance against a naked celt warrior or even warrioress. Romans lost VERY RARELY won a battle where they broke formation.

So there, for all the historical sticklers aghast at the utter "madness" of ever not being clad in as much armour as you can possibly afford, you have your historical precedent, that does show it is not completely ridiculous to achieve anything without armour.

nope.avi

You know France? Romans took that from the Celts. They also took everything south of Hadrian's wall. On the rare occasions where Celts did well against the Romans, it had a lot more to do with exploiting the mobility advantage from their cavalry arm (and occasionally from their chariots), using the element of surprise, using superior numbers, and beating the Romans at their own logistical game. So, despite what you may have learned in Rome: Total War, the tactical impact of Celtic warriors leaving their pants at home was minor at best. Flaming pigs and attack dogs also had a pretty minor role on the ancient battlefield.

 

[Treblaine]

This IS the fantasy adventure game, not "AUTHENTIC MEDIEVAL COMBAT SIMULATOR 2000!" it's not about being realistic or authentic to historical battles of our earth's history!

Ah, so now the purpose of the cover art is to depict the game content. In my experience, charging into melee wearing nothing but a smile is probably a bad idea in an Elder Scrolls game. But wait! Maybe she was really encumbered, and her armor had a low value:weight ratio. She's probably already beating herself up over not springing for those scrolls of Mark, Recall, and Almsivi Intervention, and I probably shouldn't be rubbing salt into the wound.

Noooo... we are back to you acting like she is some utter betrayal of medieval history, as if the Druid casting FREAKING MAGIC and the Viking with horned helmet just slipped your mention. And who cares if they are there or not, apparently if you set a work of fiction somewhere vaguely in what might be the past then they have to follow by strict historical precedents... even though it isn't even set on Earth or even in the same universe. Magic. How does that work?

This is not "pseudo-middle ages", this is Tamriel on the planet Nirn, not just in a different time or a different solar system but in a completely different universe where the fundamental laws of physics that while like our universe are similar they are not the same.

...which would be a good argument if there were a lore reason for a melee combatant to be wearing something out of a sex shop, which there isn't. Unless she's a cultist of Teenageboyicus, Daedric Prince of Buying Games Featuring Samurai Swords and Chicks in Bikinis on the Cover.

Celtic warriors...charge[ing] into a line of swords with [their] d*ck out

I think the record is clear in what it accomplished, the Romans completely failed to conquer Celtic Britain of; Ireland, Scotland and the North of England. And these warriors liked to fight in the starkers and definitely had no access to significant body armour. Romans can make as many snide comments as they like: they got beat by people with no armour. Roman armour tactics depended UTTERLY on the centurions staying in perfect formation, as one-on-one they were no chance against a naked celt warrior or even warrioress. Romans lost VERY RARELY won a battle where they broke formation.

So there, for all the historical sticklers aghast at the utter "madness" of ever not being clad in as much armour as you can possibly afford, you have your historical precedent, that does show it is not completely ridiculous to achieve anything without armour.

nope.avi

You know France? Romans took that from the Celts. They also took everything south of Hadrian's wall. On the rare occasions where Celts did well against the Romans, it had a lot more to do with exploiting the mobility advantage from their cavalry arm (and occasionally from their chariots), using the element of surprise, using superior numbers, and beating the Romans at their own logistical game. So, despite what you may have learned in Rome: Total War, the tactical impact of Celtic warriors leaving their pants at home was minor at best. Flaming pigs and attack dogs also had a pretty minor role on the ancient battlefield.

Right, switched arguments AGAIN, now you are claiming false advertising as it implies going armourless is not an option in the game... when it is! It affects your movement and your magic and you start off with usually nothing. Is that all you have left?

Again with the "sex-shop" and crude "teenageboyicus" slander. That's all you have, smears. Not a sound argument. Though it seems to be the only consistent argument you have made, that you disapprove on puritan moral standards, that she is sexy and in itself that is unacceptable. They never said this about Conan the Barbarian, oh yeah, because he's a male character! Sexism lol.

PS: So because the celts didn't completely and utterly dominate the Roman army that makes them utterly compromised? Against the vast wealth, manpower and resources Rome had at its disposal? Romans were masters of military logistics, hell they INVENTED military logistics! But need I remind you Rome was eventually overthrown by unarmoured barbarians!

"tactical impact of Celtic warriors leaving their pants at home was minor at best"

So you admit it makes no difference either way? Yet you still base this as grounds to object?

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm with you on the man hate, I can't stand men either. Women are much better.

I disagree, but that's a discussion for another time.

I think you are being sexist, no one gets a free pass as it's the same as "I've got a black friend...". You laden this character with the burden of invasive cosmetic surgery when she is in a fantasy world where biology and physics are pushed to the limits of ridiculousness, that is sexist whoever says it.

Sorry, is cosmetic surgery a burden? I think that's coming from you, not from me.

You're missing the key point about both cosmetic surgery and this image, which is that they're done for the benefit of a predominantly male audience, but whereas the people who have cosmetic surgery are and remain real people a constructed image is purely a fantasy, there's no issue of self image, no issue of a person's right to feel good about themselves, it's purely to provide masturbation material so that men will buy a product.

I find nothing necessarily wrong with that when it's an open and honest process, but forgive me if I find something a little sinister in denial. If you're going to spend your life drawing tits or looking at pictures of tits, accept that you're doing it for yourself and that it's a fantasy. You're not empowering fictional women, you're certainly not empowering real women.

I mean you bring up the "fetish scene" for no reason other than muck-spreading dropping in scandalous terms. You've certainly made the first definitios up as it's broad enough to include anything "overtly sexy or slutty".

Is this really so hard to guess..

I went fetish clubbing regularly for a few years. I have worn skin tight leather myself, which is why I know how difficult it is to move around in. The definition is broad by design out of respect for the fact that people have a wide range of sexual fantasies. The difference between a fetish outfit and a halloween costume, however, is that the former must be in some way sexual (not necessarily to anyone else, but at least to you).

If you think anything I've said is 'muck spreading', then maybe reconsider where the muck is actually coming from.

Some leather clothing does not a leather-fetish make.

Look at that clothing..

This is really not difficult, I can only presuppose some form of complete and wilful denial prevents you from seeing that it is clearly designed to look sexy. Look at the lines and detailing. If you can't see that, look at the pose. That's not a combat pose, it's an underwear modelling pose designed to show profile.

As if in so many people's brains a woman cannot be "sexual" and "warrior" at the same time. The classic oiled body-builder Conan the Barbarian can be sexually virile AND warrior, but it seems the prejudice against women is they cannot be both.

I wasn't aware that female readers queued around the block to buy Conan the Barbarian books because of his tight abs and sexual escapades. You need to learn the difference between an identification fantasy and a sexual fantasy.

For that matter..

Yes, I'm totally sure that Conan readers are only becoming sexually aroused by his tight loincloth and strong arms. This is in no way about selling a particular power fantasy in which musculature, manliness and violence equates to the ability (or presumed ability) to have sex with large numbers of submissive women.

Men do not generally identify with female characters, so what does wearing very little generally signify for a female character? Does it raise the image that she can have sex with anyone she wants and is really cool or that anyone who wants to can have sex with her and that's hot? I'll give one guess.

Seriously, this is an unbelievably blatant example.

The prejudice seems to be with most men: "this isn't a beautiful fighting comrade, but my future wife" and with some women: "oh she won't be a fighter, she'll just hitch up with a man" and so on.

Two things.

* Female beauty is more constructed, it doesn't stem from perceived competence but requires a degree of artifice to create.
* Female beauty is always assumed to exist for male enjoyment.

This is the world we live in, you can't simply place your post-feminist fingers in your ears and pretend it's different.

If you want a female character to be read as competent, you have three options, you can either embrace the slightly fetishistic sexuality inherent in the idea of the beautiful/competent woman, or you can deliberately not construct a character as sexual (or even beautiful if you're willing to go that far).

I see no inherent problem with either of those things if done well. However, what you're taking is the disturbing middle road of 'oh, she's dressed in sexy outfits but it has nothing to do with the male gaze, women totally want to look like that and it has nothing to do with any kind of social pressure to appeal to men'. Ironically, by doing that you're erasing the very thing you claim to care about, which is agency, you're grafting the male gaze onto female volition, and that's kind of dodgy..