Will we finally see the long overdue death of pauldroncore high fantasy with the advent of games such as kingdom come...

Wouldn't the autistic one be the user who can't read

>pauldroncore
explain

I'd listen to you but I'm still mastering the 2010 release of Mount and Blades: Warband and figuring out how to integrate my renegade kingdom into a proper vassal before usurping control.....over the course of the next 20 years of raiding and minor skirmishes, of course.

have you not seen WoW designs, or is that sarcasm?

I don't play WoW, but I wasn't aware it was a genre.

Witcher is high fantasy as fuck.
Its just that MC isnt a sorcerer, and the one that are, dont do stupid over the top things like the ones on DnD.

I think the problem comes when magic (weak or strong) is wildly available, because then the setting falls to pieces (why there are armies, comerce and farming when theres a bunch of crazy faggots that can change reality at whim).
But mostly DMs want low fantasy. Players want to play over the top casters, dont like limitations, tracking components or weak spells.

more of an asthetic.

Well you see user, some warriors have huge manly pauldrons that exude masculinity, chadness, and announce how they are alpha. This is pauldroncore. See pic related.

Now, you've got numale soybois who have tiny little yarmulke on their tiny little dyel shoulders, like in OP's pic.

Pretty much this. Huge pauldrons are a sign of virility and manliness. Gayboys like small/no pauldrons.

Shoulderpads of doom have always been dumb. They just add more weight to a suit meant for combat, which means you get exhausted faster.

>I don't think high fantasy is going anywhere, (relatively) high realism fantasy is just carving out its own niche.
This.

To be fair, space marine pauldrons aren't heavy.
Considering that they're made out of paper maiché.

Soooo, is there more of the one on the left or is this just concept art for a game?

I don't even mind magic, I just like realistic armor and weapons.

by definition gayboys like 'manly' stuff so go back to your tom of finnland world.

Yeah nothing more exciting than a bunch of peasants in metal fedoras stabbing at each other with spears

Worth noting that the original reason for this aesthetic is to do with their mediums. WoW was aesthetically based on WC3, and WC3 had relatively low poly count, and used exaggerated designs to make units instantly identifiable.

WH40k uses exaggerated designs for similar reason, to make the pauldrons stand out on the small tabletop models.

wtf are you retard on about, every single piece of armor in the witcher except geralts own is completely realistic, mostly because they straight up copied historical designs

as for GOT , there are some liberties here and there like kingsguard helmets but overall there is nothing wrong with their armors either

>there are some liberties here and there like kingsguard helmets but overall there is nothing wrong with their armors either
>every faction has their own armor and helmet designs for no reason other than ease of recognition for viewers
Fuck you

more like every faction has a design because thats how armies work you retard, you need to distinguish friend from foe on the battlefield

that's why surcoats exist

now I have this stupid idea in my head about two lords or whatever going to war with each other because they chose the same color for their militia's surcoats

and of course it working out about as well as expected

You're insane if you think that in the middle ages smiths were cranking out standard issue armour...people bringing their own stuff was the norm. You would probably only get your lord's colors to wear as a surcoat (in some cases).

>thats how armies work you retard
That's what banners, signals, languages, heraldry, colors are for, moron

I mean, that's just when you switch to your away jerseys

>realistic
Why do we keep using this word? I guess most people don't want really realistic, just... believable? You know, not "turn your brain off and have fun" but "oh, that makes sense, given the rules of the fictional universe". And almost nobody would enjoy realistic shitting in armours and dying of heatstroke.

Say hello to monster hunter etc.

ITT: failure to comprehend any sort of sliding scale of realism. Realism is not a binary concept, and armour is not *either* "super TRVE and authentic" or "completely beyond the pale of tolerability that is not what they wore on the fields of Agincourt". Attempting a binary realistic/unrealistic categorisation will rightly get you labelled an autist.

GoT armour is not 100% realistic, but it's a lot closer to realistic than pic related.

But that’s aesthetically pleasing user.

>> the quality or fact of representing a person or thing in a way that is accurate and true to life.

You're either true to life or you aren't. You're either arguing semantics or a retard.

I don't know user, if the skyrim armoursmiths are better than the GoT armoursmiths, then the pauldrons and horns make more sense than the lions/stags/krakens. Are there even any iron mines in Westeros? They talk about gold all the time, but never mention other ores. Oh, and that molten swords casting? Call it ancient valerian technique all you want, Skyrim is more realstic than GoT.

When Bannerlord comes out, we'll be dead and buried, so it wont change much.

>one FoTM Realistic RPG releases
>"Guys, are we seeing the birth of an era?"

Yeah....no.
Especially not back then.

>How do you figure? The main character is a white-haired cat-eyed ninja wizard in tight leather armor.
Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all.

>Are there even any iron mines in Westeros? They talk about gold all the time, but never mention other ores.
I think we can safely say there’s some iron in a continent the size of South America somewhere, especially considering the Iron Islands see repeatedly mentioned to be rich in it.
>Oh, and that molten swords casting? Call it ancient valerian technique all you want, Skyrim is more realstic than GoT.
Still somehow haven’t figured out how to move their sword designs past the 4th century level, sadly.

>Still somehow haven’t figured out how to move their sword designs past the 4th century level, sadly.
i don’t mean this in a bad way, but I know nothing of sword making and have no idea what you mean by this.

Basically wider sword blades are largely a signature of older, less developed cultures with less advanced metallurgical techniques. Pretty much every kind of one-handed sword in Skyrim and Oblivion outside of those katanas the Blades use are big, hefty Roman-style swords that almost look Bronze Age in their construction.
Rapiers are actually some of the hardest blades to construct in terms of metallurgical sophistication needed.

Don't forget the indy scene, with Battle Brothers.
Bloody difficult game.

Cast swords are structurally inferior to fully forged swords.
Meaning they will break more easily.

Casing swords stopped being cool with bronze, and even bronze benefits from forging it after the casting.

That's funny because cannons and gunpowder are Canon in TES.

There’s a lot of things that kinda slowly got ignored as the setting moved away from it’s odder elements to appeal more to folks interested in generic fantasy.

Melee and caster variations of a single mob, Allods online concept art.

If you deal in absolutes like that realistic media doesn't exist.

That's a good point. The word isn't "realism," (that implies an absolute) It's "authenticity," which is a word for gradient.

I'm not sure what "pauldroncore" means, but I sure as fuck hope that high fantasy doesn't disappear in favor of boring "gritty" shit like Witcher, KCD, or GoT.

>You're either arguing semantics or a retard.
t. someone arguing semantics

If you know what somebody meant then why do you have to be a pedantic ass about it?

>generic fantasy
It's a cancer upon this world and should be purged as such.

MMOs started failing and high budget singleplayer RPGs are on the rise.

B-but shoulder bashing!

>I'm not sure what "pauldroncore" means

WoW.

>If you know what somebody meant then why do you have to be a pedantic ass about it?

Because outright stating "X is not X!" in a discussion about X is fucking stupid.

What are you attempting to say, user?

We're discussing realism, the guy brought up 'Sliding scale of realism' which basically means, as long as it's not balls out retarded shit, then it's some type 'realistic', which is emphatically not true because realistic is a very clear cut and relative only to the examples that exist in reality.

If real life is 0 and Warhammer 40k is 100, saying something around 50 is 'realistic' because it's not Warhammer 40k is stupid.

That's why we invented words like "more" and "less", instead of treating everything in absolutes. A 50 is *more* realistic. Is it the best word choice? No. Did you understand what was meant by it? Yes.

Yet pic related is infinitely more interesting than most of the bland shit you see in GoT and similar media.

But when talking about realism, what is the difference at the end of the day is some Samurai running around with a 19ft katana flying in the sky killing demons and that same Samurai with a 9 ft katana leaping from buildings killing 15ft tall hulked out samurai.

Both are unrealistic. And that guy coming in going "Hurr de durr you're all idiots for not understanding the difference" is a retard.

This. Realism is boring, if I wanted it I could go outside.

Not him, but surely you will accept that it is AT LEAST ten foot less unrealistic?

it's either/or. Not a sliding scale, but binary. Either you're completely realistic in every detail, or you're fantasy weebshit.

It's like being gay. There's no sliding scale: if you've done or thought anything sexual about a man, then you're gay. You can't be half-gay.
You are or you aren't. End of debate.

You can by bisexual. Can something be realistic and fictional at the same time?

Sure, if you're willing to accept that when the 'goal' is realism, "Less unrealistic" 9/10 times is still too unrealistic.

No you can't and no it can't.

>what is the difference at the end of the day is some Samurai running around with a 19ft katana flying in the sky killing demons and that same Samurai with a 9 ft katana leaping from buildings killing 15ft tall hulked out samurai.

That the latter is more realistic, even though it's not especially so?

>Both are unrealistic.
By your own standard you've never seen a piece of media that was "realistic."

What that user () said was "realism is not a binary concept, it's on a sliding scale", which seems like a completely reasonable statement to me. I don't get what about that triggers you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

Here's your reply.

>quoting wikipedia

Bisexuals are faggots in denial, every last one of them. Calling a rose by another name doesn't make it not a rose.

There's no such thing as a sliding scale when it comes to defining a thing or concept. It either is something, or it isn't. It's a 100% binary situation. If you want to be called realistic, then you have to be completely realistic in every single detail.

Bisexuality doesn't exist. You're either gay, or straight.

So instead of discussing if something is or isn't realistic, and the merits of each we end with "everything is somewhat realistic even if it's batshit off the wall crazy shit that never happened in the real world"

Throwing your hands up and yelling "It's all relative" is the worst way to have a productive conversation about something that can reasonably be defined. And based on your post this whole argument we're having boils down to a continuum fallacy on your part.

>Bisexuals are faggots in denial, every last one of them
In denial... about what, exactly? A bisexual is someone who fucks with both sexes, not an ostensibly straight person with gay thoughts like you.

>If you want to be called realistic, then you have to be completely realistic in every single detail.
Which is no work of fiction ever made, because the thing about fiction is that it happens to not be reality.

>If you want to be called realistic, then you have to be completely realistic in every single detail.

>So instead of discussing if something is or isn't realistic, and the merits of each we end with "everything is somewhat realistic even if it's batshit off the wall crazy shit that never happened in the real world"

I invite you to supply an example of a property that you feel is objectively "realistic."

>If real life is 0 and Warhammer 40k is 100, saying something around 50 is 'realistic' because it's not Warhammer 40k is stupid.
Can something be more realistic than real life? What would ultrarealstic negative 100 world look like?

>It either is something, or it isn't.
You know, instead of the usual namecalling i actually got an article that shows that this sort of mindest isn't normal, healtnhy and belongs to a a group to which (apparently) 160% of Veeky Forums belong.
spectrumeye.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/aspergers-and-black-and-white-thinking/

Again, continuum fallacy, i point to some historical fiction like The Tudors, or Troy and you find some shit like a wall torch during day time or some extra shooting a bow wrong and go 'Gotcha! Nothing is realistic!'

>this much autism.

Also, i'll say, i recognize things are more or less realistic, having said that, i think reducing any and all conversations to relativity is unproductive, and when you get people like this acting like they're geniuses, or above the conversation because they realize the relativity is nothing more than sniffing your own farts ignoring the entire conversation to begin with.

>Troy
Real talk, Troy? The Brad Pitt movie Troy? Based on mythology rather than real events "historical fiction" Troy? Inaccurate even in respect to its own fantasy source material Troy? Classical hoplites in Mycenaean Greece Troy?

>you find some shit like a wall torch during day time or some extra shooting a bow wrong and go 'Gotcha! Nothing is realistic!'
Yes... it's almost like "realism" only exists in a relative sense because any fictional work is inherently unrealistic.

>Yes... it's almost like "realism" only exists in a relative sense because any fictional work is inherently unrealistic.

And there's the fart sniffing. 'Nothing is realistic, so realism doesn't matter and should be ignored and anyone who champions it is an idiot for not realising nothing can be realistic!'

I’m sympathetic to the binary user, as I see everything in absolutes. I may be able to clear some of this up.

A thing can be unrealistic as a whole, but can contain absolute and objectively realistic features. A thing that is ultimately unrealistic can still be objectively more realistic than something else.

I can draw a picture of your face that looks pretty realistic. It doesn’t make sense to say it isn’t realistic because it’s only two dimensional. The fact that it isn’t real is Inherant to the medium. However, the drawing can very accurately portray the shape of your jawline, or someshit. So we could say the depiction of the jawline is absolutely realistic, even if the rest looks like shit.

Sorry for typos. I’m phone posting and I ain’t scrolling through this shit on a fuckin iPhone.

>Nothing is realistic, so realism doesn't matter and should be ignored
No? Nobody in this thread implied anything of the sort. The whole point was that nothing is *totally* realistic, it's all relative and exists on a sliding scale.

I'm starting to come around to .

Battle Brothers is a great game for anybody into gritty realism. There’s undead, orca, and goblins, but the combat is gritty as shit, and the weapons and armor system own.

Don’t ply unless you’re into resource management though.

>There’s undead, orca, and goblins
No thanks, too scary for me.

...

This, your shoulder pads should weigh at least the average weight of a female, so that she instantly knows you could break her in half at the drop of a pin (which females find incredibly arousing).

Watch yourself around those guys, user.

> A thing that is ultimately unrealistic can still be objectively more realistic than something else.

I've said i understand and agree with this for like 2 hours now. I just think it's not productive to the discussion so should be tabled.

Others are calling me autistic acting as if i don't understand this stuff while i think they're autistically applying relativity of every grade to every discussion even when it's counter productive to the discussion itself (As we've seen because at this point this thread has been more arguing semantics and relativity than the original discussion).

There are three things at work here: realism, versimillitude, and internal consistency.

Realism is how closely a piece of fiction conforms to our reality, whether that's physics, history, psychology, technology, etc.

Internal consistency is how closely a piece of fiction follows its own logic of how the world should be.

Versimillitude is how closely a piece of fictions conforms to our expectations of reality. This has some overlap with both realism and internal consistency, but is also informed by our expectations built off of the medium's tropes.

When people say "realism", they often mean "versimillitude". They don't want something that conforms to reality, they want something that conforms to their subjective perception or expectations for that medium or genre.

Very well put. I love what I would call “gritty realism” but I don’t actually just want to play “real world serfdom simulator”.

I'm looking at the more mundane swords in Skyrim and got to say you're not really right at all; a lot of them look more early to high medieval to me.

Example.