Arms and Armour Terminology in Fantasy

The only advantage the Terminology of Fantasy it does not Need  any Reality Explanation.

Would look Better., Top of post the Definition of Fantasy then At the Bottom Post the Definition  of Reality then Below that Post a Thank you to The Modders  who  put the Reality into ( Time Effort  and Brain Power ) into Creating Fantasy Games so WE can Keep Playing Them.

If I was starting to babble about how incorrect all of the weaponry, martial arts, armours and names are in fantasy it would take me 10 days to finish this post. Lots of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and the more you dig into it the more ridiculous things and common misconceptions and myths you find... I only hope I can save some horribly annoying mistakes with my designs (which are often looking crazy, but realistic enough to work in Morrowind's alien environment).

Oh, I have plenty of ideas on how to make Skyrim's combat system realistic, if you ever need any feedback I'll be happy to give you a lecture on anything :P

For example, did you have anything in mind concerning bows? I'd love if each bow had its poundage (from 0 to 100 I'd say). The closer the poundage would be to our skill, the more efficient we are with it. If we take a bow with a poundage too low, we can draw it very easily and hold it drawn for long, but the damage wouldn't be great due to the fact that the bow itself has low poundage (and is below our skills). If we take a bow that is too strong for us, we'll not be able to fully draw it (and therefore it will reduce its potential damage), our reticle will be shaking all over the place decreasing accuracy, and also we won't be able to hold it drawn for too long. The optimum with draw weight being the same as our skill level would give us stable reticle for 5 seconds, and maximum amount of damage.

But that's just bows, I have it all set up in my mind along with all other gameplay systems, like exploration, economy, armour and weapons designs, combat mechanics, quests... Basically how to make Skyrim a really good game :P

That's all your own opinion however and you state it as if your opinion is the only fact. Note, that to each is own, I love Skyrim as it is, and don't want others to touch it. They can change their own, but I prefer the way it is now. 

I am casual, and I don't get the inability to understand my viewpoint. I don't have the time, or the any sort of desire to strain myself just to explore a fictional world. And having such desires for a casual experience doesn't make someone some sort of simpleton, who can't do anything either. 

And about the termology- 

No offense, though I must speak honestly, again, Jorgen, you speak as if you are the only one who knows anything, which is incredibly pretentious, and annoying to read, quite honestly. The largest, and best aspect of fictional worlds in my opinion, is that they are fictional. So one can get creative, and do whatever the hell they want when making one. In something like termology, in fiction, there is no real reason why "Katana" or "Zweihander" can't be used, because if Japan, or Germany don't exist in a fantasy world, then they don't, and those words can have any sort of meaning or origin that the author desires.

I'm having a hard time explaining my reasoning, but I'll attempt to. I look at games from a fictional author's point of view, not as if those fictional worlds are supposed to be tied, and creatively restricted based on reality, because that ruins the fun of it, in my opinion. I couldn't care less if my Akaviri sword is a "Katana," because if that's how it is, that is simply how it is, and there is no other reason to look at it negatively unless you wish to to rain an someone else's parade, who actually wishes to enjoy the game as it is. Often, things like "Katana" are used as a general, accessible term for the audience, who will hear that and immediately know what the game is talking about, which is good.

I find it depressing when people obsess and complain over these things, and I just wish they could be happy with it. 

Our opinions are equally legitimate, though I simply disagree with yours, and I wish to state so professionally. 

If someone downvotes what I have said here simply because they disagree with me, they do so knowing that they did so only for that reason, which is no good reason to do so at all.

Thanks for understanding, I'm normally quite hesitant to voice my opinion online, because it is often met with harsh backlash. I was thinking about this, and I think another interesting example could be like galactic basic in Star Wars. It's not really a solid thing, it's more just a name applied to the reader/ viewer/ player's language. For me, that would be English, of course. Though of course, English itself couldn't actually exist in the Star Wars universe, as there is no actual England, nor the European regions that inspired that language itself. So many terms and titles are used for things. One example could be "chancellor" which comes from Rome, which of course doesn't exist in Star Wars, though the term is used anyways to describe the prime democratic speaker of the Galactic Republic. And this title is used by the writers because it is easily understandable, and non-estoeric to the readers/viewers/players, so it conveys well what the person is in the universe there.

So I guess what I mean to say, in short, as that there are so many things like that throughout all fiction, so it would be impossible to address them all. So instead, I say the best thing to do is simply accept it, unless it is absolutely ridiculous. 

With things like "greaves" being used to describe the wrong part of thw leg armor, I just don't think it really matters. While this thread is certainly quite educational, I don't think there is really any problem in the misuses of terms like these, because these things are so subtle that I don't think it really effects the quality of the narrative overall.

But anyways, I again thank you for responding so well, it made me feel like it was a very successful exchanging of opinions.

Also, I'm keeping that pole weapon name sheet, it seems quite useful for writing, thanks

People for some reason often tend to refer to the real world's history with what they know from fantasy games and movies, and many misconceptions spread that way, naming of weapons being the least annoying of those. Horned, barbaric vikings clad in fur, knights in armour so heavy that they can't walk, people fighting on foot in closed helmets, keeping a bow drawn for a long time to build suspense and threat someone, or not using shields for anything other than counterbalance, fights shown as a series of chaotic duels with no defined lines or formations, women shown every bit good as men at anything, and that's usually fighing (well, usually they're shown to be better than men, but end up as a love interest anyway. I miss characters like Ellen Ripley...), people using giant fire brazziers for lighting, or torches hung on walls in the middle of the day for no reason, so high it would be very hard to change those... Just to name a few. I get really frustrated when I see stuff from fantasy put into historical context, mainly in movies, while stuff from actual history is shoved off from fantasy context because "it's just a fantasy".

But, as I said, the key to make something work in fantasy, is making it work in its own environment. That's how it happens on Earth, people either get inspired by nature, or make things to cope with it better. That's why armours in Morrowind had scarves and masks.

I also can't agree with your opinion that realism in fantasy kills the fun. It's quite the contrary actually, the more real and believable the world seems the more awe - inspiring the magic is. The more realistic and consistent a world feels, the more it will grab you as something that could actually exist. Take Lord of the Rings for example (granted, there was plenty of stuff that wouldn't make sense in a historical context - like an army taking a forest of pikes to a siege... Were they expecting to poke Helm's Deep when they get there?), but its style was very low fantasy for the most part. Majority of the weaponry and armours, especially human seemed actually practical and not overblown. So in such a realistic setting, whenever we saw Ents or Balrog the magic seemed all the more real, and thus impacting.
And the same rule applies to games. If a game holds some level of realism, all that happens in it will have more impact on us. It's not about making everything unreal, or making everything nice, or making everything epic. People tend to lose sense of good storytelling lately, and generally composition. You can't have real epicness, without a real obstacle. Facing an impossible obstacle and winning againts all the odds, at great costs - that's what is epic, that's what made LotR, Gladiator and a few other movies epic. Streamlined killing of everything on your way is not epic, it's just boring for someone who wants to experience art in games. You can't have a dream-like experience without a level of realism. If the whole experience doesn't give you any realistic anchor to refer to, you won't really feel how unreal it is. You can't have a believable beautiful world without some darkness in it. The nice things just don't have the same feeling when there's nothing to compare them to. You can't have a stressful experience if it doesn't give you a moment of breath from time to time, to build up the tension again. There's no light without shadow, and I rarely see that done in games lately. I'm really, REALLY tired of spoon feeding success, rewards for no effort and no punishment, hand holding, impossibility to fail, too much in-game information, streamlined and linear gameplay, bad console ports, no learning experience, no challenge, simplified everything and nice graphics to cover it all up. This may be fun for you, but it is definetly not close to any kind of fun for me.

That doesn't mean I'm all negative, because I'm not. I've played plenty of games and many of them were really, REALLY good. Examples?

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Man, they really did put lots of love in that game. Dialogue is unmatched to this day, facial expressions are still amazing, branching story is timeless, and the setting and world is just so detailed and filled with little curiosities to dig up you get soaked in it instantly. And at the end of every dig you always find some humorous easter egg. 

Arx Fatalis (made by the same guys who brought us Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Dishonored, and IMO the best game of the three). Some of the best first person system in RPG I've ever seen, extremely immersive and fun, with clever puzzles and generally very innovative. Its story is a bit cliche, but it makes up with clever side quests and dialogue, and an AMAZING game world.

Planescape Torment, one of the most legendary RPG's of all time. Timeless story and one of the first games to fully realise the potential of interaction, allowing you to find answers to some actual, real world philosophical questions, through it's extremely twisted plot, unforgettable world and characters.

Fallout 1 and 2... It's a shame most people remember this series from Bethesda's Fallout 3. Granted, Obsidian did fix a few things in Fallout NV, but it's still nowhere close to the quality of the first two. They made a harsh environment for a game, and the game actually treated you harsh. And guess what - it was FUN. When you finally developed your character and geared up it felt better than any silly dragon souls or shouts. And of course their stories are just gold, some of the most athmospheric games I've played.

Gothic 1 and 2 - these were ton of harsh athmosphere, some action, lots of exploring, humour and excitement. Especially the first one plunged you into an environment in which everyone would try to kill you, beat you up, steal from you, and those who seem friendly at first might as well betray you. So when through hard work you finally make a name for yourself... Now that is TRULY epic.

From newer titles - Witcher games keep a really high standard in terms of story (combat system can get a bit annoying, but nothing too bad and the dialogue compensates in 100%). They are a perfect continuation to the books, picking up all the moral issues brought up in the original story and expanding on them, exploring them with tough choices and fascinating characters.

There's also this very creative russian game - Pathology, in which you investigate an epidemic in a desolated village in Siberia, but it quickly turns around to be a struggle for survival. Now how fun is THAT?

And that's mostly the RPG genre. I know plenty good games of other types too, like the amazing Telltale games for example.

Okay, this has grown into a post about the nature of games overall, but I guess it was unavoidable when talking realism vs. fantasy. The fact that some people are unable to chew through a steak doesn't mean porridge is more tasty. Realism doesn't kill the fun in games in any way if implemented right. Anything implemented wrong kills the fun though, whether realistic or not. So please stop hating on realism, there's nothing wrong with it, and it can enhance the experience very much.

And lastly, don't bring up the "opinion" thing. Everything we say is an opinion. A fact is something outside of our mind, in the actual, physical world. We can't talk facts. We can give proof, logical or material to prove that our opinion is closer to the fact than somebody else's, but saying "it's just your opinion" is like saying that your hair is just your hair.