← Home ← Back to /tg/

Thread 96469789

18 posts 4 images /tg/
Anonymous No.96469789 >>96470030 >>96471391 >>96478291 >>96478399 >>96479312 >>96485251 >>96485271 >>96486603 >>96497290
What style would be better fitting for each fantasy race ?
Anonymous No.96469916
They're all at least 600 years too modern
Anonymous No.96470030 >>96485273
>>96469789 (OP)
Better than what, ESL-kun? Do you mean "best"?
Anonymous No.96471391
>>96469789 (OP)
Define fitting.
Anonymous No.96478291
>>96469789 (OP)
Ask the worldbuilding general
Anonymous No.96478399
>>96469789 (OP)
A mix of the first four for humans.
Art nouveau for elves.
Art deco for dwarves.
Bauhaus for good fey.
Postmodern for evil fey.
Conemporary for undead/jews.
Anonymous No.96478987
If you want to go in to depth on these, I would recommend the book
>home: a short history of an idea
It was one of the books listed as suggested reading in the Sims 1 manual
Anonymous No.96479312
>>96469789 (OP)
Depends on what setting. Which is?
Anonymous No.96485251
>>96469789 (OP)
Halfling: Renaissance
Gnome: Arts and Crafts
Dwarf: Cubes of Modernism, glamor of Baroque
High Elf: Rococo
Drow: Contemporary
Orc: Postmodern
Human: Any

It's probably a good idea to go a bit beyond human styles to make non-humans feel distinct, though those last two might already go beyond
Anonymous No.96485271 >>96485279 >>96485330 >>96485798 >>96491876
>>96469789 (OP)
How come the further we go forward the far worse our aesthetics become?
Anonymous No.96485273 >>96485759
>>96470030
Better fitting than the rest, retard-kun.
Anonymous No.96485279 >>96485330
>>96485271
Availability. Anyone today can have an art nouveau (not that anyone would want to) or contemporary. Only a select few had rococo back in the day.
Anonymous No.96485330
>>96485271
Jews. Unironically.

>>96485279
>Anyone today can have an art nouveau
Retard.
>(not that anyone would want to)
Fucking retard.
Anonymous No.96485759
>>96485273
>can't into the easiest language on the planet
>"surely this means I'm a genius"
kek
Anonymous No.96485798
>>96485271
>How come the further we go forward the far worse our aesthetics become?
In 2007, for the first time, the majority of the human race lived in urban areas; in the American South, it took until the 1960s for the majority of the population to live in urban areas, and even Britain, the first to urbanize, only passed majority-urban ~1850. We've gone from a billion people mostly living in the countryside to 8 billion mostly living in cities, so we've been on a hardcore "build shit" drive, and aesthetics quickly started to come second, which in turn led to the loss of institutional knowledge of how to make pretty things.
Anonymous No.96486603
>>96469789 (OP)
WHAT GAME?
Anonymous No.96491876
>>96485271
Most people don't really care that much on their house aesthetics. Only the rich and the people who can make their own shit would care. I mean, look at most people places and it's pretty much all the same a couch and chairs maybe something holding books, games, movies, etc and maybe a table. Most people don't blow money on that shit.
Anonymous No.96497290
>>96469789 (OP)
Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, and Neoclassical: Humans and Elves
Arts and Crafts: Dwarves
Modernism and Art Nouveau: Gnomes
Bauhaus and Postmodern: Goblins
Art Deco, Mid-Century Modern, and Contemporary: Elves(the lame and gay kind)