(05-31-2015, 05:43 PM)Blue Wrote:(05-31-2015, 03:29 PM)Faye Wrote: snip
I think comparing Ul'dah to Ancient Egypt is a bit drastic. Most of clothing was exclusive to the wealthy (either because of taboos or because of prices). The poor wore nothing not because they could, but because they had to. They also did die at very early ages, for exposure to heat and also skin cancer (several types of cancers have been found descripted as early as in 2.500b.C. papyri). Sure, egyptians could wear like that today too if they wanted, but they would live a much shorter life, hence the evolution of clothing among beduins and other desertic populations since cultivation of cotton, flax and other materials became more common and less exclusive, as well as animal textures not being taboos anymore. I think Ul'dah is closest to the age of sultanates/modern era than to Ancient Egypt.
But as for my overall stance on the OP's demand, see my first post. I'm not defending their request, just the logic of the topic.
I don't believe it's terribly off base; the game makes it a point to drive home the fact that a large portion of Ul'dah is incredibly impoverished. There's a reason it's the only city in the game the devs saw fit to include a seedy back alleyway full of homeless beggars (and NPC's warning you to watch your purse there). Regardless, the point wasn't necessarily to compare, I just got tired of seeing all the "No native would ever not be fully clothed in the desert, that's never happened before!!!" comments. Obviously it's going to make more sense to be more clothed in most circumstances, I just don't like inaccurate, blanket statements.
![[Image: NCtCate.png]](http://i.imgur.com/NCtCate.png)
