Health potions = Artistic license. We accept them as a gameplay device. They are not necessarily meant to be taken seriously.

However, with armour design, the male armours tend to stick - at least to some degree - to real world examples. They cover, they don't reveal. They protect. They do their job. The feminine equivalents *almost never* offer the same level of protection. The fact the male armour covers implies that in the world in which the game is set that protection is needed. The armour covers because the wearer wishes to be protected. If the armour was useless at protection, then it wouldn't exist within the game as it is - or it would be a decorative thing, thusly more ornate and not nearly so common.

Those factors combine to suggest that armour is necessary to protect against attacks. Those same factors, thusly, should apply equally to women. But in terms of design, they rarely do. Weak spots are often exposed at the expense of more sexualised or objectifying armour. Revealing armour offering the same protection as more covering armour is a contradiction. It doesn't make sense. It's wrong.

You work out the realism of the world by taking the aspects of the game and using logic to explain them. Game technology cannot truly simulate the real world, but it can be compensated for to some degree. That is why armour works on numbers, not on their design. But that is a necessity, where gameplay has to take priority over the visuals/realism aspect. A game's world does not need to match our reality, but it still needs its own realism. That realism needs to be explained.

There is no logical, reasonable explanation as to why feminine/revealing armour can offer the same level of protection as the masculine/covering equivalents. You could try and pass it off as "oh, well, magic offers the rest of the protection" - Well, sure, but does that make sense? Isn't it just easier to make armour that protects in the first place?