Discuss: Pre-Alpha Chargen - Make Anyone

952 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

While I'm sure the details are very important to the "suits" of the various companies involved I PERSONALLY couldn't care less about what's behind the market "churn" you're referring to PRECISELY because of all the ups and downs you cited here in the histories of DC and Marvel. Things go up... things go down.

Perhaps as a simple point of academic curiosity it'll be interesting to see what happens here with the fate of the "big boys" versus "the upstarts". In the long run I just don't have a proverbial "dog" in the outcome either way.

I'm not trying to argue with you (felt the need to state that just in case), but what was your point about the market stuff at the beginning if you don't care? I initially took your first comment to mean that the growth of independent comics is unimportant because they are smaller and have room to grow while the big two are at critical mass so don't really have room to grow. Now I am not sure what point you were trying to make. Are you saying that the growth independent comics are seeing is meaningless or are you saying you don't care...or both?
Also, I should make a correction here because my information was outdated...DMG is actually the full owner of Valiant Comics for 2 months now.

Lothic wrote:

I'm not arguing about this either. It's just that I've read about so many "almost happened" movies (with actors involved and everything) for decades so I've just learned not to care too much them until things -actually- happen.

I got excited when they teased the Avengers way back in the first Iron Man and the Edward Norton Hulk movie, even with how unfathomable it was back then. If you are not interested in the fact that Bloodshot and Harbinger movies are in the works maybe someone else is. I know I am, especially with Sony being the money behind the deal.

Lothic wrote:

Since they haven't been able to overcome the core problems of disrupting the collector-based after market I'm still willing to say that the companies involved are still "experimenting" with how to really get the whole digital media thing to work. I realize that's a bit of a quibble on my part but I'm not going to call the thus far incomplete transition to digital media an actual "ready for prime time" thing until, as you yourself point out, they figure out how to STOP losing customers over it.

It's one way to look at it and on a certain level I can agree. But me personally, I am more concerned with the fact that it takes more digital customers than it does physical customers to make the same money.

Lothic wrote:

I can almost envision a time when like a full 95% of the "comic book" business is digitally based but they still print out a few super-high class "collectors editions" of various issues (with of course all sorts of multiple-cover artworks and the like) to satisfy the "hard core collector" market. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

There is a market for pretty much anything that's outdated....except perhaps Betamax and 8 tracks.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I'm not trying to argue with you (felt the need to state that just in case), but what was your point about the market stuff at the beginning if you don't care? I initially took your first comment to mean that the growth of independent comics is unimportant because they are smaller and have room to grow while the big two are at critical mass so don't really have room to grow. Now I am not sure what point you were trying to make. Are you saying that the growth independent comics are seeing is meaningless or are you saying you don't care...or both?

The following is Doctor Tyche's original quote that started off this entire line of discussion:

Doctor Tyche wrote:

To bring up a point, Marvel and DC are both suffering, while independent comic publishers are doing quite well. Valiant for example are experiencing exponential growth.

While my subsequent replies to you about this might not have been as precisely worded as they could have been my basic initial response to Doctor Tyche was that the overall idea that Marvel and DC are both "suffering" while Valiant was "exponentially growing" needs to be taken in relative context and with a big grain of salt.

It's not like Marvel and DC are going to go bankrupt tomorrow and be instantaneously replaced by something like a Valiant. Again as you've highlighted these companies go through highs and lows all the time. Could it be said that in like 10 or 20 years a "big boy" like Marvel and DC might finally fail maybe due to being unable to fully crack the digital distribution nut? Sure I suppose it's always possible. But like many of those movie deals you were mentioning I'm not going to be holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

Essentially to Doctor Tyche's statement I'm basically saying, "So what? Tell me something that hasn't been happening in some form or fashion for years now..."

Brainbot wrote:

If you are not interested in the fact that Bloodshot and Harbinger movies are in the works maybe someone else is. I know I am, especially with Sony being the money behind the deal.

I'm not "antagonistically disinterested" that these deals have been made and I'd probably end up giving them a try regardless. I just prefer not to get too worked up about them either way given Hollyweird's very long track record of signing deals (even with money, actors, etc.) that end up going nowhere. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Essentially to Doctor Tyche's statement I'm basically saying, "So what? Tell me something that hasn't been happening in some form or fashion for years now..."

Ok I think I understand now.
I would argue the opposite but the truth is the final verdict isn't in yet, we haven't seen the expected leveling out or rise in sales because we are still in a downswing of consumers.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
After watching Ready Player

After watching Ready Player One, I have come to believe we need that amount of character customization!

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 47 min 20 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
I haven't seen Ready Player

I haven't seen Ready Player One yet. So I'm not sure if that level of customization is enough or not. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
It's basically...EVERYTHING!

It's basically...EVERYTHING! :)

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 47 min 20 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
OK, that might be enough.

OK, that might be enough.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Don't the folks in ready

Don't the folks in ready player one just rip off other things?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
A lot do, but there's some

A lot do, but there's some originals in there.

Also, with everything, as we know, you can then rip off everything.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Eh, I'd rather not have

Eh, I'd rather not have everything.

You'd get a person playing as literally as a single pixel.

And then about ten people taking up an infinite space.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Nuuu! Don't limit my concept

Nuuu! Don't limit my concept! *cries*

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
If you want a small taste of

If you want a small taste of what allowing anything/everything would be like look up some VR Chat videos on YouTube.

Then you will kno da wei.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I was just kidding. I'm all

I was just kidding. I'm all for limiting every concept I don't care for ^_^;;

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
It has been mentioned in this

It has been mentioned in this forum and others that there won't be any costumes restricted by the sex of the character. But I hope there is at least one.

I have always envisioned my character Thunderbird Priest to be a shirtless man. So I hope this is an option.

Most games address this issue by adding an underwear top to the default female skin. And then when other armors or costume items are used, they just replace the torso with the new item. But since CoT will be doing costume layering, I'm not sure how that's going to work. I'm pretty sure that an underwear top would not work with some character concepts. I don't think the same issue exists for underwear bottoms, since having an uncovered bottom would never be an option like a man's uncovered chest would be.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
'Ready Player One' was a

'Ready Player One' was a great novel. Perhaps you should read it and enjoy 'the movie in your head'. I promise the graphics will be much better!

Be Well!
Fireheart

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Na, make shirtless men wear

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

They could always do like Hercules, and wear a sash or harness, to give the illusion of having SOMETHING on. LOL

Shocking Blu

Riptide
Riptide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 55 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 07:01
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

They could always do like Hercules, and wear a sash or harness, to give the illusion of having SOMETHING on. LOL

Something to prevent...jiggle?

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Rigel wrote:
Rigel wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

They could always do like Hercules, and wear a sash or harness, to give the illusion of having SOMETHING on. LOL

Something to prevent...jiggle?

Not sure. It's only muscle men that wear them, though. Oh, I just remembered, there IS one major superhero that regularly is shirtless (pretty much just wears green swim trunks): Namor, the Submariner.

Shocking Blu

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 2 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Rigel wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

They could always do like Hercules, and wear a sash or harness, to give the illusion of having SOMETHING on. LOL

Something to prevent...jiggle?

Not sure. It's only muscle men that wear them, though. Oh, I just remembered, there IS one major superhero that regularly is shirtless (pretty much just wears green swim trunks): Namor, the Submariner.

AND the Hulk.

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Rigel wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Na, make shirtless men wear bras too.

Mostly because it'd be funny.

And only fair, if they're not going to keep the shirtless option the same for both *nod nod* Yup.

Looks like the guys will just have to do without going topless.

They could always do like Hercules, and wear a sash or harness, to give the illusion of having SOMETHING on. LOL

Something to prevent...jiggle?

Not sure. It's only muscle men that wear them, though. Oh, I just remembered, there IS one major superhero that regularly is shirtless (pretty much just wears green swim trunks): Namor, the Submariner.

AND the Hulk.

The Hulk is neither a man, nor a Hero. Simply a Force of Nature. Hercules is the God of Strength-- Hulk is the God of Adrenaline. :D

Shocking Blu

Riptide
Riptide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 55 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 07:01
Personally, I think the only

Personally, I think the only limits should be the Letter of the Law.
Good Taste is highly subjective.
Back when I was working as a Paramedic, I often encountered fashionable young ladies who went clubbing looking like they stuffed their whole bodies into one of their Mom's old leg warmers. Constantly having to adjust it up and down to keep it legal.
If someone's perfect concept is a Warrior Princess whose "armor" consists of one strategically-placed cotton ball, then more power to them... as long as it's in compliance with the T rating.
I haven't been interested enough to look up the requirements, but I'm fairly sure they're pretty specific about what's forbidden.
If that Warrior Princess is forced to settle for Xena the Librarian, then so be it.

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Rigel wrote:
Rigel wrote:

Personally, I think the only limits should be the Letter of the Law.
Good Taste is highly subjective.
Back when I was working as a Paramedic, fashionable young ladies went clubbing looking like they stuffed their whole bodies into one of their Mom's old leg warmers. Constantly having to adjust it up and down to keep it legal.
If someone's perfect concept is a Warrior Princess whose "armor" consists of one strategically-placed cotton ball, then more power to them... as long as it's in compliance with the T rating.
I haven't been interested enough to look up the requirements, but I'm fairly sure they're pretty specific about what's forbidden.

Well said, and well reasoned.

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

It has been mentioned in this forum and others that there won't be any costumes restricted by the sex of the character. But I hope there is at least one.

I have always envisioned my character Thunderbird Priest to be a shirtless man. So I hope this is an option.

Most games address this issue by adding an underwear top to the default female skin. And then when other armors or costume items are used, they just replace the torso with the new item. But since CoT will be doing costume layering, I'm not sure how that's going to work. I'm pretty sure that an underwear top would not work with some character concepts. I don't think the same issue exists for underwear bottoms, since having an uncovered bottom would never be an option like a man's uncovered chest would be.

I would be amazed if CoT didn't allow for "shirtless men" based on nothing else but the fact that there are examples of shirtless men in the comic books. But I do understand your point that calls into question whether true "full equality" of costume items for both the female and the male means that, all things being equal, the game technically ought to let females go fully topless as well.

I would say in a "perfect game" and assuming everyone could be "mature" about it that, yes, there should be no "modesty bra" imposed on the female body model. It should be up to the individual player to decide if their character wants to be seen running around topless regardless of sex.

But we all know we don't live in a perfectly mature world and social norms governing most of the planet we currently live on dictate that there still must be a fundamental difference where covering the collective female mammary is concerned. Still even if we must accept that difference I would hope the game might be smart enough to impose a "modesty bra" on the female model only when absolutely necessary. For example if a player chose to try to make a "topless" or "nude" female (with no other costume items covering the appropriate areas) I would expect the game to automatically provide for something like this:

But if you decide to wear something non-traditional that would still cover up the "important bits" then maybe the game could be smart enough to remove the mandatory bra. For example the following pics are two of dozens of "non-censored" pics just like it so it would seem this is enough to get the job done in public:

This second one actually showed up in the season finale of The Orville on basic network TV:

Obviously the game would need to make sure that whatever top you're wearing would not flap around too much thus ruining its purpose as an "alternative" to a hardwired modesty bra. If you still wanted your character to be wearing a bra, shirt or whatever underneath something like this that should be an "optional choice" not a forced requirement.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 11 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
We could also make it so that

We could also make it so that the female model doesn't have nipples, would probably be easier to program too

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

We could also make it so that the female model doesn't have nipples, would probably be easier to program too

This is what CoX did to an extent with things like metallic skin and all the spandex options, which were really just paint. But CoX didn't take it nearly as far as DCUO. Because in DCUO, you can make a totally nude character as long as their body is made of some substance other than human flesh.

Nude snake person

nude furry person

nude rock person

nude demon

nude flame person
(that's actually the character "Fire" using the glowing skin)
nude crystal person

nude "stuff" person

And I always found that this form of thematic nudity was okay somehow. ... until you put some clothes on only a portion of it. Then the unclothed portions all of a sudden became scandalous. Picture any of these with only a bikini top or only a bikini bottom and the brain goes, "what did I just see?"


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
McGarnackle
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 04/05/2016 - 23:59
I have to admit I was

I have to admit I was concerned about the progress in this game but the video of the character creator has restored my excitement for this game being the successor to City of Heroes.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

We could also make it so that the female model doesn't have nipples, would probably be easier to program too

I would sadly agree that "solution" would likely solve a lot of problems. I say 'sadly' because I'd hate them having to resort once again to the "Barbie-ization" of the female model's chest just because they couldn't find a better way to handle the natural anatomy of the human female body.

This goes back the question of whether it would be OK if we saw "nipple bumps" when a character is wearing tight-fitting spandex-like clothing. In the real world a woman literally has the -option- to wear either a bra and/or 'pasties' that would prevent the nips from being visible. Would we also be given this realistic option to choose or will the Devs simply decide it's easier to pretend human females don't have nipples and make the arbitrary decision for us? Frankly I'd actually like to decide for my OWN characters whether I'd want their nips to be visible like that or not because as it turns out some of my characters would like them visible while others most certainly wouldn't. My characters, my choice.

Just as a matter of related trivia one of the very first nerfs the Devs of CoH imposed on the game just a few weeks after it launched had to do with a change to the female character model which made the "visual 3D hint" of the female nipple much less pronounced. It was effectively a "nipple nerf" and many of us called it that (and hated it) for the remainder of CoH's existence.

Huckleberry wrote:

This is what CoX did to an extent with things like metallic skin and all the spandex options, which were really just paint. But CoX didn't take it nearly as far as DCUO. Because in DCUO, you can make a totally nude character as long as their body is made of some substance other than human flesh.

Yeah the whole metric of what's considered "acceptable nudity" does change when you throw in all the possibilities that the superhero genre offers. I would think/hope that whatever a game like DCUO "got away with" in this area should provide a baseline for what CoT should be able to get away with as well.

I'd accept allowing both males and females to effectively be nude in CoT as long as they are "wearing" any non-human skin texture. If they try to go nude with the "standard human skin" texture they should both have the mandatory "modesty briefs" and females should have the mandatory "modesty bra". If a human skin textured guy or gal wears any article of clothing that would be flagged as "acceptable coverage" then the mandatory "fig leaf" modesty clothing would be automatically removed (but could be optionally replaced back if desired). Does that cover all the bases?

Huckleberry wrote:

And I always found that this form of thematic nudity was okay somehow. ... until you put some clothes on only a portion of it. Then the unclothed portions all of a sudden became scandalous. Picture any of these with only a bikini top or only a bikini bottom and the brain goes, "what did I just see?"

I basically call this the "Donald Duck" scenario. I agree it always seemed strange to me that characters like Donald Duck could get away with wearing a shirt but no pants. If he doesn't need pants why is he wearing a shirt?

Practically speaking I don't know how you allow "non-human skin texture" nudity in a game like this without allowing for the possibility that someone might make a character like Donald who only wore a shirt or a female that only wore pants. In other words I'm not sure the Devs should specifically try to prevent that as a possibility no matter how "off-putting" it could be. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Bit off topic, but the DCUO

Bit off topic, but the DCUO method makes sense if you think of clothing primarily as a sanitation device, rather than for modesty/censorship. The other skin types mentioned wouldn't be covered in sweat glands, and so wouldn't leave little puddles everywhere the person stood or sat or leaned. A city of unclothed normal people would smell disgusting, and no, everyone being super-models wouldn't change that. Not so if they were covered in scales or energy or fur or metallic skin, etc. We think of being covered in glands that secret liquid all over our bodies as normal, but it's actually not common at all, even among mammals, at least not to the degree we have it. Imagine how gross your house would be if your pet cats and dogs made little puddles of sweat everywhere they laid down.

Back on topic, I agree as to the partial clothing on odd body coverings being off-putting, though. If it's wearing nothing, you assume it's alien-minded, so it doesn't register as out of the ordinary. If it's wearing something (but not covering the important bits) then you assume it's got a human mind and so is deliberately being a flasher. It's about the mind of the thing you're seeing, whether it's mentally enjoying the idea of being seen that way or not. If not, it's fine. If so, it's nasty.

As for the Donald Duck example... he's so cartoony, he doesn't register as pantless. There's a certain threshold of non-human traits that, once passed, makes the object impossible to view as a human relative. If he had a human bone structure and proportions, like the beast races from elder scrolls, then he might register as a distant human relative. But... try imagining Donald as he is now as an actual living thing. He has eyes so big there's no room for a brain, not even an insect-sized ganglia, and the bottom of his eyes would be visible from inside his mouth with his skull being a paper-thin layer of cartilage. His upper body is a tiny twig and lower body a giant orb, so lungs and heart are probably in the lower body. That's just too alien to register.

TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 44 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Anyway, the character pattern

Anyway, the character pattern are already build and they do not have nipples or bulge or whatever ^^ This debate is done actually :)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

Bit off topic, but the DCUO method makes sense if you think of clothing primarily as a sanitation device, rather than for modesty/censorship. The other skin types mentioned wouldn't be covered in sweat glands, and so wouldn't leave little puddles everywhere the person stood or sat or leaned. A city of unclothed normal people would smell disgusting, and no, everyone being super-models wouldn't change that. Not so if they were covered in scales or energy or fur or metallic skin, etc. We think of being covered in glands that secret liquid all over our bodies as normal, but it's actually not common at all, even among mammals, at least not to the degree we have it. Imagine how gross your house would be if your pet cats and dogs made little puddles of sweat everywhere they laid down.

And people sometimes think I spend too much time obsessing about body model issues in this game. It never once occurred to me that people might consider the concept of mammalian sweat glands as a factor for costume design in this game. ;)

BiotopeZ wrote:

Back on topic, I agree as to the partial clothing on odd body coverings being off-putting, though. If it's wearing nothing, you assume it's alien-minded, so it doesn't register as out of the ordinary. If it's wearing something (but not covering the important bits) then you assume it's got a human mind and so is deliberately being a flasher. It's about the mind of the thing you're seeing, whether it's mentally enjoying the idea of being seen that way or not. If not, it's fine. If so, it's nasty.

So it would seem you would favor imposing "fig leaf" style modesty clothing for any "pseudo-nude" character regardless of skin texture. I would hate if the game chose to be that regressive just to try to prevent a few people from making their own version of a "Donald Duck".

BiotopeZ wrote:

As for the Donald Duck example... he's so cartoony, he doesn't register as pantless. There's a certain threshold of non-human traits that, once passed, makes the object impossible to view as a human relative. If he had a human bone structure and proportions, like the beast races from elder scrolls, then he might register as a distant human relative. But... try imagining Donald as he is now as an actual living thing. He has eyes so big there's no room for a brain, not even an insect-sized ganglia, and the bottom of his eyes would be visible from inside his mouth with his skull being a paper-thin layer of cartilage. His upper body is a tiny twig and lower body a giant orb, so lungs and heart are probably in the lower body. That's just too alien to register.

Yes I would admit that Donald Duck might not have been the best example for this given that his degree of "non-humanity" probably saves him from being judged a completely irredeemable pervert. Clearly he's gotten away with being pantless for almost 100 years now so obviously they won't be "fixing" him anytime soon. Still I'd hope you'd get my point of Donald Duck being one of the most iconic examples of a famous character that's gotten away with being semi-nude for decades.

Perhaps a more interesting anthropomorphic example (from the point of view of clothing equality amongst the sexes) would be Lola Bunny:

Has there ever been a time when she was officially depicted -without- being fully clothed (top and bottom) even though Bugs Bunny still traditionally prances around effectively nude by default? ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
TitansCity wrote:
TitansCity wrote:

Anyway, the character pattern are already build and they do not have nipples or bulge or whatever ^^ This debate is done actually :)

Well I would at least agree that the currently existing versions of the male and female models (as of April 2018) are likely what we're going to get for launch regardless of the degree of their current respective nipple/bulge visibility. But I would argue that the "debate" about those things will never really be "done". ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Perhaps a more interesting example (from the point of view of clothing equality amongst the sexes) would be Lola Bunny.

Has there ever been a time when she was officially depicted -without- being fully clothed (top and bottom) even though Bugs Bunny still traditionally prances around effectively nude by default? ;)

It's probably because Bugs is depicted as male without the need for sex related characteristics while Lola very obviously has female sex characteristics and the relation to the target audience of pre-teens.
Shows that didn't target pre-teens, Batman the animated series and Justice League, both had a character called Cheetah who was unclothed.

I don't see anything wrong with these kinds of alternate body or texture swaps. I loved that I could make characters who might not wear clothes (animorphic or alien bodies) in DCU and not worry about it being too risque

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Perhaps a more interesting example (from the point of view of clothing equality amongst the sexes) would be Lola Bunny.

Has there ever been a time when she was officially depicted -without- being fully clothed (top and bottom) even though Bugs Bunny still traditionally prances around effectively nude by default? ;)

It's probably because Bugs is depicted as male without the need for sex related characteristics while Lola very obviously has female sex characteristics and the relation to the target audience of pre-teens.

Oh I have no real question in my mind why Lola Bunny is always shown fully clothed - if you discounted her relatively big rabbit-like feet, her head and her bunny tail the rest of her body is effectively 99.9% human female shaped. I'm actually more highlighting how Bugs gets away with being nude most of the time. Ironically much of the time he actually does have clothes on he's in drag but that's another issue entirely.

I get that he's basically had the "Ken Doll" treatment as far a sexual characteristics go, but still like Lola he's drawn fairly anthropomorphically so at best he's kind of a borderline case. Just saying that to be absolutely "fair" either Bugs should always have clothes on or Lola shouldn't.

Brainbot wrote:

Shows that didn't target pre-teens, Batman the animated series and Justice League, both had a character called Cheetah who was unclothed.

Now when it comes to Cheetah (arguably one of Wonder Woman's top five nemeses) we have yet another character that's been around for 80+ years. She's been depicted in various guises spanning from a human female in a skin-tight catsuit to the more anthropomorphic human-cat hybrid in seen recent years. The character was even a "he" at one brief point but I'm not going to dwell on that too much. The point is that her latest incarnations have truly blurred the lines between a "naked human shaped animal thing" and simply a "naked human female":

Does this pic show Cheetah to be some kind of exotic cat-like mutant or just a sexy nude supermodel covered in spots and a super-glued tail? You tell me. ;)

Brainbot wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with these kinds of alternate body or texture swaps. I loved that I could make characters who might not wear clothes (animorphic or alien bodies) in DCU and not worry about it being too risque

I don't consider this "too risqué" either considering comic books have been selling this degree of "pseudo-nudity" to kids for decades. Like I said before I do hope CoT takes a cue from DCUO as far as "how far" they will allow us to take this. I'm mainly just following this point to discuss the idea of whether CoT could (or should) do anything about potential "Donald Ducks" clothing-wise. I'm just saying they should be allowed regardless if they seem a bit weird and/or unsettling to some people because the likely alternative pretty much means we'd be forced to wear "modesty" tops and bottoms regardless of skin texture.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

avelworldcreator
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 58 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 12:19
No nipples, no bumps, no

No nipples, no bumps, no bulging "packages", no worries. Beyond that it's up to the costume team, legal, and some of our PR people. I'm not one of those authorities (well, I do a little legal....).

-----------

Senior Developer/Project Manager/Co-Founder,,, and then some.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
avelworldcreator wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

No nipples, no bumps, no bulging "packages", no worries.

Yeah we get that MWM is likely taking the "easy route" with most of this, in more ways than one.

avelworldcreator wrote:

Beyond that it's up to the costume team, legal, and some of our PR people. I'm not one of those authorities (well, I do a little legal....).

Yep you must be a Dev - this statement tells us almost nothing of any real substance. ;)

Perhaps you can comment on the recent points people have brought up here about what's possible in DCUO as far as "non human skin textured nudity" goes. For example would we be able to create something like a modern-era Cheetah in CoT...

or would something like that be forced to wear virtual "fig leaves" in the form of modesty bra/briefs?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Give her a 'fur-kini' and she

Give her a 'fur-kini' and she's fine. Chest is one of the places where animals have a little more fur.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Give her a 'fur-kini' and she's fine. Chest is one of the places where animals have a little more fur.

Right... because we all know people-shaped cats tend to have two huge silicone-based breasts hidden in their extra chest fur. ;)

How does that work with all the other DCUO inspired examples Huckleberry offered a few posts ago? Are you proposing the Devs of CoT provide a unique set of "modesty clothes" for each and every possible skin texture for both sexes? *sigh* I knew this is where this kind of thing was going to end up...

This is why I tend to laugh when Devs like avelworldcreator say things like "no worries" because when they decide to go overboard "playing things safe" (in this case to potentially avoid/prevent cases of pseudo-nudity) they tend to add more work for themselves to accomplish that.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Well, the alternative is to

Well, the alternative is to NOT leave that area 'bare naked' like in the image you posted. Frankly, that's all that would be required. Just build it into the fur texture. It doesn't have to be some sort of 'extra feature', it can all be part of the costume. No need for 'modesty' clothing if the skin textures simply don't 'expose' a person. That can work for both sexes.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Well, the alternative is to NOT leave that area 'bare naked' like in the image you posted. Frankly, that's all that would be required. Just build it into the fur texture. It doesn't have to be some sort of 'extra feature', it can all be part of the costume. No need for 'modesty' clothing if the skin textures simply don't 'expose' a person. That can work for both sexes.

Right... like I said you're effectively saying that every skin texture is going to have to have some kind of "intrinsic fig leaves" sewn into them. Have the Devs already wasted the extra time to do that? If they haven't when will they waste the extra time to do that? And how does that allow us to create the almost countless equivalents to characters that are "pseudo-naked" in the comic books?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
It seems as if we have gotten

It seems as if we have gotten into a discussion of texture. I made this little illustration to help:

The first line is an example of a surface with a rough texture.
The second line is an example of that same surface with a thin costume item over it. In this case, the costume item is too thin to avoid clipping with the texture.
One way of dealing with this clipping is to make the costume item thicker. But this adds to the offset of all subsequent layers above it, to prevent them from clipping with this layer, and so on; resulting in jackets that are 8 inches off your skin.
Another way of dealing with it is to somehow adjust the underlying texture so it does not clip, as shown in the fourth line.

But these illustrations ignore one important feature of Unreal Engine. That is: Material selection.

By selecting fur or crystal or some other material for our skin, Unreal Engine will give it the "look" of texture without any actual 3D depth.

For example, take a look at the various spandex textures in the latest character builder demonstration. The 3D mesh doesn't actually include all those bumps and divots in the costumes we see. No, those are an optical illusion created by the engine to look like bumps and divots.

As a result, I think Fireheart may be onto something. Merely making the skin look like fur obviates the need for any kind of furkini, and would be the solution for every skin, except, well, for actual skin.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

As a result, I think Fireheart may be onto something. Merely making the skin look like fur obviates the need for any kind of furkini, and would be the solution for every skin, except, well, for actual skin.

I think it's obvious that if this game could provide, for example full-body fur or shiny metal, that looked enough like actual fur or shiny metal that there would be no need for the Devs to have to add overt "furkinis" or extra metal plates (or whatever) to cover up imaginary "human naughty bits" then I'd be fine with it. Leave the "fig leaves" for only the "human skin" texture options.

Again for example I might want to be able to create something like this:

Not this:

It's not that I actually hate the second pic but it's 100% obvious that version was drawn with the desperate pretense to make you think she might be wearing some kind of furry off-white colored one-piece bathing suit. The first pic does not insult our collective intelligence by trying to "pretend" she's wearing clothing of any kind.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I'm not insulted.

I'm not insulted.

Sorry, I don't insist that we have the 'right' to nudity.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
As long as we don't show our

As long as we don't show our naked insecurities, it's all good. ;P

Shocking Blu

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I think it's obvious that if this game could provide, for example full-body fur or shiny metal, that looked enough like actual fur or shiny metal that there would be no need for the Devs to have to add overt "furkinis" or extra metal plates (or whatever) to cover up imaginary "human naughty bits" then I'd be fine with it. Leave the "fig leaves" for only the "human skin" texture options.
Again for example I might want to be able to create something like this:

Not this:

To create a character that looks like your first picture all it would require is a pallet option and transparency overlay. It is essentially an orange nude figure with spots. I don't have a problem with that type of character 'costume'. It wouldn't require more work than any other costume part.
The second picture is no more complicated, instead of (or more likely in addition to) using transparencies it would utilize normal, bump and depth maps that have been around pretty much as long as 3d modeling has been. I believe this is what Huck was trying to explain (he can correct me if he wants). For those who want a simple explanation of what normal, bump and depth maps are, they are a texture option that uses shade degrees to simulate depth and details on a 3d model without actually changing the 3d geometry of the model.
Neither option would require extra work to make possible as the character creator should already be set up to allow for pallet swapping and transparencies, as well as normal/depth/bump maps.
In other words, it comes down to a choice on the devs part to choose whether or not to require clothing over these costume options as there isn't any more work for either choice.

If I recall correctly, in CoH you were able to create what was basically a nude snake, cat, wolf/dog or various mineral people with relative ease because those chest and bottom options replaced the pants and top options. I see no reason why the devs wouldn't allow at least a comparative amount of freedom in CoT. In fact I hope they go a step further and actually allow us to add most any clothing to those same body textures unlike CoH which only allowed for a small selection of options. I would like it if we were given many more layering of costume options than CoH had.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 30 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I'm not insulted.

Sorry, I don't insist that we have the 'right' to nudity.

It's not so much about a "right" to nudity as it is to not have more modesty than what is effectively the normal level depicted within this genre.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I'm not insulted.

Sorry, I don't insist that we have the 'right' to nudity.

Case in point you are actually "insulted" by this idea for some pointless reason. Fortunately decades worth of comic books sold to kids essentially proves you and others who think like you do wrong in this regard.

Brainbot wrote:

In other words, it comes down to a choice on the devs part to choose whether or not to require clothing over these costume options as there isn't any more work for either choice.

When I use the term "extra work" to impose hints of clothing where none should be required I realize that's more of an "artistic decision" rather than a software limitation or requirement. Obviously if an artist chooses to throw in a patch of "different colored fur" or whatever it would take to make this:

look vaguely like she's wearing a one-piece swimsuit over her "real fur" that doing it would likely not be overly difficult to accomplish.

But I contend the mindset behind the idea that this character concept NEEDS to have a swimsuit over her "real fur" in order to be visually/socially acceptable is the crux of the problem at hand. If the Devs think they need to assess every texture to make sure a character "wearing" it would be considered "fully clothed" ONLY if they go out of their way to impose "virtual fig leaves" like in the above pic then I actually do still consider that EXTRA WORK wasted on the part of the Devs. I don't need them to nanny me enough through every character concept I'd want to create.

Basically imposing a layer of censorship always takes more time/effort no matter how thin the layer is.

One more time if this:

is acceptable to appear in comic books sold to kids every day then there should be absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be allowed to appear in CoT. Remember we've already had the likes of Dr. Manhattan and Mystique in major blockbuster movies...

Brainbot wrote:

If I recall correctly, in CoH you were able to create what was basically a nude snake, cat, wolf/dog or various mineral people with relative ease because those chest and bottom options replaced the pants and top options. I see no reason why the devs wouldn't allow at least a comparative amount of freedom in CoT. In fact I hope they go a step further and actually allow us to add most any clothing to those same body textures unlike CoH which only allowed for a small selection of options. I would like it if we were given many more layering of costume options than CoH had.

Yes I essentially agree with this. Sadly though if people like Fireheart were to get their way I'd fear that CoT would actually end up providing FEWER options than CoH just for the sake of preventing the style of "pseudo-nudity" that already plainly exists in the comic books.

blacke4dawn wrote:

It's not so much about a "right" to nudity as it is to not have more modesty than what is effectively the normal level depicted within this genre.

Bingo! At least someone around here gets it...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
I'm not sure why there is any

I'm not sure why there is any reason for a method of banning nudity, if, as earlier discussed, there is going to be a filter provided which is the visual equivalent of blocking. This was discussed when people were worried that freakishly proportioned characters were going to run rampant and ruin their playing experience. Seems it would work to keep you from being offended by nudity, as well. Honestly, this whole discussion reminds me of the West Coast Avenger story where the Vision was taken apart and reassembled, and USAgent was blowing a gasket because Vision, who was entirely white and, apparently, lacking genitalia, had no clothing. Vision formed a portion of himself into a cape and lines resembling a loincloth, and USAgent grumbled, "Well, at least he LOOKS like he has clothes on!" The Vision, meanwhile, was perplexed at the whole situation. LOL

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I'm not sure why there is any reason for a method of banning nudity, if, as earlier discussed, there is going to be a filter provided which is the visual equivalent of blocking. This was discussed when people were worried that freakishly proportioned characters were going to run rampant and ruin their playing experience. Seems it would work to keep you from being offended by nudity, as well. Honestly, this whole discussion reminds me of the West Coast Avenger story where the Vision was taken apart and reassembled, and USAgent was blowing a gasket because Vision, who was entirely white and, apparently, lacking genitalia, had no clothing. Vision formed a portion of himself into a cape and lines resembling a loincloth, and USAgent grumbled, "Well, at least he LOOKS like he has clothes on!" The Vision, meanwhile, was perplexed at the whole situation. LOL

Yes such a "costume ignore" filter has been recently discussed as a means to selectively avoid having to look at specific "offensive/annoying" costumes.

But as far as I know no Dev has actually confirmed whether such a thing will be in CoT or has even really been considered. If a Dev could actually confirm if they've even contemplated such a feature then maybe it could be talked about in relation to this current topic of "comic book nudity thresholds".

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I'm not sure why there is any reason for a method of banning nudity, if, as earlier discussed, there is going to be a filter provided which is the visual equivalent of blocking. This was discussed when people were worried that freakishly proportioned characters were going to run rampant and ruin their playing experience. Seems it would work to keep you from being offended by nudity, as well. Honestly, this whole discussion reminds me of the West Coast Avenger story where the Vision was taken apart and reassembled, and USAgent was blowing a gasket because Vision, who was entirely white and, apparently, lacking genitalia, had no clothing. Vision formed a portion of himself into a cape and lines resembling a loincloth, and USAgent grumbled, "Well, at least he LOOKS like he has clothes on!" The Vision, meanwhile, was perplexed at the whole situation. LOL

Yes such a "costume ignore" filter has been recently discussed as a means to selectively avoid having to look at specific "offensive/annoying" costumes.

But as far as I know no Dev has actually confirmed whether such a thing will be in CoT or has even really been considered. If a Dev could actually confirm if they've even contemplated such a feature then maybe it could be talked about in relation to this current topic of "comic book nudity thresholds".

If the Devs could confirm such a feature, the topic would then be moot. :)

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I'm not sure why there is any reason for a method of banning nudity, if, as earlier discussed, there is going to be a filter provided which is the visual equivalent of blocking. This was discussed when people were worried that freakishly proportioned characters were going to run rampant and ruin their playing experience. Seems it would work to keep you from being offended by nudity, as well.

Yes such a "costume ignore" filter has been recently discussed as a means to selectively avoid having to look at specific "offensive/annoying" costumes.

But as far as I know no Dev has actually confirmed whether such a thing will be in CoT or has even really been considered. If a Dev could actually confirm if they've even contemplated such a feature then maybe it could be talked about in relation to this current topic of "comic book nudity thresholds".

If the Devs could confirm such a feature, the topic would then be moot. :)

Or at least it would serve as a reasonable compromise for those who might -actually- be worried about this.

Frankly the idea that you'd need a filter to cover up the "naughty kitty cat lady" for looking even remotely like she's naked in the game seems kind of ludicrous to me. But if having that kind of optional filter means the rest of us could create the types of characters we've seen in comic books for decades then I'm all for its inclusion in the game. I would never use it, but maybe it would make other people feel better knowing it was in the game.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Mehh. Whether you use it or

Mehh. Whether you use it or not is not the point. It would be there for those who feel the need of it, so that others need not be pointlessly limited. If s villain with a swastika on his chest offends you, use the filter, rather than forbid the swastika. Video don't ask, don't tell. :)

Shocking Blu

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 47 min 20 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

Mehh. Whether you use it or not is not the point. It would be there for those who feel the need of it, so that others need not be pointlessly limited. If s villain with a swastika on his chest offends you, use the filter, rather than forbid the swastika. Video don't ask, don't tell. :)

My first thought was this was a poor example, as in several countries in Europe the swastika is already banned, if we wish to sell the game in those countries we must ban it. But then I realized that the real issue is , is the faux swimsuit needed to maintain the T For Teen rating?

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
Teen friendly or faux? It's a

Teen friendly or faux? It's a good question in this genre.

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

Mehh. Whether you use it or not is not the point. It would be there for those who feel the need of it, so that others need not be pointlessly limited. If s villain with a swastika on his chest offends you, use the filter, rather than forbid the swastika. Video don't ask, don't tell. :)

Sadly there's a big difference between things that would uniquely offend a few random people and things that society has collectively decided universally offends ubiquitously.

Sure some people might feel that modern depictions of characters like Dr. Manhattan or Cheetah cross the line in terms of socially acceptable nudity, but clearly most people don't think that otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to look like that in comic books.

On the other hand virtually everyone in modern society has "collectively decided" that swastikas are irredeemably symbolic of racial hatred thus it's completely appropriate for a game like CoT to arbitrarily prevent them from appearing in the game.

The metric is rather simple for what should and shouldn't appear in a game like CoT: The Devs of this game should only act to unilaterally censor content that the vast overwhelming majority have accepted as universally unacceptable. At best I'd consider a questionably naked Cheetah as maybe a 50/50 issue whereas probably 90% or more publicly accept that swastikas are not appropriate. See the difference?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

Mehh. Whether you use it or not is not the point. It would be there for those who feel the need of it, so that others need not be pointlessly limited. If s villain with a swastika on his chest offends you, use the filter, rather than forbid the swastika. Video don't ask, don't tell. :)

My first thought was this was a poor example, as in several countries in Europe the swastika is already banned, if we wish to sell the game in those countries we must ban it. But then I realized that the real issue is , is the faux swimsuit needed to maintain the T For Teen rating?

I would argue that it is -not- simply based on the way the comic book industry has handled this issue for decades. Now if this game was strictly intended for 5 year olds then maybe some consideration along those lines would be in order. But even in that relatively unrealistic hypothetical I would lean towards it -not- being necessary.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Airhead wrote:
Airhead wrote:

Teen friendly or faux? It's a good question in this genre.

As a matter of academic completeness I would agree that this discussion is worth having. But as I've made clear the precedent established by the comic book industry should lead us -all- to the conclusion that certain forms of "nudity based on plausible deniability" has been firmly established to be socially acceptable (or at least tolerable).

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

SisterSilicon
SisterSilicon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 20:14
Hypotheticals are nice, but

[edit: Never mind. Can’t eat lunch with one hand and keep up with Lothic’s rants with the other, and I repeated somebody else’s comment.]

Twitter: @SisterSilicon

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I still insist that there's a

I still insist that there's a reasonable compromise between 'nude' and 'modesty suit'. I also insist that making the textures a little... thicker in some areas would not represent 'more work' than otherwise - except insofar as adding textures to a 'skin' is more work than not doing so. It's about proper grooming, is all.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
SisterSilicon wrote:
SisterSilicon wrote:

[edit: Never mind. Can’t eat lunch with one hand and keep up with Lothic’s rants with the other, and I repeated somebody else’s comment.]

I prefer the term 'constructive pontification' myself. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 11 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
SisterSilicon wrote:
SisterSilicon wrote:

[edit: Never mind. Can’t eat lunch with one hand and keep up with Lothic’s rants with the other, and I repeated somebody else’s comment.]

Lol

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I still insist that there's a reasonable compromise between 'nude' and 'modesty suit'. I also insist that making the textures a little... thicker in some areas would not represent 'more work' than otherwise - except insofar as adding textures to a 'skin' is more work than not doing so. It's about proper grooming, is all.

As I responded to Brainbot a few posts ago I liken the extra time/effort it would it take to handle the "extra layer" of self-imposed censorship to be the "more work" I was alluding to. I simply don't want the Devs to be tossing out "virtual fig leaves" when arguably none are required.

But having said that I'm clearly mindful of the idea that (again as I recently said) there does have to be at least the "plausible deniability" of clothing for this to work. For instance I'd consider something like the following pic to be fine for CoT:

because there's enough fur going on here to maintain the "plausible deniability" that he's not overtly nude.

But even I might question something like this:

simply because merely painting a nude human body in a slightly atypical skin tone color is obviously skirting the outer boundaries of "plausible deniability".

Again as Huckleberry pointed out it'll mostly boil down to how well UE4 can render these various textures in question. If it can undeniably generate realistic looking fur, metal, stone, fire and/or any other kind of non-human skin texture that will make the average viewer accept that a given character "isn't technically nude because X, Y or Z" then everything will be hunky-dory.

I guess my main point here is that the implementation of "modesty bras/briefs" should be the absolute last resort of lazy development. If the Devs of CoT do their job right and get the most out of the UE4 graphics capabilities then the need for such ham-fisted solutions should be able to be kept to a minimum.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 45 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Tyche already addressed this

Tyche already addressed this issue. The textures applied will always make it appear that the body isn’t “nude”. Even if the pieces are the same color as the skin.

Now for making furry costumes pieces and furry faces, that is all about applying texture.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 11 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
notears wrote:

We could also make it so that the female model doesn't have nipples, would probably be easier to program too

I would sadly agree that "solution" would likely solve a lot of problems. I say 'sadly' because I'd hate them having to resort once again to the "Barbie-ization" of the female model's chest just because they couldn't find a better way to handle the natural anatomy of the human female body.

This goes back the question of whether it would be OK if we saw "nipple bumps" when a character is wearing tight-fitting spandex-like clothing. In the real world a woman literally has the -option- to wear either a bra and/or 'pasties' that would prevent the nips from being visible. Would we also be given this realistic option to choose or will the Devs simply decide it's easier to pretend human females don't have nipples and make the arbitrary decision for us? Frankly I'd actually like to decide for my OWN characters whether I'd want their nips to be visible like that or not because as it turns out some of my characters would like them visible while others most certainly wouldn't. My characters, my choice.

Just as a matter of related trivia one of the very first nerfs the Devs of CoH imposed on the game just a few weeks after it launched had to do with a change to the female character model which made the "visual 3D hint" of the female nipple much less pronounced. It was effectively a "nipple nerf" and many of us called it that (and hated it) for the remainder of CoH's existence.

Huckleberry wrote:

This is what CoX did to an extent with things like metallic skin and all the spandex options, which were really just paint. But CoX didn't take it nearly as far as DCUO. Because in DCUO, you can make a totally nude character as long as their body is made of some substance other than human flesh.

Yeah the whole metric of what's considered "acceptable nudity" does change when you throw in all the possibilities that the superhero genre offers. I would think/hope that whatever a game like DCUO "got away with" in this area should provide a baseline for what CoT should be able to get away with as well.

I'd accept allowing both males and females to effectively be nude in CoT as long as they are "wearing" any non-human skin texture. If they try to go nude with the "standard human skin" texture they should both have the mandatory "modesty briefs" and females should have the mandatory "modesty bra". If a human skin textured guy or gal wears any article of clothing that would be flagged as "acceptable coverage" then the mandatory "fig leaf" modesty clothing would be automatically removed (but could be optionally replaced back if desired). Does that cover all the bases?

Huckleberry wrote:

And I always found that this form of thematic nudity was okay somehow. ... until you put some clothes on only a portion of it. Then the unclothed portions all of a sudden became scandalous. Picture any of these with only a bikini top or only a bikini bottom and the brain goes, "what did I just see?"

I basically call this the "Donald Duck" scenario. I agree it always seemed strange to me that characters like Donald Duck could get away with wearing a shirt but no pants. If he doesn't need pants why is he wearing a shirt?

Practically speaking I don't know how you allow "non-human skin texture" nudity in a game like this without allowing for the possibility that someone might make a character like Donald who only wore a shirt or a female that only wore pants. In other words I'm not sure the Devs should specifically try to prevent that as a possibility no matter how "off-putting" it could be. *shrugs*

Well if we want to keep this game rated T for Teen then nipples on a female should be no go, just like how a guy can't have a visible cock and balls. Yes barbieification sucks but so does kenification, and both are necessary for games that aren't rated M. It's a necessary evil.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Tyche already addressed this issue. The textures applied will always make it appear that the body isn’t “nude”. Even if the pieces are the same color as the skin.

As a typical Dev he might have "addressed" the issue but I'm not completely sure if he unambiguously "answered" the issue.

Does the phrase "textures applied will always make it appear that the body isn’t nude" apply to ALL possible skin textures or will there still be the need to apply "modesty underwear" to at least some cases (i.e. standard human skin in standard human skin tones) that might be considered completely nude otherwise? Will CoT basically conform to the DCUO examples Huckleberry showed us earlier in the thread or will there be some other "threshold of nudity" applied to CoT?

Tannim222 wrote:

Now for making furry costumes pieces and furry faces, that is all about applying texture.

Right, again with the obvious statement that really adds no tangible value to the conversation. Just to be clear we're not -just- talking about furry textures. We're basically talking about ANY skin texture that would be arguably impossible for a human to have in real life but could be easily possible in a superhero setting. For example would something like the following pic be possible in CoT?

I would argue that it ought to be acceptable because the "shiny metal" texture provides the plausible deniability that this is not technically a nude human female but a "robot" that's coincidentally shaped like a nude human female.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

Well if we want to keep this game rated T for Teen then nipples on a female should be no go, just like how a guy can't have a visible cock and balls. Yes barbieification sucks but so does kenification, and both are necessary for games that aren't rated M. It's a necessary evil.

Yeah I think we had avelworldcreator chime in here late yesterday to clearly state that MWM is not going to implement proper human anatomy as it relates to the "naughty bits".

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 45 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Lothic, what you won’t have

Lothic, what you won’t have is the “painted on”’ look like the old game had for some costume pieces. Every piece has a texture which makes it distinct from the skin texture.

When it comes to making a furry face and furry body match up so they look like the character is covered in fur and not a “fur swim suit”, is a matter of applying the same texture to the face and costume parts.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Lothic, what you won’t have is the “painted on”’ look like the old game had for some costume pieces. Every piece has a texture which makes it distinct from the skin texture.

When it comes to making a furry face and furry body match up so they look like the character is covered in fur and not a “fur swim suit”, is a matter of applying the same texture to the face and costume parts.

I really do ask for so little... see how much more a few extra words adds to the discussion.

P.S. Now could you say 'yea' or 'nay' to the Sorayama pic? ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 45 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
It has pointy bits that we

It has pointy bits that we won’t have so...


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 31 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I think what he said was 'no

I think what he said was 'no nude nudes', which ought to be sufficient. You can make your shiny chrome Sorayama, but it will probably be a little less flamboyant.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

It has pointy bits that we won’t have so...

Well you'll have to grant me some leeway with the pics I can find to link to this forum in short notice - obviously I can't be expected to find the one mythical Sorayama pic on the Internet that doesn't have the "pointy bits". ;)

So would I be correct in saying that if this example had slightly more "featureless" robo-breasts (i.e. no robo-nips) that something like this would be possible/acceptable for CoT?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Actually, the popularity of

Actually, the popularity of nudity vs. the unpopularity of swastikas is NOT the issue (not that i expect Lothic to admit to being mistaken in any fashion, of course). The fact that nudity of various sorts appears in comics, and so should be fine in the game means that swastikas which have appeared in comics (associated with the basest villains, obviously) measn that they should be usable (on villains only). The fact that the one doesn;t offend you, personally, but the others does, is no reason for them to be treated thus differently.

Shocking Blu

avelworldcreator
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 58 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 12:19
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

No nipples, no bumps, no bulging "packages", no worries.

Yeah we get that MWM is likely taking the "easy route" with most of this, in more ways than one.

avelworldcreator wrote:

Beyond that it's up to the costume team, legal, and some of our PR people. I'm not one of those authorities (well, I do a little legal....).

Yep you must be a Dev - this statement tells us almost nothing of any real substance. ;)

Perhaps you can comment on the recent points people have brought up here about what's possible in DCUO as far as "non human skin textured nudity" goes. For example would we be able to create something like a modern-era Cheetah in CoT...

or would something like that be forced to wear virtual "fig leaves" in the form of modesty bra/briefs?

I have no clue about this issue. Apparently there was a formal promise as part of the Kickstarter that we maintain "family friendly" and a "T" rating. Think "Comic Code". If it fits those standards it should be acceptable. Honestly no one on the team has discussed anything else about this topic in my presence. But there is no "easy route" on this subject for us. The way we have to treat the genders in such an uneven manner is problematic for costume creation and implementation. It increases the size of the database and the number of code paths I have to work on. I hope this doesn't come across as overly defensive as I'm just trying to expose some of the technical problems we have by choosing this path.

When this topic came up I remembered watching a PBS program about a early 18th-19th century boxing match. It was a racially tinged matter if I recall and the clothing of the participants in the match was so skin-tight and form fitting it left no question about the gender of the parties - in graphic detail! When you consider this was an era that emphasized modesty even more than we do today this was kind of shocking but it seems to have acceptable anyways.

Do I think our current mores tend to be absurd? Personally, yes. But my values are not universal and I have to respect that of our players and my fellow team members (one is a very devout and fairly conservative practioner of Judaism - and extremely good friend. This is a sensitive topic for him and I will respect his space on this issue). Do I personally like the "Barbie doll" nature of our characters? No. But I can only speak for myself.

The internal and external politics on this one are very, very touchy and I'm in such a position that I have to be even more careful than most. I'm not just a normal developer but a management level person and a current member of our company's board of directors - as well as one of the principal founders. So, like it or not, what I say reflects on the company and the project as a whole. If I sound non-committal this is because of the caution I have to speak with when it comes to anything that touches on this project. It's frustrating but an unfortunate reality of what I'm involved in.

-----------

Senior Developer/Project Manager/Co-Founder,,, and then some.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

Actually, the popularity of nudity vs. the unpopularity of swastikas is NOT the issue (not that i expect Lothic to admit to being mistaken in any fashion, of course). The fact that nudity of various sorts appears in comics, and so should be fine in the game means that swastikas which have appeared in comics (associated with the basest villains, obviously) measn that they should be usable (on villains only). The fact that the one doesn;t offend you, personally, but the others does, is no reason for them to be treated thus differently.

One of those things could prevent people in certain countries from being able to play this game. I think you know which one of these things I'm talking about and I have no reason to "admit" anything because I'm NOT mistaken about that.

This has nothing to do with what "various random individuals" are offended by. There are relatively few absolutes in this world when it comes to "things which are universally considered to be bad". Swastikas are one of those things and because of the history involved will probably always be one of those things.

As you point out the only time you might have seen swastikas in comic books are when they were used by the "bad guys". I can assure you no protagonist in any comic book would have been caught WEARING one as you suggest should be allowed in CoT. The attempt to say that they should be considered "fine" for people playing villainous characters is a very weak pretense that'll never fly in this day and age.

Let's just say the Devs of CoT would likely allow overt pornography to exist in CoT before you'd ever see an officially sanctioned depiction of a swastika. That's -really- just how bad that is, period.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

avelworldcreator
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 58 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 12:19
Oh. Catching up with other

Oh. Catching up with other comments.
No "nude nudes". I think Tannim covered this topic pretty well.
No we don't have any alpha testing going on yet. I'm working very hard to get that in place. I'm debating describing what I'm doing as far as this matter is concerned but I'll probably do it in a separate forum topic. We really need to use our developer blog more for that kind of thing.
Technically what we will be releasing first is the game but only having the character creator enabled. I'm debating just having this first interation only storing stuff locally so login and server security isn't an immediate issue. When the next iteration rolls out more of the game will enabled. I suspect the next target will be the chat system but that's not an authoritive statement.

-----------

Senior Developer/Project Manager/Co-Founder,,, and then some.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
avelworldcreator wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:
Lothic wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

No nipples, no bumps, no bulging "packages", no worries.

Yeah we get that MWM is likely taking the "easy route" with most of this, in more ways than one.

avelworldcreator wrote:

Beyond that it's up to the costume team, legal, and some of our PR people. I'm not one of those authorities (well, I do a little legal....).

Yep you must be a Dev - this statement tells us almost nothing of any real substance. ;)

Perhaps you can comment on the recent points people have brought up here about what's possible in DCUO as far as "non human skin textured nudity" goes. For example would we be able to create something like a modern-era Cheetah in CoT...

or would something like that be forced to wear virtual "fig leaves" in the form of modesty bra/briefs?

I have no clue about this issue. Apparently there was a formal promise as part of the Kickstarter that we maintain "family friendly" and a "T" rating. Think "Comic Code". If it fits those standards it should be acceptable. Honestly no one on the team has discussed anything else about this topic in my presence. But there is no "easy route" on this subject for us. The way we have to treat the genders in such an uneven manner is problematic for costume creation and implementation. It increases the size of the database and the number of code paths I have to work on. I hope this doesn't come across as overly defensive as I'm just trying to expose some of the technical problems we have by choosing this path.

When this topic came up I remembered watching a PBS program about a early 18th-19th century boxing match. It was a racially tinged matter if I recall and the clothing of the participants in the match was so skin-tight and form fitting it left no question about the gender of the parties - in graphic detail! When you consider this was an era that emphasized modesty even more than we do today this was kind of shocking but it seems to have acceptable anyways.

Do I think our current mores tend to be absurd? Personally, yes. But my values are not universal and I have to respect that of our players and my fellow team members (one is a very devout and fairly conservative practioner of Judaism - and extremely good friend. This is a sensitive topic for him and I will respect his space on this issue). Do I personally like the "Barbie doll" nature of our characters? No. But I can only speak for myself.

The internal and external politics on this one are very, very touchy and I'm in such a position that I have to be even more careful than most. I'm not just a normal developer but a management level person and a current member of our company's board of directors - as well as one of the principal founders. So, like it or not, what I say reflects on the company and the project as a whole. If I sound non-committal this is because of the caution I have to speak with when it comes to anything that touches on this project. It's frustrating but an unfortunate reality of what I'm involved in.

Look I get that the realities of developing game intended for a "public audience" based indirectly on the "Comic Code" is going to require the folks of MWM to adhere a "common denominator policy" where it comes to all the issues of social acceptability and societal norms. Obviously this challenge will require you to satisfy the majority while hopefully providing enough compromises to the minority to keep the most people as happy with CoT as possible. We all know that and I accept those concepts as "standard boilerplate".

My primary concern is not that the Devs will collectively "cross the red line" you've established for yourselves. My fear is that you won't fight to "get away with" as much as you can up to the very edge of that line. For example it's pretty much always been a given that CoT will not allow overtly obvious nudity in the game ("nude nudes" as you say) and I'm not stupid enough to be suggesting that should be allowed in CoT. But I AM a strong advocate for this game to allow for as much as humanly possible; to push those self-imposed societal boundaries to the breaking point. Comic books push the boundaries of what's acceptable in these socially relevant areas. They test us and force us to consider possibilities outside of our established "boxes". I just don't want to see the folks at MWM cower in the face of these challenges and decide, "Well if we can't have full nudity we might as well force everyone to wear burkas".

Push the limits until it hurts. If you don't you run the chance of CoT being taken for a regressive, backward thinking game.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 19 hours ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Push the limits until it hurts. If you don't you run the chance of CoT being taken for a regressive, backward thinking game.

That's a -bit- dramatic.

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
jtpaull wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Push the limits until it hurts. If you don't you run the chance of CoT being taken for a regressive, backward thinking game.

That's a -bit- dramatic.

But it did make you -think- about it which was basically the point.

Whenever I see Devs whining that they can't do this, that or the other thing it simply makes me wonder what other things they aren't willing to try for. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 58 min 44 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
avelworldcreator wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

Oh. Catching up with other comments.
No "nude nudes". I think Tannim covered this topic pretty well.
No we don't have any alpha testing going on yet. I'm working very hard to get that in place. I'm debating describing what I'm doing as far as this matter is concerned but I'll probably do it in a separate forum topic. We really need to use our developer blog more for that kind of thing.
Technically what we will be releasing first is the game but only having the character creator enabled. I'm debating just having this first interation only storing stuff locally so login and server security isn't an immediate issue. When the next iteration rolls out more of the game will enabled. I suspect the next target will be the chat system but that's not an authoritive statement.

Seems reasonable. Thanks for the info.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

Oh. Catching up with other comments.
No "nude nudes". I think Tannim covered this topic pretty well.
No we don't have any alpha testing going on yet. I'm working very hard to get that in place. I'm debating describing what I'm doing as far as this matter is concerned but I'll probably do it in a separate forum topic. We really need to use our developer blog more for that kind of thing.
Technically what we will be releasing first is the game but only having the character creator enabled. I'm debating just having this first interation only storing stuff locally so login and server security isn't an immediate issue. When the next iteration rolls out more of the game will enabled. I suspect the next target will be the chat system but that's not an authoritive statement.

Seems reasonable. Thanks for the info.

As always any info from the Devs that actually adds to our collective knowledge is appreciated.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Push the limits until it hurts. If you don't you run the chance of CoT being taken for a regressive, backward thinking game.

That's a -bit- dramatic.

But it did make you -think- about it which was basically the point.

Whenever I see Devs whining that they can't do this, that or the other thing it simply makes me wonder what other things they aren't willing to try for. *shrugs*

This is philosophical bullying at its finest. "If you don't do it my way, you are backward and stupid!" Par for the course from someone who pretends that having a swastika available for a villain (and it has been stated unequivocably that villains will be a playable part of the game) means that it would have to be available for heroes (who, almost by definition, would not be wearing them, any more than they would be wearing a hammer and sickle), and brings up the fact that the swastika is banned in some countries, while misleading about the fact that any form of nudity is also banned in some countries. The fact that we might agree with one and not the other is beside the point.
Also, if the Comics Code is the yardstick (meterstick for those who prefer), then the picture shown of the robo-woman should be perfectly acceptable, given the Marvel character Jocasta. As for the example given of the boxers in Victoria era, this was NOT considered "socially acceptable". Boxers (and most other forms of entertainer, for that matter) were considered, at best, necessary evils, and "quality" folk would NEVER associate, or even wholeheartedly APPROVE of such persons. Much like pornography in modern times. Nearly everyone looks at it, but almost no one would openly associate with pornographers, and even displaying it can get you fired. What society will tolerate, and what it approves of, are wildly different things. People don't seem to get that. Because people do not wholeheartedly embrace your particular choices, does not mean they don't tolerate them.

Shocking Blu

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
How would you make the

How would you make the distinction between heroes and villains when the game doesn't have that much distinction between them?

There's hero and villain paths but neither label your character as a hero or villain, and as far as I'm aware you can switch paths or take new ones... So you would be able to get a swastika on a hero if they went through a villain path.

Unless weirdly you only get access to that emblem while on a villain path, in which you wouldn't be able to have it upon creation... And would lose it if you changed paths.

Overall very complicated and would probably be better to just not have it available.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:
Lothic wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Push the limits until it hurts. If you don't you run the chance of CoT being taken for a regressive, backward thinking game.

That's a -bit- dramatic.

But it did make you -think- about it which was basically the point.

Whenever I see Devs whining that they can't do this, that or the other thing it simply makes me wonder what other things they aren't willing to try for. *shrugs*

This is philosophical bullying at its finest. "If you don't do it my way, you are backward and stupid!" Par for the course from someone who pretends that having a swastika available for a villain (and it has been stated unequivocably that villains will be a playable part of the game) means that it would have to be available for heroes (who, almost by definition, would not be wearing them, any more than they would be wearing a hammer and sickle), and brings up the fact that the swastika is banned in some countries, while misleading about the fact that any form of nudity is also banned in some countries. The fact that we might agree with one and not the other is beside the point.

If CoT doesn't allow for the same general costuming options found in most modern comic books then it will be considered "stupid" (to use your word) as an effective superhero game. And while overt public nudity is specifically banned/limited in MOST countries (not just "some") that doesn't stop comic books from "getting away with" what they get away with. These are facts, not my "convenient opinions".

As far as this swastika kick you're on goes you do understand (EDIT: Project_Hero beat me to this) that no player character in CoT will be labeled as a strict hero or villain right? How do you differentiate which player characters could "legally" wear a swastika versus which couldn't?

I really can't quite wrap my head around this false equivalency you're trying to draw between swastikas and comic book styled depictions of nudity. While nudity is simply a mildly titillating subject (pun intended) swastikas (as perverted by the WWII era Nazis) are nothing but symbols of racial hatred with no redeeming value. These two things couldn't be more different in their relative magnitude of "naughtiness" if you tried. It's painfully simplistic to define one of these things as "acceptable under the right circumstances" and the other to be "never acceptable under any circumstances".

Mordheim13 wrote:

Also, if the Comics Code is the yardstick (meterstick for those who prefer), then the picture shown of the robo-woman should be perfectly acceptable, given the Marvel character Jocasta. As for the example given of the boxers in Victoria era, this was NOT considered "socially acceptable". Boxers (and most other forms of entertainer, for that matter) were considered, at best, necessary evils, and "quality" folk would NEVER associate, or even wholeheartedly APPROVE of such persons. Much like pornography in modern times. Nearly everyone looks at it, but almost no one would openly associate with pornographers, and even displaying it can get you fired. What society will tolerate, and what it approves of, are wildly different things. People don't seem to get that. Because people do not wholeheartedly embrace your particular choices, does not mean they don't tolerate them.

In this forum I really only care about what the Devs of CoT plan to allow/disallow in CoT. Comic books are just about the only "outside source material" that's relevant to this game based on what this game is based on. I simply don't want the CoT Devs to set their bar to a more conservative position on these matters than they have to "just because".

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
avelworldcreator wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

But there is no "easy route" on this subject for us. The way we have to treat the genders in such an uneven manner is problematic for costume creation and implementation. It increases the size of the database and the number of code paths I have to work on. I hope this doesn't come across as overly defensive as I'm just trying to expose some of the technical problems we have by choosing this path.

While I admit I started this discussion rather tongue-in-cheek back up in post #645. This statement addresses the very issue I brought up. That there is an intent by the developers to actually have a male model and a female model so that the base layer of "acceptable" nudity is different for each, and I will probably be able to create a shirtless male character.

Thanks for the answer AvelWorldCreator.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Teletubbies wear no clothes

Teletubbies wear no clothes and that is a childrens show........

notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 11 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

Teletubbies wear no clothes and that is a childrens show........

Teletubbies don't have nipples either

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
notears wrote:
notears wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

Teletubbies wear no clothes and that is a childrens show........

Teletubbies don't have nipples either

or genitals

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
avelworldcreator wrote:

But there is no "easy route" on this subject for us. The way we have to treat the genders in such an uneven manner is problematic for costume creation and implementation. It increases the size of the database and the number of code paths I have to work on. I hope this doesn't come across as overly defensive as I'm just trying to expose some of the technical problems we have by choosing this path.

While I admit I started this discussion rather tongue-in-cheek back up in post #645. This statement addresses the very issue I brought up. That there is an intent by the developers to actually have a male model and a female model so that the base layer of "acceptable" nudity is different for each, and I will be able to create a shirtless male character.

Thanks for the answer AvelWorldCreator.

Well if you think avelworldcreator finally managed to "answer" your question on this issue then more power to you. ;)

While it's true the Devs here initially experimented with the idea of a single unified body model (that would have served as the foundation for both male and female characters) I had pretty much accepted their announcement that they were moving past that idea to a dedicated separate male and female model system years ago. I guess from that point on I never really questioned the idea that they -wouldn't- have their own unique "nude default" configuration (no matter what that ended up being).

Did you seriously question whether males would've been allowed to be topless in CoT? I simply find it interesting what different players here stress as priorities and/or find important. :)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:
notears wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

Teletubbies wear no clothes and that is a childrens show........

Teletubbies don't have nipples either

or genitals

Sounds like they'd be perfect for CoT - the land of Kens and Barbies. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Pages