Announcements

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

Jiggle Physics: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

615 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Oh, never saw WW as being that invulnerable. I figured that's reasons her foes like Cheetah has a chance. She's durable, able to withstand blunt/concussive force but piercing/slashing damage could take her down.

Again on one hand I basically agree with you - I don't think Wonder Woman was ever TYPICALLY portrayed as being literally "bulletproof" in all cases.

On the other hand the "explanation" for why Wonder Woman bothers to deflect bullets with her bracelets was pretty funny and if you don't allow a bit of artistic license when it comes to her degree of invulnerability then the entire basis of the joke would be lost. Sometimes it's just easier to laugh at a given joke than to overanalyze it, especially when it's based on the abilities of fictional characters which have been open to interpretation for decades. ;)

Think of it this way with what I said earlier about vampires: What if someone came up with a particular clever joke about how garlic affects vampires but you happen to be one of those people who don't believe vampires are affected by garlic in any unique way. Would that make the joke any less funny to you? Perhaps, but only if you were so inflexible that you couldn't allow yourself to see the humor in it regardless of your stance on how you think fictional critters are "supposed" to work.

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

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Oh, I was laughing at the

Oh, I was laughing at the joke. :p I was just curious if she was actually that invunerable at some point. I'm curious if she is now O.O

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Oh, I was laughing at the joke. :p I was just curious if she was actually that invunerable at some point. I'm curious if she is now O.O

I honestly don't know. I like comic books but I'm not the type that reads hundreds of titles every month or keeps up with the current "canon" versions of every superhero. I do know that at some points she could and/or couldn't fly like Superman so it's pretty easy to assume they've tinkered around with her degree of "bulletproofness" in the last 70 years or so as well.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Step 1: Tell Joke.

Step 1: Tell Joke.
Step 2: Explain Joke.
Step 3: Laugh.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Laughed first. Then just got

Laughed first. Then just got to wondering. :p

It's like WW being made of clay. Some writers/artists play it up. Others say she's now human just born from clay (which is better imo).

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
What you have to remember is

What you have to remember is that the size of a woman's breasts (let alone how they move) have no influence over her native intelligence. If anything, the bigger a woman's breasts are, the dumber the MEN become around her.

Reposting a case in point that proves the thesis ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

What you have to remember is that the size of a woman's breasts (let alone how they move) have no influence over her native intelligence. If anything, the bigger a woman's breasts are, the dumber the MEN become around her.
Reposting a case in point that proves the thesis ...

Would it surprise you to learn that in Japan the women enjoy this even more than the men?

Whenever a new game comes out if the women's breasts don't move realistically female gamers in Japan write thousands of letters to the company complaining about "plastic boobs".

Seriously. Asia is a different mindset.

Not saying it's better, nor worse, but it is definitely different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Nyktos
Nyktos's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2014 - 16:07
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
What you have to remember is that the size of a woman's breasts (let alone how they move) have no influence over her native intelligence. If anything, the bigger a woman's breasts are, the dumber the MEN become around her.
Reposting a case in point that proves the thesis ...

Would it surprise you to learn that in Japan the women enjoy this even more than the men?
Whenever a new game comes out if the women's breasts don't move realistically female gamers in Japan write thousands of letters to the company complaining about "plastic boobs".
Seriously. Asia is a different mindset.
Not saying it's better, nor worse, but it is definitely different.

I am not surprised about that. Japan seems more aware and accepting of humanity's natural perverted nature then some other prominent countries around the globe.

I won't complain about jiggle physics or boobs (even know that is not my preferred part of the female body and even then I don't realy care that much about it) as long as they don't get take priority over developing mechanics of the game

Formerly known as Bleddyn

Do you want to be a hero?

My characters

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

If anything, the bigger a woman's breasts are, the dumber the MEN become around her.

South Park handled this scenario fairly well with the episode "Bebe's Boobs Destroy Society". When Bebe starts to develop breasts all the boys devolve into primitive "cave boys" and begin to unconsciously bicker/compete amongst themselves for her affections. Is there nothing South Park can't show us? ;)

Redlynne wrote:

Reposting a case in point that proves the thesis ...

Again I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of jiggle/sway action when a woman moves around in CoT but I honestly don't really need to see anything like this vid that would imply that breasts could keep moving indefinitely like slow-mo perpetual motion machines. I'd want this kind of thing to be noticeable in passing, not to be made into an entirely new "follow the bouncing boob" mini-game.

Bleddyn wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Would it surprise you to learn that in Japan the women enjoy this even more than the men?

I am not surprised about that. Japan seems more aware and accepting of humanity's natural perverted nature then some other prominent countries around the globe.

I think the main thing that's different about how the Japanese seem to handle these various "perversions" is that they don't really attach a concept of "sin" to these things the way many Western cultures would.

The Japanese are generally very practical, orderly and "compartmentalized" to the point that while these things are available to adults that want it it's not overtly advertised in public or talked about in polite company. Basically they just seem to have a more "mature" attitude about things like this overall - naughtiness has its place behind closed doors and as long as it stays there nearly anything is socially acceptable.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Would it surprise you to learn that in Japan the women enjoy this even more than the men?
Whenever a new game comes out if the women's breasts don't move realistically female gamers in Japan write thousands of letters to the company complaining about "plastic boobs".

Not surprising to me in the least. Falls into the "you always want what you don't have" sort of pattern.

And it is pretty well known that Japanese gaming companies have devoted some truly unholy quantities of resources to be sacrificed upon the altar of getting jiggle physics "right" so if YOUR game doesn't have them that simply means that your company has been skimping on the development of its product ... hence, nastygrams from the women gamers.

"We could have done 64-bit graphics, but we're cheapskates, so have some 8-bit graphics instead."

So it essentially falls into a pair of buckets that sit right next to each other. Wanting to see "accurate" physics being computed for objects that hardly any of the gamers playing the game will ever get to experience personally ... which then gets into Wish Fulfillment and all kinds of projection fantasies, in which virtual reality can become not only an "escape" from but also "better than" Real Life.

So no, Greyhawk, I'm hardly surprised to hear that. If anything, I know that asian women are less likely to "stay in their lane" on certain topics than western women, simply because their culture ... confines them ... in somewhat different ways, than ours.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Who said jiggle?

Who said jiggle?

Original post is here.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Bottom line: A little jiggle

Bottom line: A little jiggle is good for the soul. Jiggle is already part of the physics engine, please add a little. its not too much to ask for.
or....
(I don't know if this is possible) make the jiggle invisible unless we pay for it in the company store. Yep, I would pay for various levels of jiggle and toggle between them!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
(No subject)

The good ole jiggle thread that never dies... lol

Anyway at least I think you brought up a new topic here as far a whether or not "jiggle physics" could or should be something that we'd have to pay extra for in the cash store.

Assuming that it would even be possible to segregate it out like that I could see where it might make a handful of skittish parents happy to be able to prevent their innocent children from seeing such supposedly realistic things. On the other hand I have always advocated for a degree of "jiggle" in this game that was so subtle/natural that I would think (again if I had it my way) that some people might not even instantly notice it in the first place.

So if I had a vote on this I would say make it a feature built into the game without choice as long as it's also done in a reasonably low-key subtle way. As long as it's not overtly extreme then I doubt there'd really be anyone seriously against it.

Here are a few examples of relatively subtle jiggle that CoT could shoot for:

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
THIS ^^^^^ is all I'm asking

THIS ^^^^^ is all I'm asking for! Thanks Lothic!

But I like the Marilyn Monroe hairdo and the half cape too!

SpaceMoose
SpaceMoose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 16:22
Alright. I have to know this

Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

________
This looks like a job for SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!!!!!!!

Composition Team

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
SpaceMoose wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:

Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Greater Animation Integrated Nodal Area eXpansion

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
SpaceMoose wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:

Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Not only would coming up with a halfway serious non-jokey name be hard for this I think the whole idea of it being a "purchasable upgrade" is a little "off-target" to begin with.

Let's assume the proposed idea would work like this: If you don't purchase the upgrade then all the body models on your client would look "rock solid" static much like they did back in CoH. Now if you have some reason for wanting things to look that way (like you think the extra jiggle might corrupt your kids or some such) then you're set. The problem you'd face of course is that someone else could simply purchase the upgrade and to them all your static characters would jiggle. It's not like your decision whether to purchase the jiggle upgrade or not is going affect the way others choose to see your characters. So if you're worried about what others see when they look at your characters you're going to be out of luck regardless.

Basically a purchasable jiggle option would only be a form of default parental censorship imposed against all players. If all things were fair and just the game should be set up to be "jiggle by default" and if anything you'd have to pay extra to have the jiggles blocked from your screen. I suspect virtually everyone would likely want the jiggles if given the choice - why force that majority to pay an extra fee for it? Make the few people who would not want any jiggles pay for them to be turned off instead. They are the ones who'd want the models to work in a non-standard (non-jiggle) way so they should be the ones to pay extra for that non-standard option.

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

SpaceMoose wrote:
Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Greater Animation Integrated Nodal Area eXpansion

I see what you did there. ;)

Sadly I'll have to stress one more time that as fun as the typical anime is with its extremely exaggerated breasty bounciness no one is seriously asking for that much jiggle in CoT. I wouldn't even want 10% of that in this game.

Compare the naturally subtle jiggle displayed in the Youtube vids I recently linked to versus the typical black-eye inducing silliness of the typical anime if you're still not sure about the extreme difference between the two being discussed here. Small amounts of jiggle would be great; anime-level amounts would be stupid.

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
SpaceMoose wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:

Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Physics Upgrade
Volleyball Rules Upgrade
Anti-Gravity Perpetual Motion Phyisics
Difficulty Modifier (with the understanding you may not pay as much attention to gameplay)
Jigglevision
APAL (Anime Physics Annoying to Lothic)
Binary Ocular Objective Buoyancy System upgrade

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
SpaceMoose wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:

Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Flubbernomics.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:
Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Greater Animation Integrated Nodal Area eXpansion

I see what you did there. ;)
Sadly I'll have to stress one more time that as fun as the typical anime is with its extremely exaggerated breasty bounciness no one is seriously asking for that much jiggle in CoT. I wouldn't even want 10% of that in this game.

Just so we're clear, the level of jiggle that Gainax was known for (in the late 80's!) was actually at the level you're espousing:

Not this physically-injurious shit:

Also of note is that in the first GIF, Noriko was stomping because she was mad, and that meant more bounce than normal, too.

It's like how American blockbuster movies keep trying to blow even bigger things up, even when said things have no damn reason to blow up.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
SpaceMoose wrote:
Alright. I have to know this... What would you propose as a *name* for a hypothetical purchasable juggle-upgrade??

Greater Animation Integrated Nodal Area eXpansion

I see what you did there. ;)
Sadly I'll have to stress one more time that as fun as the typical anime is with its extremely exaggerated breasty bounciness no one is seriously asking for that much jiggle in CoT. I wouldn't even want 10% of that in this game.

Just so we're clear, the level of jiggle that Gainax was known for (in the late 80's!) was actually at the level you're espousing:
Not this physically-injurious shit:
Also of note is that in the first GIF, Noriko was stomping because she was mad, and that meant more bounce than normal, too.
It's like how American blockbuster movies keep trying to blow even bigger things up, even when said things have no damn reason to blow up.

Most non-Japanese, if they are even aware of what anime is, usually only know it for its "fan service" level of jiggle. I did for the record use the phrase "typical anime" without any qualifiers. Even I didn't know that historically speaking "late 1980s Gainax" had different tendencies in that area and that's with my relatively feeble knowledge of anime that likely exceeds 99% of the general public's outside Japan. For what it's worth if you bother to spend any time reviewing this thread you'll see that at least several people have been against the idea of ANY level of jiggle (even reasonable amounts) because they've reflexively jumped to the conclusion that we must only be asking for the amount in your second pic because that seems to be the only mental example of it they have.

I'm glad that you understand the difference because apparently many people don't. I just feel the need (every few months when this thread pops back up from the grave) to make sure that that it remains focused regardless of who might know what about anime.

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

RottenLuck
RottenLuck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 54 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 20:32
I think most people put

I think most people put realistic jiggle physics in with the whole "Realistic Physics" group. The just enough to add realism, but not overdoing it. This includes hair that moves, capes that flap, and other such minor elements that adds to the overall experience. I been trying to do that with mods for my Skyrim, either I add the physics, or I add better graphics, seems I can't do both.... mumble mumble scripts...

Wait what was I talking about? Oh yeah. When people think Physics in game they auto add a bit of jiggle effects, the ripple of flesh when a fist hits the target and so on. And yes that includes breasts and butts. When people generally say Jiggle Physics the mentality goes right for the Boobies! Note when I was talking about normal physics I used Breasts and Jiggle as Boobies. See it even affects me.

--------------------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
RottenLuck wrote:
RottenLuck wrote:

I think most people put realistic jiggle physics in with the whole "Realistic Physics" group. The just enough to add realism, but not overdoing it. This includes hair that moves, capes that flap, and other such minor elements that adds to the overall experience. I been trying to do that with mods for my Skyrim, either I add the physics, or I add better graphics, seems I can't do both.... mumble mumble scripts...
Wait what was I talking about? Oh yeah. When people think Physics in game they auto add a bit of jiggle effects, the ripple of flesh when a fist hits the target and so on. And yes that includes breasts and butts. When people generally say Jiggle Physics the mentality goes right for the Boobies! Note when I was talking about normal physics I used Breasts and Jiggle as Boobies. See it even affects me.

Yep this is more or less the point I've been trying to make. As soon as the words "breasts and butts" appear far too many people want to get silly with it. It's understandable to a degree but that's exactly why I get picky over this subject because it's far too easy for even Devs to fall into the same mental traps regardless of their best intentions.

Basically if we don't keep stressing examples like my recent ones or Lin Chiao Feng's pic here...

Then we may very well end up with something worse just because that "something worse" keeps being mentioned here one way or another.

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

What you have to remember is that the size of a woman's breasts (let alone how they move) have no influence over her native intelligence. If anything, the bigger a woman's breasts are, the dumber the MEN become around her.
Reposting a case in point that proves the thesis ...

This music needs to play the first time a PC sees jiggle in the game. Maybe when a female toon runs or lands from a flight...the sound team needs to steal that music
or maybe a toggle on/off drum solo.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
OK. I think I have this issue

OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.

why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.

The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.
why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.
The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

I'll quickly note this is like the 10th time this thread has been necroposted. I wonder why? ;)

Anyway your point about a "jiggle model" is interesting at least as something to think about. It reminded me of how the CoH Devs were forced to provide a completely unique Huge model for big guys because they couldn't make a single male body model with the proper polygon structure that could span the entire range of sizes between "normal" and "huge". Likewise I could almost see a legitimate need for two female models that would represent the "non-jiggle" and "jiggle" versions.

If we assume the "non-jiggle" female model is the default one everyone gets for free then I could almost see your idea of having the "jiggle" version be a global unlock from the cash store. As you point out making it a cash store item would allow parents to decide if they wanted to unlock it or not. As long as it's locked on your client then you will only ever see "non-jiggle" females on your screen regardless of whichever model other players are using.

A complication of this (other than the obvious extra work needed to create an entirely new body model) would be making sure costume items would be compatible with the jiggle. Still maybe if they put this off as a long range update that would happen well after launch then maybe something like this might actually be seriously considered.

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

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.
why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.
The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

Afaik it's not really the differences in skeletons (I assume you mean the wire frame of the 3D model) that makes the difference between having jiggle physics or not but rather the application of physics and morphing on it.

To me it would be more immersion breaking if they made them jiggle the same regardless of what was worn (plate armor vs. bikini top) compared to them not making them jiggle at all.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I'll quickly note this is like the 10th time this thread has been necroposted. I wonder why? ;)

It just keeps jiggling. Make it stahp.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.
why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.
The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

Afaik it's not really the differences in skeletons (I assume you mean the wire frame of the 3D model) that makes the difference between having jiggle physics or not but rather the application of physics and morphing on it.
To me it would be more immersion breaking if they made them jiggle the same regardless of what was worn (plate armor vs. bikini top) compared to them not making them jiggle at all.

I am not a programmer. But making a second body type now is cheaper than later.
as for morphing...60% will be spandex costumes...one morph covers all. armor gets no morphs. Bikinis and t-shirts are painted on just like spandex...

maybe another small fee for the starving artists for bouncy outfits?

The goal here is to get what you want and put money in the pockets of MWM.
*** can this work? I wish a Dev could opine. he could even estimate how expensive this would be

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.
why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.
The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

Afaik it's not really the differences in skeletons (I assume you mean the wire frame of the 3D model) that makes the difference between having jiggle physics or not but rather the application of physics and morphing on it.
To me it would be more immersion breaking if they made them jiggle the same regardless of what was worn (plate armor vs. bikini top) compared to them not making them jiggle at all.

I am not a programmer. But making a second body type now is cheaper than later.
as for morphing...60% will be spandex costumes...one morph covers all. armor gets no morphs. Bikinis and t-shirts are painted on just like spandex...
maybe another small fee for the starving artists for bouncy outfits?
The goal here is to get what you want and put money in the pockets of MWM.
*** can this work? I wish a Dev could opine. he could even estimate how expensive this would be

But you still need to do all the "jiggle physics" in some form, so making one skeleton that can serve both purposes (both jiggle and non-jiggle) is cheaper overall. You can't make a skeleton and magically have it "jiggle". And I'm sure you could archive a "non-jiggle skeleton" by just disabling the jiggle-physics system, no need to make two different skeletons for that purpose.

And by morphing I was talking about morphing of the skeleton itself, not the clothes. For it to look more natural the shape of the skeleton need to morph some in that area when jiggling.

On a more personal note I think putting things like this in the store would cause too much resentment, since many would probably think the game was not "complete" without them, and then be made to pay more to "complete" the game.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
OK. I think I have this issue solved. Mods. I was reading "Ask the Devs forum" and the thread about supporting mods.
a mod would need to have a slightly altered skeleton to allow for jiggle.
why let players get that for free? Right now the artists can make a second jiggly skeleton for nothing, and then CHARGE money for it!
only those who want to see it will get it (90% of the gamers), and MWM rakes in a profit and the game keeps going.
The jiggle only appears on the players home computer. no one else if forced to see it, this was made for the game store!
Jiggle fans can help keep the game going!

Afaik it's not really the differences in skeletons (I assume you mean the wire frame of the 3D model) that makes the difference between having jiggle physics or not but rather the application of physics and morphing on it.
To me it would be more immersion breaking if they made them jiggle the same regardless of what was worn (plate armor vs. bikini top) compared to them not making them jiggle at all.

I am not a programmer. But making a second body type now is cheaper than later.
as for morphing...60% will be spandex costumes...one morph covers all. armor gets no morphs. Bikinis and t-shirts are painted on just like spandex...
maybe another small fee for the starving artists for bouncy outfits?
The goal here is to get what you want and put money in the pockets of MWM.
*** can this work? I wish a Dev could opine. he could even estimate how expensive this would be

But you still need to do all the "jiggle physics" in some form, so making one skeleton that can serve both purposes (both jiggle and non-jiggle) is cheaper overall. You can't make a skeleton and magically have it "jiggle". And I'm sure you could archive a "non-jiggle skeleton" by just disabling the jiggle-physics system, no need to make two different skeletons for that purpose.
And by morphing I was talking about morphing of the skeleton itself, not the clothes. For it to look more natural the shape of the skeleton need to morph some in that area when jiggling.
On a more personal note I think putting things like this in the store would cause too much resentment, since many would probably think the game was not "complete" without them, and then be made to pay more to "complete" the game.

I agree. one jiggly skeleton is all we really need to make. The game would be not be complete without jiggle. it would be cheaper to do this from the start.

But if the mods decide not to do so for PC reasons (and I loathe PC), then this is the best alternative.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

The game would be not be complete without jiggle. it would be cheaper to do this from the start.

That's sarcasm, right? The game would be plenty successful without jiggle. CoH never needed it. And it would cost more to implement than not doing it at all, and even if they tried it, it would almost certainly land square in the uncanny valley.

Cyclops wrote:

But if the mods decide not to do so for PC treating people with respect reasons (and I loathe PC treating people with respect), then this is the best alternative.

FTFY ^_-

"The truth is that accusations of "political correctness" are a sort of catchall charge that's used against people who ask for more sensitivity to a particular cause than someone else is willing to give — a way to dismiss issues as frivolous in order to justify ignoring them."

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 40 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
The game would be not be complete without jiggle. it would be cheaper to do this from the start.
That's sarcasm, right? The game would be plenty successful without jiggle. CoH never needed it. And it would cost more to implement than not doing it at all, and even if they tried it, it would almost certainly land square in the uncanny valley.

I tend to agree. Personally I wouldn't care if it was left out - I haven't seen a representation of this in animation or game that didn't make me wince. And the suggestion that "the game would not be complete without jiggle" is juvenile at the very least.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Simple fact of the matter is

Simple fact of the matter is that "the right amount of jiggle" is going to be something that is conditionally dependent, as opposed to being a One Size Fits All solution. For hard metallic armors, it is obviously inappropriate. For t-shirts and bikini tops, it might be appropriate (maybe, depends on the physical build of the avatar) ... and so on.

Simplest solution is a slider, that goes from No Jiggle up to whatever the "maximum" jiggle factor allowed by the skeleton is. After that, it's a matter of Good Taste™ and a sense of Costume Design to figure out where to set the slider for THAT costume on YOUR avatar.

Will there be Players reaching for maximum tastelessness? Of course! Any game that allows Players to design their own costumes will yield Fashion Disasters™ that can be remarkably tasteless. But that's a price that needs to be paid if you want to allow for the maximum freedom and range of possibilities. Like the old saying goes ... you have to take the GOOD with the BAD.

After that, it's just a matter of developing the social "norms" of what constitutes Good Taste™ in costume design within the range of possibilities we are given.

/thread


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Redlynne wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
The game would be not be complete without jiggle. it would be cheaper to do this from the start.
That's sarcasm, right? The game would be plenty successful without jiggle. CoH never needed it. And it would cost more to implement than not doing it at all, and even if they tried it, it would almost certainly land square in the uncanny valley.

I generally believe that games like this will eventually graduate past the "immaturely silly fanservice" version of jiggle that most games have thrown at us in the last 5-10 years and eventually reach a more realistically subtle version that would also move us past the "uncanny valley" stage as well. I figure CoT has a reasonable chance to be one of the first games to help get us to that point.

Redlynne wrote:

Simple fact of the matter is that "the right amount of jiggle" is going to be something that is conditionally dependent, as opposed to being a One Size Fits All solution. For hard metallic armors, it is obviously inappropriate. For t-shirts and bikini tops, it might be appropriate (maybe, depends on the physical build of the avatar) ... and so on.
Simplest solution is a slider, that goes from No Jiggle up to whatever the "maximum" jiggle factor allowed by the skeleton is. After that, it's a matter of Good Taste™ and a sense of Costume Design to figure out where to set the slider for THAT costume on YOUR avatar.
Will there be Players reaching for maximum tastelessness? Of course! Any game that allows Players to design their own costumes will yield Fashion Disasters™ that can be remarkably tasteless. But that's a price that needs to be paid if you want to allow for the maximum freedom and range of possibilities. Like the old saying goes ... you have to take the GOOD with the BAD.
After that, it's just a matter of developing the social "norms" of what constitutes Good Taste™ in costume design within the range of possibilities we are given.
/thread

As several of the last few posts have pointed out CoT does not NEED jiggle physics to be a great game. Having said that I tend to think if it was handled reasonably then there might be a place for it as some kind of future update to the game - there's definitely no priority for it to be a feature of the game on launch day.

I like your idea of eventually having a "jiggle slider" and just letting the individual player decide how much any given costume needs. Assuming we're going to get something like the costume slots we had in CoH I'd let each costume have its own degree of jiggle because I could easily envision some of my female characters switching between plate power armor (0% jiggle) and something like a casual t-shirt (which would realistically have at least some positive percentage of jiggle).

Yes I agree that a few idiots would likely abuse a slider like this. As you point out pretty much every game that allows for costume customization has to suffer the few people who like to try (for example) to make themselves as "nude" as possible. But if we think optimistically and simply report the most annoying/tasteless cases to the GMs I think that we can hope that this game's player community would be mostly mature enough to make it a productively positive customization feature.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
The "jiggle slider" is just

The "jiggle slider" is just the easiest and most obvious solution to the ... problem. Any skeleton that allows for "jiggle factor" can easily be adjusted to REDUCE the amount of jiggle allowed. The reverse does not necessarily hold true. Classic case of it being easier to subtract than it is to add, when it comes to artistic stuff (ask any Photoshop jockey).

Reductions are easy.
Increases can get messy.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
The only way to increase the

The only way to increase the amount of data in a thing is, meticulously, by hand. Reductions are Easy! Filter, Resize, boom.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 5 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Hmmm.. I'm not convinced all

Hmmm.. I'm not convinced all games use Physics to animate the jiggle.
ex:

Doesn't it seem like a baked animation is being used?
This seems evident after the toon jumps and lands, but no shaking takes place. :/

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Let's not forget the

Let's not forget the important jiggles.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

Let's not forget the important jiggles.

This thread has been necro'd so many times you probably didn't remember the Homer jiggle was already brought up well over a year ago. ;)

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

Hmmm.. I'm not convinced all games use Physics to animate the jiggle.
This seems evident after the toon jumps and lands, but no shaking takes place. :/

I guess it might be fairly easy to throw a little jiggle animation into a walk emote but I'm not really sure CoT needs to bother with something "half-way" like this. CoT should either use "real" physics for jiggle/sway in all movements or not bother. It just comes off looking weird to see something like that while walking but not while running/jumping. All or nothing is best for features like this.

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

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
Let's not forget the important jiggles.

This thread has been necro'd so many times you probably didn't remember the Homer jiggle was already brought up well over a year ago. ;)

I figured it had been. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I was the one that had brought it up! But Homer jiggle is like Jello.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Build it in from the start


Build it in from the start and no one will ever notice.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
ORLY.

ORLY.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 5 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
:<

:<

You have to remember, we WANT City of Titans to attract MORE female players than WoW, someday! :/

Utmost care has to be given to NOT Offend, even if we might not Always be able to raise them above every male.
That's a very clever approach for the longevity of the game, since kids are not going outside as much, and it wont get better soon, so, there's ALLOT of young female gamers CoT could be attracting.

Just the Character Creator alone will hook allot of female gamers, even they never really enjoy the violence*. Not to say its all Mortal Kombaty "Finish Him" type of violence. :/

I'm just assuming that CoT will work with educators to create instructor approved content also which focuses on moral dilemmas and consequences which will indirectly teach and explain more ethical(or other) issues. I how i wish "Homers Iliads" were taught to me in this way in a Cimerora world type of setting. :/

Side note:
CoH/V was given to allot of our Service Men and Women, and even after they came back, they still played CoH/V.
CoT could also do the same with government run educational facilities, institutions, and the like. And if MWM can make it so that it doesn't offend people in other countries (try not to), we might be looking at a cash cow. ;)

Aaaanyways...
Oversexualization NEEDS to be AVOIDED now, as well as in the long run. CoT has to be acceptable for most educational institutions to use without parents getting up in arms. Well, parental controls might help here, but each state, or even community might deem certain things less acceptable, which might have options to lower or turn off completely. This includes particular costume items from the Character Creator as well. :{

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
^^^ THIS

^^^ THIS

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

:<
You have to remember, we WANT City of Titans to attract MORE female players than WoW, someday! :/
Utmost care has to be given to NOT Offend, even if we might not Always be able to raise them above every male.
That's a very clever approach for the longevity of the game, since kids are not going outside as much, and it wont get better soon, so, there's ALLOT of young female gamers CoT could be attracting.
Just the Character Creator alone will hook allot of female gamers, even they never really enjoy the violence*. Not to say its all Mortal Kombaty "Finish Him" type of violence. :/
I'm just assuming that CoT will work with educators to create instructor approved content also which focuses on moral dilemmas and consequences which will indirectly teach and explain more ethical(or other) issues. I how i wish "Homers Iliads" were taught to me in this way in a Cimerora world type of setting. :/
Side note:
CoH/V was given to allot of our Service Men and Women, and even after they came back, they still played CoH/V.
CoT could also do the same with government run educational facilities, institutions, and the like. And if MWM can make it so that it doesn't offend people in other countries (try not to), we might be looking at a cash cow. ;)
Aaaanyways...
Oversexualization NEEDS to be AVOIDED now, as well as in the long run. CoT has to be acceptable for most educational institutions to use without parents getting up in arms. Well, parental controls might help here, but each state, or even community might deem certain things less acceptable, which might have options to lower or turn off completely. This includes particular costume items from the Character Creator as well. :{

There have been many suggestions in this thread that any degree of "jiggle physics" could be locked behind a cash store purchase or other reasonable form of "parental control" that would make it something that could be easily regulated if it were deemed necessary.

Beyond that though I want to once again clarify the type of "jiggle physics" I'd want to see in CoT because I still feel nearly everyone in this thread keeps jumping to the conclusion that the concept can only be defined as overtly hyper-bouncy fanservice anime style level of motion. That type of extremely silly version of this is something even I don't really want to see in CoT.

When I say I want to see "jiggle physics" in CoT the amount of motion I'm talking about would be so subtle that half the time half the people might not even notice it. I want it to be on a level that would appear as "natural" and "acceptable" as say animated hair or animated tails would be. No one seems to worry that if our robes/dresses move around naturally that it would be considered too "sexy" for the game - likewise the level of female "bounciness" I'm talking about for CoT should only be enough to appear realistic just like animated hair and tails are more realistic than static ones. As I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned in a post earlier in this thread I only want like maybe 10% of the amount of jiggle that most of the rest of you seem to be talking about. For example Izzy provided a recent example of a elf bouncing around while walking - the amount I'd want to see in CoT is like maybe half of that if not less.

I've found a YouTube clip that better shows the amount I'm talking about. If CoT could manage this relative amount and make it work while running/jumping we'd probably be set:

The motion that comes with jiggle physics doesn't not always need to be hyper exaggerated - subtle amounts could go a long way to add realism to the female body model. To be honest the amount of "jiggle" movement I'm talking about would probably not have to be locked by "parental controls" and would likely not be able to offend anyone who exists in the real world who has seen real women walking down the average street.

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

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I am not posting this as a

I am not posting this as a dev, but if this game wants to both attract female gamers and add a semblence of realistic jiggle to anatomy, the character models better have moving hair prior to any amount of certain female anatomy jiggle. Otherwise the game will have failed in garnering any respect from afluent female game revewiers and bloggers (going by many of their statements I have read at any rate). If anything, even subtle jiggle is seen has been mentioned as a detractor when there isn't any proper flow / movement of hair or clothing. So, the short of it is - get hair and clothing working first, then add in realistic-subtle jiggle and everything should be fine.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
FWIW, given what I've seen of

FWIW, given what I've seen of UE4 so far, I assumed that moving hair and clothing were a given. If anyone focuses on anatomical jiggle without having moving hair and clothing they do need to have The Talk. Either that or I'll be congratulating the 12 year old on getting a game published.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Izzy wrote:
:<
You have to remember, we WANT City of Titans to attract MORE female players than WoW, someday! :/
Utmost care has to be given to NOT Offend, even if we might not Always be able to raise them above every male.
That's a very clever approach for the longevity of the game, since kids are not going outside as much, and it wont get better soon, so, there's ALLOT of young female gamers CoT could be attracting.
Just the Character Creator alone will hook allot of female gamers, even they never really enjoy the violence*. Not to say its all Mortal Kombaty "Finish Him" type of violence. :/
I'm just assuming that CoT will work with educators to create instructor approved content also which focuses on moral dilemmas and consequences which will indirectly teach and explain more ethical(or other) issues. I how i wish "Homers Iliads" were taught to me in this way in a Cimerora world type of setting. :/
Side note:
CoH/V was given to allot of our Service Men and Women, and even after they came back, they still played CoH/V.
CoT could also do the same with government run educational facilities, institutions, and the like. And if MWM can make it so that it doesn't offend people in other countries (try not to), we might be looking at a cash cow. ;)
Aaaanyways...
Oversexualization NEEDS to be AVOIDED now, as well as in the long run. CoT has to be acceptable for most educational institutions to use without parents getting up in arms. Well, parental controls might help here, but each state, or even community might deem certain things less acceptable, which might have options to lower or turn off completely. This includes particular costume items from the Character Creator as well. :{

There have been many suggestions in this thread that any degree of "jiggle physics" could be locked behind a cash store purchase or other reasonable form of "parental control" that would make it something that could be easily regulated if it were deemed necessary.
Beyond that though I want to once again clarify the type of "jiggle physics" I'd want to see in CoT because I still feel nearly everyone in this thread keeps jumping to the conclusion that the concept can only be defined as overtly hyper-bouncy fanservice anime style level of motion. That type of extremely silly version of this is something even I don't really want to see in CoT.
When I say I want to see "jiggle physics" in CoT the amount of motion I'm talking about would be so subtle that half the time half the people might not even notice it. I want it to be on a level that would appear as "natural" and "acceptable" as say animated hair or animated tails would be. No one seems to worry that if our robes/dresses move around naturally that it would be considered too "sexy" for the game - likewise the level of female "bounciness" I'm talking about for CoT should only be enough to appear realistic just like animated hair and tails are more realistic than static ones. As I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned in a post earlier in this thread I only want like maybe 10% of the amount of jiggle that most of the rest of you seem to be talking about. For example Izzy provided a recent example of a elf bouncing around while walking - the amount I'd want to see in CoT is like maybe half of that if not less.
I've found a YouTube clip that better shows the amount I'm talking about. If CoT could manage this relative amount and make it work while running/jumping we'd probably be set:

The motion that comes with jiggle physics doesn't not always need to be hyper exaggerated - subtle amounts could go a long way to add realism to the female body model. To be honest the amount of "jiggle" movement I'm talking about would probably not have to be locked by "parental controls" and would likely not be able to offend anyone who exists in the real world who has seen real women walking down the average street.

Yep, this is really all that I want. I could go for that.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I am not posting this as a dev, but if this game wants to both attract female gamers and add a semblence of realistic jiggle to anatomy, the character models better have moving hair prior to any amount of certain female anatomy jiggle. Otherwise the game will have failed in garnering any respect from afluent female game revewiers and bloggers (going by many of their statements I have read at any rate). If anything, even subtle jiggle is seen has been mentioned as a detractor when there isn't any proper flow / movement of hair or clothing. So, the short of it is - get hair and clothing working first, then add in realistic-subtle jiggle and everything should be fine.

Again, words of wisdom. This is just what I want.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I am not posting this as a dev, but if this game wants to both attract female gamers and add a semblence of realistic jiggle to anatomy, the character models better have moving hair prior to any amount of certain female anatomy jiggle. Otherwise the game will have failed in garnering any respect from afluent female game revewiers and bloggers (going by many of their statements I have read at any rate). If anything, even subtle jiggle is seen has been mentioned as a detractor when there isn't any proper flow / movement of hair or clothing. So, the short of it is - get hair and clothing working first, then add in realistic-subtle jiggle and everything should be fine.

I see your point and fully agree with it.

Personally I would set the priority order like this:
1. Hair
2. Clothing and other apparel
3. Tails wings and other "external" non-human body parts.
4. Body jiggle.

And by body jiggle I mean more than just female mammary glands. I feel that it's equally important for a "fatso" with a beer belly (and any other appropriate body part) to have proper jiggle as it is for breasts.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

And by body jiggle I mean more than just female mammary glands. I feel that it's equally important for a "fatso" with a beer belly (and any other appropriate body part) to have proper jiggle as it is for breasts.

Depending on how ... ambitious ... your artists are, body jiggle can even extend to the level of flexing musculature, which is a very subtle thing, but which people will pick up on subliminally, even if they aren't all that all that obvious/dramatic. That way, you don't have "articulated pipes" representing limbs and forms.

And as ought to be beyond obvious, it's not just (female) chests that "wiggle" when moving ... so too do other body parts.

But again, agreed that hair and "drapery" in the form of costume clothing is a higher priority.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Nyktos
Nyktos's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2014 - 16:07
I would definitely love '

I would definitely love ''jiggly'' hair and ''jiggle'' costume components even if it's subtle. It's one of those weird little touches that are much appreciated.

Formerly known as Bleddyn

Do you want to be a hero?

My characters

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Of course, full-body jiggle

Of course, full-body jiggle support is a mainstay of anime superheroes, as seen in One-Punch Man (at the 2:20 mark):

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
LOL! That's jiggling them

LOL! That's jiggling them with style.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Kiyori Anoyui
Kiyori Anoyui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/10/2013 - 11:03
Anyone see the new physics on

Anyone see the new physics on Street Fighter 5?

The Carnival of Light in the Phoenix Rising
"We never lose our demons, we only learn to live above them." - The Ancient One

Avatar by lilshironeko

Nyktos
Nyktos's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2014 - 16:07
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Of course, full-body jiggle support is a mainstay of anime superheroes, as seen in One-Punch Man (at the 2:20 mark):

......Ouch, that is one of the most cringe worthy yet hilarious things I have seen out of anime superheroes (not that that is really saying much as I am only familiar with a few anime works)

Formerly known as Bleddyn

Do you want to be a hero?

My characters

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
I am not posting this as a dev, but if this game wants to both attract female gamers and add a semblence of realistic jiggle to anatomy, the character models better have moving hair prior to any amount of certain female anatomy jiggle. Otherwise the game will have failed in garnering any respect from afluent female game revewiers and bloggers (going by many of their statements I have read at any rate). If anything, even subtle jiggle is seen has been mentioned as a detractor when there isn't any proper flow / movement of hair or clothing. So, the short of it is - get hair and clothing working first, then add in realistic-subtle jiggle and everything should be fine.

I see your point and fully agree with it.
Personally I would set the priority order like this:
1. Hair
2. Clothing and other apparel
3. Tails wings and other "external" non-human body parts.
4. Body jiggle.
And by body jiggle I mean more than just female mammary glands. I feel that it's equally important for a "fatso" with a beer belly (and any other appropriate body part) to have proper jiggle as it is for breasts.

Given that CoH had already succeeded in giving us animated wings/tails and had almost succeeded (via examples like Ghost Widow) in giving us a primitive form of hair animation I'm making the reasonable(?) assumption that CoT will at least start off with those body details as defaults.

Also as others have pointed out UE4 is supposed to make animated clothing relatively easy to produce so I would think that may very well exist in CoT by Launch Day as well. If not that would likely be one of the first things they'll work on soon after launch.

So if we review your list the concept of "body jiggle" should either be right on the verge of being available by Launch Day or be one of the very next things that could be implemented as a post launch update. Obviously it'll ultimately be put up against the ever-present engineering considerations of "how much player demand for it" there is versus "how much time/effort it would take to produce". But like the other features mentioned I simply believe that reasonable "body jiggle" is a level of detail that will happen in games like this regardless. It'll be up to CoT to take that next step sooner or later.

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

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 5 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Given that CoH had already succeeded in giving us animated wings/tails and had almost succeeded (via examples like Ghost Widow) in giving us a primitive form of hair animation I'm making the reasonable(?) assumption that CoT will at least start off with those body details as defaults.
Also as others have pointed out UE4 is supposed to make animated clothing relatively easy to produce so I would think that may very well exist in CoT by Launch Day as well. If not that would likely be one of the first things they'll work on soon after launch.
So if we review your list the concept of "body jiggle" should either be right on the verge of being available by Launch Day or be one of the very next things that could be implemented as a post launch update. Obviously it'll ultimately be put up against the ever-present engineering considerations of "how much player demand for it" there is versus "how much time/effort it would take to produce". But like the other features mentioned I simply believe that reasonable "body jiggle" is a level of detail that will happen in games like this regardless. It'll be up to CoT to take that next step sooner or later.

It seems like you're really gung-ho to see `realistic` body jiggle. ;)
I guess I'm in the same boat then. :)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Given that CoH had already succeeded in giving us animated wings/tails and had almost succeeded (via examples like Ghost Widow) in giving us a primitive form of hair animation I'm making the reasonable(?) assumption that CoT will at least start off with those body details as defaults.
Also as others have pointed out UE4 is supposed to make animated clothing relatively easy to produce so I would think that may very well exist in CoT by Launch Day as well. If not that would likely be one of the first things they'll work on soon after launch.
So if we review your list the concept of "body jiggle" should either be right on the verge of being available by Launch Day or be one of the very next things that could be implemented as a post launch update. Obviously it'll ultimately be put up against the ever-present engineering considerations of "how much player demand for it" there is versus "how much time/effort it would take to produce". But like the other features mentioned I simply believe that reasonable "body jiggle" is a level of detail that will happen in games like this regardless. It'll be up to CoT to take that next step sooner or later.

It seems like you're really gung-ho to see `realistic` body jiggle. ;)
I guess I'm in the same boat then. :)

It's not like I'm going to avoid CoT if it doesn't provide for any degree of jiggliness. It's just that I'm always going to be an advocate for getting as much game detail like this as possible.

Since challenges like animated capes, wings, hair and clothing are all details that have either been accomplished in CoH or at least are being currently addressed in CoT it's really only natural to me to "cheerlead" for what seems to be the next likely technological hurdle on the horizon. It's never too early to get the Devs to start thinking about these things even if they may still be a few years off.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
So long as the avatars aren't

So long as the avatars aren't rigged in such a way that implementing jiggle later is way more trouble than it's worth ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
I am not posting this as a dev, but if this game wants to both attract female gamers and add a semblence of realistic jiggle to anatomy, the character models better have moving hair prior to any amount of certain female anatomy jiggle. Otherwise the game will have failed in garnering any respect from afluent female game revewiers and bloggers (going by many of their statements I have read at any rate). If anything, even subtle jiggle is seen has been mentioned as a detractor when there isn't any proper flow / movement of hair or clothing. So, the short of it is - get hair and clothing working first, then add in realistic-subtle jiggle and everything should be fine.

I see your point and fully agree with it.
Personally I would set the priority order like this:
1. Hair
2. Clothing and other apparel
3. Tails wings and other "external" non-human body parts.
4. Body jiggle.
And by body jiggle I mean more than just female mammary glands. I feel that it's equally important for a "fatso" with a beer belly (and any other appropriate body part) to have proper jiggle as it is for breasts.

Given that CoH had already succeeded in giving us animated wings/tails and had almost succeeded (via examples like Ghost Widow) in giving us a primitive form of hair animation I'm making the reasonable(?) assumption that CoT will at least start off with those body details as defaults.
Also as others have pointed out UE4 is supposed to make animated clothing relatively easy to produce so I would think that may very well exist in CoT by Launch Day as well. If not that would likely be one of the first things they'll work on soon after launch.
So if we review your list the concept of "body jiggle" should either be right on the verge of being available by Launch Day or be one of the very next things that could be implemented as a post launch update. Obviously it'll ultimately be put up against the ever-present engineering considerations of "how much player demand for it" there is versus "how much time/effort it would take to produce". But like the other features mentioned I simply believe that reasonable "body jiggle" is a level of detail that will happen in games like this regardless. It'll be up to CoT to take that next step sooner or later.

Well, we were talking more in general of how to prioritize it and not the state of each one in CoT. But if we are going to go that route then here is what I know and my take on it all.

As far as I know hair and clothing are (or are very close to) in the fine-tuning stage since they are essentially just depending on "standard" gravity physics to work. Sure there may be some minor customization on a piece by piece basis but that is part of the fun-tuning process imo.

Animated non-human body parts are very different since you can't really use a "standard" physics system on them and thus need to customize them if you want to be proper. You need to at least divide them into some sub-groups and have custom animations for most (all?) emotes and many attacks for each of those groups. Preferably even some options for certain situations, like idle animations. I'm sure there will be a few animated parts at launch but I don't think they will have the breadth of animations needed to be proper. That will take some time to get done.

Body jiggle is perhaps the hardest to make since MWM would need to add a materials property both the body and all clothes and a tightness property to most clothes (a.k.a sports bra vs. regular one). Even with those I think it would be very hard to make a proper standards system that covers it all, but I do hope that they have the necessary "entry points" already in place for once they decide to add any form of jiggle physics.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Well, we were talking more in general of how to prioritize it and not the state of each one in CoT. But if we are going to go that route then here is what I know and my take on it all.

Prioritizing things for development is important. I was simply pointing out that some of your listed "body detail technologies" are already, in 2015, relatively common and can effectively be placed in the "guaranteed to get on launch day" category instead of the "hope they'll figure it out someday in some distant future" category. I would never claim innovations like "body jiggle" are trivial to implement but by the same token I would stress that they aren't so difficult that we are still decades away from ever seeing them in a game like CoT.

My main point is that in the grand spectrum of "what can Devs in general do next to make the body models in games like this appear that much more detailed and realistic" I suspect that something like "body jiggle" is going to be a feature we can assume will exist in the not too distant future in nearly every MMO game let alone CoT. Just like capes and animated hair are nearly taken for granted in 2015 I suspect realistic, non-fanservice amounts of "jiggle" will be taken for granted within say 3-5 years. I'm simply hoping that CoT will prove to be one of the early pioneers for that next level of detail.

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

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Well, we were talking more in general of how to prioritize it and not the state of each one in CoT. But if we are going to go that route then here is what I know and my take on it all.

Prioritizing things for development is important. I was simply pointing out that some of your listed "body detail technologies" are already, in 2015, relatively common and can effectively be placed in the "guaranteed to get on launch day" category instead of the "hope they'll figure it out someday in some distant future" category. I would never claim innovations like "body jiggle" are trivial to implement but by the same token I would stress that they aren't so difficult that we are still decades away from ever seeing them in a game like CoT.
My main point is that in the grand spectrum of "what can Devs in general do next to make the body models in games like this appear that much more detailed and realistic" I suspect that something like "body jiggle" is going to be a feature we can assume will exist in the not too distant future in nearly every MMO game let alone CoT. Just like capes and animated hair are nearly taken for granted in 2015 I suspect realistic, non-fanservice amounts of "jiggle" will be taken for granted within say 3-5 years. I'm simply hoping that CoT will prove to be one of the early pioneers for that next level of detail.

Ohh, I never doubted we would get some animated "extended" body parts on launch, it was the level of "immersion" that was the question and what they have to prioritize for. All the ones I have seen so far are essentially a static animation that doesn't take the environment into account nor any emotes. As I've already outlined, neither body parts nor jiggle lends them self so easy to be doable by one single system. Jiggle will be easier but not that easy from my understanding. Getting it (all of these four areas) done PROPERLY is the hard part and that is still not so easy to do today if I have understood it correctly.

I certainly hope that MWM can go way beyond of what I have seen in these areas (body and jiggle) while doing it properly from an immersion perspective but I'm not expecting it at launch and not even after a year or two.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Lothic wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Well, we were talking more in general of how to prioritize it and not the state of each one in CoT. But if we are going to go that route then here is what I know and my take on it all.

Prioritizing things for development is important. I was simply pointing out that some of your listed "body detail technologies" are already, in 2015, relatively common and can effectively be placed in the "guaranteed to get on launch day" category instead of the "hope they'll figure it out someday in some distant future" category. I would never claim innovations like "body jiggle" are trivial to implement but by the same token I would stress that they aren't so difficult that we are still decades away from ever seeing them in a game like CoT.
My main point is that in the grand spectrum of "what can Devs in general do next to make the body models in games like this appear that much more detailed and realistic" I suspect that something like "body jiggle" is going to be a feature we can assume will exist in the not too distant future in nearly every MMO game let alone CoT. Just like capes and animated hair are nearly taken for granted in 2015 I suspect realistic, non-fanservice amounts of "jiggle" will be taken for granted within say 3-5 years. I'm simply hoping that CoT will prove to be one of the early pioneers for that next level of detail.

Ohh, I never doubted we would get some animated "extended" body parts on launch, it was the level of "immersion" that was the question and what they have to prioritize for. All the ones I have seen so far are essentially a static animation that doesn't take the environment into account nor any emotes. As I've already outlined, neither body parts nor jiggle lends them self so easy to be doable by one single system. Jiggle will be easier but not that easy from my understanding. Getting it (all of these four areas) done PROPERLY is the hard part and that is still not so easy to do today if I have understood it correctly.
I certainly hope that MWM can go way beyond of what I have seen in these areas (body and jiggle) while doing it properly from an immersion perspective but I'm not expecting it at launch and not even after a year or two.

Again I agree engineering priorities will always dictate what any game can provide in the way of "immersion" details at any given time. But I still feel it will always be important for players like ourselves to "overtly prod" a group of Devs like the ones working on CoT to look towards pushing the technology envelope as far as they can or even farther than THEY want to go. As an example the following is a pic that highlights how Lara Croft (of Tomb Raider fame) has evolved over the last 20 years:

Now it's always possible that if they were still making games that used the version of her on the extreme left that the games would still sell in 2015. But I'm sure most people would agree that it's a good thing the Devs behind the Tomb Raider games decided to keep updating their graphics as best they could with ever more realistic improvements.

CoT is going to be a spiritual successor to a game that was developed way back in the 2002-04 timeframe. If CoT can't manage to look like a game that has the key advantage of being 12+ years newer in at least some graphical respects then one might be able to question the point of creating CoT in the first place. As much as I loved playing CoH back in 2004 I simply don't want to play a new game today that's still fully locked into 2004 era graphical limitations.

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
WE HAVE GOT IT!

WE HAVE GOT IT!

Take a look at this! Jiggle physics will be in the game! we now have the prerequisites!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Take a look at this! Jiggle physics will be in the game! we now have the prerequisites!

It think it's been clear for a while that the Devs of MWM have at their disposal the some of the best, most up-to-date software tools in the industry to do this. Things like UE4 will allow for all sorts of "character model animations" (clothes, hair and "jiggle") almost by default. Without technical limitations all it will take is the decision and will to make it a priority to implement these things in CoT.

I still firmly believe we are on the edge of games offering all these things as the baseline expectation. There was a time when "8 bit sprite" animation was cutting edge - there will be a time 5 or 10 years from now when all MMO type games will offer hair, clothes, wing/tail, jiggle, etc. animation as routine. I simply remain hopeful that MWM be one of the leading examples of that by doing its best to provide all these things in CoT now (or at least ASAP in future updates to the game).

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

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
7 Examples of Great Game

7 Examples of Great Game Physics, none of which, alas, includes jiggle.

Which really means nothing more than that jiggle doesn't a great game make. Not that some people wouldn't argue that that assertion is open to contention, I'm sure.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

7 Examples of Great Game Physics, none of which, alas, includes jiggle.
Which really means nothing more than that jiggle doesn't a great game make. Not that some people wouldn't argue that that assertion is open to contention, I'm sure.

Ironically the main theme the article was pushing was the idea that "game physics" in general can do more than just make a game "look" good.

It might not have mentioned specific things like character body jiggle directly but it all but implied that you could do more than "just" that kind of thing with game physics. Who knew? They literally were making the case that game Devs should try to use physics for MORE THAN JUST cosmetics. Quotes from the article sum it up nicely:

  • "But physics can do so much more than provide eye candy--it can be a major tool for game design."
  • "But don't stop at making your animations look better. Physics can do so much more than improve cosmetics."
  • "CONCLUSIONS: Physics makes great gameplay, not just aesthetics."

So it would seem the main idea of the article is that game physics shouldn't be LIMITED to cosmetic things like character body jiggle. Amazingly enough you could actually use physics for things OTHER THAN jiggle and on that completely obvious point I completely agree. ;)

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

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 38 min 36 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

First off I'm totally in favor of "jiggle physics" for big jello-type blobs. Hami would've been so much cooler if jumping into him would've made his surface quiver like a huge bowl of jello. As for the more traditional examples of "jiggle physics" (vis-a-vis human anatomy) I'm always in favor of as much realism as possible in games like these. But like with most things moderation is the key to success here.
I'm fully aware that there are some games out there (usually of the Japanese anime variety) which exaggerate the slightest female body movement into tidal waves (tsunamis?) of continuous mammary motion which might be fun for your average 12 year old male to watch but I would hardly call reasonable. On the other hand allowing for some degree of natural jiggle would be better than absolutely no movement at all.
In a perfect world we would have a "jiggle slider" in the costume creator that would allow players to have direct control over how much "jiggliness" they wanted depending on what they were wearing. As syntaxerror37 pointed out the difference between wearing a bikini top and plate chest armor should make a difference to the amount of jiggle that could happen. Unfortunately as we all know if the game literally had a "jiggle slider" there would be all sorts of immature jokes about it and most people would slide it over to the max setting regardless just to have fun with it. In light of that I'd settle for the Devs providing for a hardwired moderate/slight amount of jiggle in these cases - enough to be noticed but not enough to be totally distracting.
To be clear I don't think it's an absolute necessity for there to be ANY jiggle physics in CoT, especially if it somehow makes having various costume options too hard to implement. But if it can be worked in without too much impact to other development then yes having moderate jiggle would be nice to have.

we had the boob slider and we didnt have everybody at max. I think many people would surprise you. maybe I am just too trusting though.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

we had the boob slider and we didnt have everybody at max. I think many people would surprise you. maybe I am just too trusting though.

Most of the time if the Devs were to give us any specific body slider I'd want the range of that slider to go from "nothing to ridiculous" just to allow the players themselves to have the complete freedom to decide what setting looked reasonable for them. Basically the design mantra should be the more freedom the better even if that would allow for the possibility of overt silliness.

But even though I'm an obvious advocate for there being a "boob jiggle" slider in this game I would actually favor the Devs make sure the overall range of motion allowable by that kind of slider to be relatively modest/limited. As we know this issue seems to get everyone "overly excited" for one reason or another - just look back through this thread to see how many times it's been necroposted back to life over the years. For that reason alone I think the Devs should err on the side of being conservative with this and (obviously assuming it actually gets implemented in the game) make sure that the "max motion" setting for this isn't set high enough to make it something EVERYONE will tempted to do silly things with.

Yes we know no matter how modest the "max motion" setting for this thing would be there will still be a few people who'd try to do their best to do idiotic/immature things with it (just like a few people tried to do with the "max breast size" setting in CoH). But if the Devs are smart about it they could provide a compromise between allowing for noticeable amounts of jiggle without tempting every last 13 year old out there to make a joke anime fanservice character.

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

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
Why limit a jiggle slider to

Why limit a jiggle slider to just boobs? Should it not also cover all body fat? Santa Claus knock-offs helpers need their "bowl full of jelly." And we may find some "Professors" who are a bit nutty, that might find a reasonable use for a bit of full body jiggle.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Grimfox wrote:
Grimfox wrote:

Why limit a jiggle slider to just boobs? Should it not also cover all body fat? Santa Claus knock-offs helpers need their "bowl full of jelly." And we may find some "Professors" who are a bit nutty, that might find a reasonable use for a bit of full body jiggle.

Having "full body" jiggle capability would obviously be the eventual final goal. But as a logical baby step it would be easier to get something relatively simple to accomplish done first. Having "just" boob physics would be a good first step because it involves only one specific area of a body model and it has built-in "sex appeal" which we all know can "sell" almost anything.

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

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
Santa Claus sells a lot of

Santa Claus sells a lot of stuff too. ;-)

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 17 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
I would like to register my

I would like to register my opposition to including jiggle physics in the game.
It serves no practical purpose and frankly sends the wrong message to the players.

The discussion makes it clear that the primary purpose of including this would be for the players to look at the bouncing boobies. There's some token remarks about including fat bellies jiggling also, but even that is decribed as 'eww' rather than seriouscly promoted (and pec flex is not remotely in the same ballpark as jiggle physics either)

Superhero comics and games both have a long troubled history with overt and covert sexism and with blatant double standards magnifying a similar troubled history in our culture(s) when it comes to what is acceptable and what is mandatory behaviour and dressing styles for men and women.
This double standard has increasingly come under fire over the last few years. We don't want our game to become the next battleground for the gamergate ugliness. Not when purely from the traditional superhero aesthetics it already is under closer scrutiny and at greater risk of controvery.

If an animator moves something it has one of two purposes: it either conveys the action, or it is meant to draw attention. There is a third reason that blends in with the second, when background elements are animated. This still is meant to draw the attention, not to the object itself but to create a greater awareness of the reality of the environment. (this has its own pitfalls and uncanny valley issues, some of which are also mentioned in this discussion, but this is outside the scope of my reply).

I believe we can all agree that traditional jiggle physics as notoriarised by DOA beach volleyball firmly fall in the second category. It is meant to draw the eye of the presumed straight male player to the breasts of the character. In doing so it draws attention /away/ from the action rather than communicating it. This a text book example of pandering and it clearly conveys the intention that female characters in the game are there /to be looked at/, not for their heroic competence.
Frankly, there are much better away to express that our heroes are sexy as well as capable. A site like Bikini Armor Battle Damage focusses on traditional armour but it has plenty of examples of functional armour that still manages to look sexy. It also has a handy checklist in the form of a bingo card enumerating the most egragrious examples of armour gone bad in the name of sexying up female characters, as well as a similar bingo identifying and refuting typical arguments for doing the sexying up in the first place.

From a commercial standpoint it doesn't make much sense. All it achieves is indicating to potential female players, who already are much less likely to pick up anything related to superheros thanks to the concerted efforts of the comics publishers to make them feel unwelcome in the genre(*), that this game is meant for male players.
Now women are inundated in imagery that tells them they have to be sexy for men and that they will be looked at and judged on their appearance (and the display of their secondary sex characteristics), but that does not make it any more pleasant, just the background radiation of our lives. Games don't need to propagate that attitude, and there are plenty examples of games that actually manage to have female heroic and still sexy characters. Women are a small part of the potential audience for City of Titans, perhaps, but there is no reason to subconsciously predispose them against the game from the start.

Then there's also the practical considerations. In reality women go to great length to support and conceal their breasts. The opening animated image of the woman jumping while playing volleybal did show only a minimal amount of breast movement. In practice women who plan for strenuous activity that involves a lot of running and jumping (i.e. not just volleyball players but every superhero in existence ever) put on a sports bra(**). If you look up video clips of e.g. olympic games matches of women's beach volleybal, you can see that they wear fully encapsulating sports bra and show almost no breast bouncing. They do wear semi-thongs not because they want to look sexy (even though they achieve that effect and the advertisers love them for it), but because traditional bikini briefs get sand in them everywhere and end up being a chafing nightmare.
On top of that women tend to wear encapsulating bras most of the time in order to cut down on the harassment they receive as much as possible from their end (the daily catcalling is outside their control and will happen regardless of what they wear. As long as you are recognisably female then there will be men who whistle at you, make rude suggestions and generally behave like inconsiderate douchebags and are a living reminder to women why they should have a can of mace in their purse or bag at all time.

For most women a fictionary character walking around with the breasts flopping around and almost falling out of her inadequate top is not a sign of confidence and strength but a cause for vague discomfort. Part of that is the feeling of 'I could never wear that and look good'. But part of that is also the subconscious understanding how much physical discomfort and verbal harassment she would receive as a result of that outfit. There is a reason why the trend to show as much boob, belly and legs as is legally possible is a teenager thing mostly. It is because young women are still finding their identity and lean far more on the imagery they have been presented with all their lives to shore up their self image and self respect. All women are taught growing up, that part of their identity must be the approval of the people who look at them, and that they must look pretty and sexy. The images young women are shown to achieve this are in many ways hypersexualised so that is what they end up trying to emulate.

Admittedly, jiggle physics are a tiny part of all of this, but they /are/ part of the problem, and by unnecessarily emphasising the sexuality of female characters they draw attention to this cultural expectation. There's plenty of studies, for anybody who cares to google them, showing that this has negative consequences for women (including a lower self-confidence, setting lower expectations for oneself the more a woman is confronted with traditional and impossible beauty standards and so on) and that it isn't doing men any favours either.

That doesn't mean I say that there shouldn't be any sexy clothes available in the game. Only that the sexyness should not be overly emphasised specifically for female characters. And no, equal opportunity sexism is not the answer either. That is still sexism any way you look at it. (and for what it is worth the standard of what constitutes 'sexy male' is radically different for women than what men typically think it is. Monstrous muscle bound mutants a la Kratos of God of War (in)fame are not it). And even the sexy clothes should come with some common sense attached. A lot of the sexy outfits you see women wearing on television or in movies come with (uncomfortable) strapless bras, doubled sided tape (ouchies) and a severe risk of being upskirted or worse. And you have to remember that it is a (large) part of the job of those women to draw attention to themselves. They are not by any stretch of imagination typical of women, and even less so of what a female superhero would be like.

We really have to start thinking of female superheroes less like 'sexy runway models and actresses' and much much more like 'female soldiers', and at least give a nudging acknowledgment to that fact in the design of the outfits and animations. Yes, they are superhumanly capable soldiers, but they should be /idealised/ for it, not /sexualised/.
Wobbly boobs and jiggle physics, no matter how understated, do nothing for the heroic idealisation and only play into the sexualisation(***).

I am sorry, a little bit at least, for this long winded and meandering post. I felt it was important to get my point of view expressed in this discussion, and even more so the reason /why/ I believe that anything like jiggle physics, and the larger issues it is a representative part of, should not have a place in City of Titans.

(* At this point it is likely that any /new/ female player will be introduced to superhero through one of three routes: The teen titans cartoon, black widow, or the upcoming wonder woman movie, assuming they can get past the costume and portray her as a heroic character in her own right. I'm not so sure that the supergirl series does anything to interest (young) women in the genre. It is also worth nothing that the black widow that female audience reacted most strongly and favourably to was her civilian outfit in the winter soldier movie. When she was dressed fashionable and sensible. And still managed to be on equal footing with the male titular hero of the movie.)

(** Or two as not all models and makes protect the breasts against all of the myriads ways it gets bounced around during exercise and need a regular full encapsulting seamless foam for the full protection).

(*** it does nothing for the third reason to have animations either. Jiggle physics do not impart a sense of reality into the animated world. For that you would need a visible breathing animation and I can promise you that players would start to find that annoying in a hurry and will demand a switch to turn it off.)

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

I would like to register my opposition to including jiggle physics in the game.
It serves no practical purpose and frankly sends the wrong message to the players.

I'm a male and I agree with this.

Frankly, the only purpose for 'jiggle' is fan-service of one sort or another. It's there to distract.

If the Devs have to spend any time or money on creating it, realistic or not, then it's not a valuable feature in the game. _I_ am looking at the 'enemy' when I play and I don't need to be distracted by extra anatomical movement.

That said, if realistic movement is built into the models, then it seems like a pleasant feature for a bored Dev to develop, once the game is out.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Nadira, that is a high, high

Nadira, that is a high, high horse you're on right there, and you present a bunch of things that aren't necessarily the end-all-be-all as general fact, which just isn't true.

Now, I'll agree there's better ways to represent women as "sexy" than having their chest move. My boyfriend has a thing for strong women, and while I don't quite fall into that category, I can appreciate it; a woman in SWAT armor kicking a criminal's ass? That's awesome in several ways. I even agree that comics have a classic problem with the way they portray women's outfits (and, in some cases, their spines) for the sake of showing off breasts or legs. You also bring up the sorts of bras that are worn in women's sports, or other intense physical activity, and I can agree that there's a damn good reason for that.

But first you bring up Gamergate and just as quickly discard it - That's not relevant to this, because that wasn't the point of Gamergate, because that was focused on journalism. I'd ask you to keep that in mind before trying to pull this in as if it's a linked issue (it's not).

Second, you say that breast physics would push women away from the game, and I find that unlikely. you even go further to state that there's only three sources of women getting introduced to the industry, and that's just not true - I got my own start on super heroes from Spider Man, Batman, the Dresden Files (You can't tell me that's not a super hero story), and Worm, only one of which has a female main character. The women that'd get into this game would be here for the heroes and the powers or for their social circles, not for whether or not you have a character whose sweater puppies bounce. In fact, I'd hazard to say many of them are here for the opposite gender - to see men with rippling muscles in tight clothing or lacking shirts entirely, because that goes along with "super (wo)man" type of deal we're looking for here.

As far as women going to great lengths to conceal their breasts? No, that's just blatantly untrue. I know quite a few grown women proud of their bodies and show off simply because they can - cleavage, their legs, some nice boots and shoes with heels to help them sway their hips. Women that go about concealing themselves in the regions I've been to are either culturally influenced to do so (and there are many cultures that insist a woman be covered), they have abysmal self-esteem, or it's really damn cold outside and showing skin would be suicidal. See, the thing here is there's a difference between sexy and sexualized. A nice tee that shows off a bit of stomach, some hits of cleavage, and a nice pair of jeans without showing too much? sexy, but not sexualized. A leotard where the woman's hips go so high you can see her ribcage? Sexualized, and only arguably sexy, because it's more focused on what she's not wearing than what she is. The vast majority of people I've encountered - not women, note, but people in general - love the feeling of looking good and for people to recognize that they look good, and will do what they can to make that happen.

The Sexy Versus Sexualized thing is where things fall flat in the case of a lot of artists, many of which are men, and to be honest? That's fine. Sex sells, and new viewership is one of the most important things any entertainment industry can manage, even if it's at the end of something like that. I wish they'd improve their anatomy and clothing design for such things, but at the end of the day people also aren't picking up comic books because they want to get aroused, they're doing it because they're interested in what sort of plot their favorite characters are getting into this time. My roommate, who originally got me into CoH, can spout off hours of inconsequential details about the interpersonal relationships of the X-men. Cable alone took two hours to explain, and I still don't understand half of what was going on.

A further issue with not portraying superheroines as "sexy runway models and actresses" is that it's a break away from the source of games like these. I'm not liable to have a character wearing such myself - my characters tend to either be heavily armored, wearing heavy robes, or monstrous enough that how much their chest jiggles is unlikely to be the issue at hand with their appearance. But I love having the option, I like feeling that extra bit of sexy when, say, my sorceress changes out of a bigass robe and into a blouse and undoes the top couple of buttons and slips into some skinny jeans, then goes to CoT's equivalent to Pocket D. I like having the option to climb into something skin tight or wear a miniskirt if it strikes my fancy. I play dressup all the time, and it usually ends up with something showing.

The points I'm trying to make here are simple: your view of what is 'good' for all this (as you've presented it) is narrow while you tout it like you can't possibly be wrong, and you're trying to limit options. I've dealt with enough people to ignore the first part, but the second, in a game that's all about customizing your appearance in whatever way you like, is just not going to fly. My personal ideal would be letting people choose how much any given costume bounces. Maybe with a slider - yes, it'll see abuse, but mature people (of which there are many in the comic community) will generally make it appropriate to what they're wearing, or go so far in the other direction that they wouldn't care in the first place that controls are present. Lots of men and lots of women would simply be happier with having more options available, making that the better choice. You wanna turn off breast jiggle for yourself? Feel free. Given the modularity of the game physics/lighting/sound setup, the devs have nearly already stated stuff like this is going to be optional. But don't take that away from other players that actually want it.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 5 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
To elongate this debate more:

To elongate this debate more: (Not like we have much else :[ )

If you could only get One..
..would you prefer Jiggle Boobs, Sultry Walk, or emote `Come Get Some` slap on the rear?

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 17 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Nadira, that is a high, high horse you're on right there, and you present a bunch of things that aren't necessarily the end-all-be-all as general fact, which just isn't true.

I presented my point of view re jiggle physics. I did not, or at least I hope I did not, demand others to unconditionally agree with me.

Halae wrote:

Now, I'll agree there's better ways to represent women as "sexy" than having their chest move. My boyfriend has a thing for strong women, and while I don't quite fall into that category, I can appreciate it; a woman in SWAT armor kicking a criminal's ass? That's awesome in several ways. I even agree that comics have a classic problem with the way they portray women's outfits (and, in some cases, their spines) for the sake of showing off breasts or legs. You also bring up the sorts of bras that are worn in women's sports, or other intense physical activity, and I can agree that there's a damn good reason for that.

This is the key point I was trying to argue. That jiggle physics do nothing for the 'sexy' and send a wrong message to female players. That we're so used to that message that we rarely think about it anymore does not matter.

Halae wrote:

But first you bring up Gamergate and just as quickly discard it - That's not relevant to this, because that wasn't the point of Gamergate, because that was focused on journalism. I'd ask you to keep that in mind before trying to pull this in as if it's a linked issue (it's not).

I mentioned gamergate only because as soon as a controversy, real or contrived, over jiggle physics becomes public the same groups that hijacked that will come poking the flames. And I do not want to get my game associated with the worst of the internet. (By which I do not mean all of the gamergate, but by the groups specifically that gathered under that umbrella to harass and threaten anybody who dares to even suggest that there is room for more diversity in games. And while I personally think it is questionable that gamergate started out as 'ethics in game journalism', it is pretty undeniable that it did not stay that way for long once the darkest corners of the internet communities hijacked the banner). Most of all though, I don't really care to discuss gamergate as in my experience nothing good can come out of that, nor can the association of City of Titans with that whole controversy. The only reason I brought it up (and why I immediately dropped it again) was to warn that the more you sexualise a game design (regardless of gender even, just look up the final fantasy kerfuffle), the more likely it is that you will get caught up in that tempest.

Halae wrote:

Second, you say that breast physics would push women away from the game, and I find that unlikely. you even go further to state that there's only three sources of women getting introduced to the industry, and that's just not true - I got my own start on super heroes from Spider Man, Batman, the Dresden Files (You can't tell me that's not a super hero story), and Worm, only one of which has a female main character.

Yes, I was overstating the issue. However, comics are a niche market, and superhero comics even more so. And its industry has done very little the past decades to make itself more appealing to women. To the point that it is unlikely that a woman who is not already reading comics will find herself drawn to the medium. So I grasped for a couple of examples of other media that might expose women to superheros in a more favourable way. The teen titans cartoon came to mind, as did Black Widow from the marvel movies (though she actually is used a bit fan-servicy in the iron man movies, and more respectfully in large parts of the winter soldier). The point of that was never to say those are the only options, though on reading back I realise I did just that. The point was to point out that women and girls reacted much more favourably to the less sexualised but still sexy /competent/ images of superhero women portrayed in those examples.

Halae wrote:

The women that'd get into this game would be here for the heroes and the powers or for their social circles, not for whether or not you have a character whose sweater puppies bounce. In fact, I'd hazard to say many of them are here for the opposite gender - to see men with rippling muscles in tight clothing or lacking shirts entirely, because that goes along with "super (wo)man" type of deal we're looking for here.

The women who stay playing City of Titans, certainly. I am more worried about the women who never get to playing the game because they have the wrong preconceived notions. Youtube clips and advertising material with breasts bouncing all over the place don't communicate anything to women who are undecided but 'only for boys'.
Because frankly, we do try to minimise the bounce for ourselves as it is uncomfortable at best, acutely painful at worst. And I don't know any woman who thinks that bouncing breasts is a good look for herself. Jiggle physics are for boys/men not for women. And if they are a prominent part of the game they communicate that intent clearly to all who watches.

Halae wrote:

As far as women going to great lengths to conceal their breasts? No, that's just blatantly untrue. I know quite a few grown women proud of their bodies and show off simply because they can - cleavage, their legs, some nice boots and shoes with heels to help them sway their hips.

Yet most of my bras are foam cup ones, and I am not exactly the only woman for who that is true.
Because those are the most comfortable(ish), they give the best support and no risk of slipping or bouncing. And, not inconsiderably, they also prevent nipples poking visibly. They won't hide that I have breasts, but they do nothing to draw attention to that fact.

And of course women dress in ways that show off their bodies. This is practically culturally mandated. Which is why I mentioned I don't mind that there is sexy clothing in a game. When playing a game that offers me the option I aim for something that I feel is attractive too. But there is a huge difference between attractive and sexualised, and in my opinion jiggle physics are on the wrong side of that divide, as is e.g. an outfit consisting of a g-string and pasties. (and even then I don't really /care/ if that would be an option, as long as it isn't the only option. Or the default).

Halae wrote:

The Sexy Versus Sexualized thing is where things fall flat in the case of a lot of artists, many of which are men, and to be honest? That's fine. Sex sells

There actually is plenty evidence that sex does not sell games. Games that rely on sexual imagery for their marketing almost universally flail or fail. And only have a fraction of the audience that less explicit and sensationalised games have. If you make a list of the most popular games you will not find any in the top ten that amps up the sexuality to max. Probably not in the top 20 either.

Hala wrote:

and new viewership is one of the most important things any entertainment industry can manage, even if it's at the end of something like that. I wish they'd improve their anatomy and clothing design for such things, but at the end of the day people also aren't picking up comic books because they want to get aroused, they're doing it because they're interested in what sort of plot their favorite characters are getting into this time. My roommate, who originally got me into CoH, can spout off hours of inconsequential details about the interpersonal relationships of the X-men. Cable alone took two hours to explain, and I still don't understand half of what was going on.

I can't obviously comment on your roommate, but the experience from developers (who are not creepy marketing guy) is that to make a popular game you need to make it good. It needs to be entertaining, well put together, understandable and match the target's audience's preferences. Presentation is part of that, but primarily in the 'well put together' part. Sex does not seem to be anywhere on the list that gets many players to keep playing a game. Anything that amps up the sexyness before the rest of the game is taken care of is wasted effort.

This is not however the central part of my argument. That was that jiggle physics do not (in my opinion) have a place in a game like CIty of Titans because it emphasises the sexualisation of female characters alone, and thus creates a wrong impression who the game is for and what it is about.

Halae wrote:

A further issue with not portraying superheroines as "sexy runway models and actresses" is that it's a break away from the source of games like these. I'm not liable to have a character wearing such myself - my characters tend to either be heavily armored, wearing heavy robes, or monstrous enough that how much their chest jiggles is unlikely to be the issue at hand with their appearance. But I love having the option, I like feeling that extra bit of sexy when, say, my sorceress changes out of a bigass robe and into a blouse and undoes the top couple of buttons and slips into some skinny jeans, then goes to CoT's equivalent to Pocket D. I like having the option to climb into something skin tight or wear a miniskirt if it strikes my fancy. I play dressup all the time, and it usually ends up with something showing.

I do so not just in game but in reality too. Dressing for the occasion. But that is not the argument I was trying to make. Or rather, I feel that adding jiggle physics skews what amounts to what 'the occasion'. They are part of the whole cultural message that informs women that being on display is something they must do (and must want to so) at all times. That is not a healthy message and because jiggle physics serve no practical purpose but titilation for a male audience, I can not in honesty find a reason to include it in a game that is /not/ about titilation.

Halae wrote:

The points I'm trying to make here are simple: your view of what is 'good' for all this (as you've presented it) is narrow while you tout it like you can't possibly be wrong, and you're trying to limit options. I've dealt with enough people to ignore the first part, but the second, in a game that's all about customizing your appearance in whatever way you like, is just not going to fly. My personal ideal would be letting people choose how much any given costume bounces. Maybe with a slider - yes, it'll see abuse, but mature people (of which there are many in the comic community) will generally make it appropriate to what they're wearing, or go so far in the other direction that they wouldn't care in the first place that controls are present. Lots of men and lots of women would simply be happier with having more options available, making that the better choice. You wanna turn off breast jiggle for yourself? Feel free. Given the modularity of the game physics/lighting/sound setup, the devs have nearly already stated stuff like this is going to be optional. But don't take that away from other players that actually want it.

I don't have the delusion that I can dictate or demand anything from the developers. All I can do, as I have, is try to present arguments why /I/ think that jiggle physics woudl be a bad addition to City of Titans.
And I should have made it even more clear that I have no problem whatshowever with sexy clothes in the game (for women and men please!) and that I will make use of them too.

Marian

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 12 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
It is already states that we

It is already stated that we will have jiggly hair and clothing. This is just the next step.
The general agreement is a slight jiggle for the chest will not detract from the game.

Please. Political Correctness ruins everything it touches. Please leave it out of this game.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 40 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

I would like to register my opposition to including jiggle physics in the game.
It serves no practical purpose and frankly sends the wrong message to the players.

Fireheart wrote:

I'm a male and I agree with this.
Frankly, the only purpose for 'jiggle' is fan-service of one sort or another. It's there to distract.

Or, one could say...."titillate".

I tend to agree. It makes no sense to spend dev time on such a "feature". Either the motion is going to be so subtle that it will be impossible to notice unless zoomed in real close (which makes it creepy), or it's going to be ridiculously over-exaggerated to make it noticeable at a distance, which brings a whole host of other issues.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 17 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

It is already stated that we will have jiggly hair and clothing. This is just the next step.
The general agreement is a slight jiggle for the chest will not detract from the game.
Please. Political Correctness ruins everything it touches. Please leave it out of this game.

Sorry, but you can not declare an argument 'off limits' in a discussion. At least not and still have a discussion.
The moderators can do that, maybe, but I would be disappointed when they would have cut off a discussion using reasonable and non-inflammatory arguments.

I presented my arguments why I believe breast jiggle physics would send a wrong message to prospective players. If you disagree you should do as Halae did and explain why you believe I am wrong.
If you believe having jiggle physics is important or relevant to the game then you should provide your own arguments why it should be included.

I may agree or disagree with your arguments but I promise I will not let it dissolve into a shouting match or flame war. We don't have to, after all, end up agreeing on this issue, seeing that neither of us is a developer who does have to make a decision on this subject.

But you can not cut me off by saying 'the majority agrees and you can not bring up /those/ arguments'

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Please. Political Correctness ruins everything it touches. Please leave it out of this game.

Sorry, friend, I see the free expression of opinion and no mention of politics, here. Flowing hair and clothing is a completely different system from 'jiggle'.

Be Well!
Fireheart

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Flowing hair and clothing is a completely different system from 'jiggle'.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Not really, both a basically physics systems that only differ in their limitations in movement and from what they gain motion from. At least when they are properly done.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 49 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
It figures that some good

It figures that some good posts ended up in this thread during the few weeks I was away overseas. Even now I don't really have the time to adequately respond to the "anti-jiggle" folks but I will concede they do bring up some thoughtful and reasonable points to support their position on the topic.

The only real point I need to bring up to counter them is that reasonable representations of body jiggle (breast, belly or otherwise) is pretty much going to be inevitable in games like these. Forty+ years ago the best "graphics" for computer games involved simple moving squares and triangles. Now we have human character models that look more and more realistic every year. Even CoT promises to provide some cutting edge realism in terms of animated hair and clothing that few other games currently match. So the only real question here is not whether body jiggle is "good" or "bad" or whether it's even necessary - the only real question here is whether CoT will be among the first games to take the subject seriously and provide reasonable support for that level of detail. Basically if CoT doesn't provide it then more games in the next few years will. The current MMO Black Desert is already one existing example of how to handle this "feature" in a responsible/positive way. It will become a "taken for granted" detail regardless just as much as capes, wings, tails or any other "animated" body detail is today.

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

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 17 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Actually, the question of

Actually, the question of what purpose does it serve is relevant and can not be brushed aside like you do.

To quote Portal 'we do what we must because we can' was not a justification for the actions of glados either :)

Just because it is possible to implement jiggle physics does not mean that we must therefor do it.

I gave some arguments why I believe implementing jiggle physics, and breast jiggling (as was the request by the original poster, and the focus of attention of much of the discussion) in particular, send the wrong message about the game.
What does bouncing breasts say about the female superheroes in the game? Specifically I mean. Nothing that relates to what /should/ be the focus of attention, namely them being superheroes. If it is so understated that it equals the amount of breast movement visible on women who have prepared for rigorous physical activity including a lot of jumping, running and kicking it will be so slight that you may as well not bother (just watch olympic level women's sports. Barely a jiggle to be detected under the sports bra and second bra for extra support and compression). And if it is noticeable on a smallish computer screen, then it sends the tired and old message that female superheros are there to be looked at first and foremost, not to be looked at.

I would recommend reading though the Bikini Armor Battle Damage tumblr, because it deals a lot with the unequal gender representation in popular media (their focus is primariy on comics and marketing material but a lot of the troublesome issues they identify also apply to games.
Sarkeesian is less useful as a source here as she focuses more on the way female characters are used in games and much less on how they are dressed (though the episode about 'strategic butt covering' and the 'ms male characters' should prove to be enlightening).
Extra Credits also has a few episodes about gender coding though again it is not really the topic they focus in their subject choices.

But most of all, I do not concede this is all a 'settled debate' and there is a lot of discussing to do still rather than jump directly to 'negotiating the price'
And my first challenge to you is to explain, in simple terms, why it is necessary to include jiggle physics in this game.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 17 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Fireheart wrote:
Flowing hair and clothing is a completely different system from 'jiggle'.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Not really, both a basically physics systems that only differ in their limitations in movement and from what they gain motion from. At least when they are properly done.

From a technical point of view they are similar, yes.
From a topical and emotional point of view there is a huge difference.

It is more akin to uncensored nudity versus superhero costumes (even the sexy ones). Technically speaking both are skinning options, but there is a huge difference between including them in a game. (and yes, I know that my example is a bit more extreme, but the reality of it is that jiggle physics is a form of sexualisation of female characters, so the comparison is not that far off either).

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Fireheart wrote:
Flowing hair and clothing is a completely different system from 'jiggle'.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Not really, both a basically physics systems that only differ in their limitations in movement and from what they gain motion from. At least when they are properly done.
From a technical point of view they are similar, yes.
From a topical and emotional point of view there is a huge difference.
It is more akin to uncensored nudity versus superhero costumes (even the sexy ones). Technically speaking both are skinning options, but there is a huge difference between including them in a game. (and yes, I know that my example is a bit more extreme, but the reality of it is that jiggle physics is a form of sexualisation of female characters, so the comparison is not that far off either).

And I addressed it as a technical point since that was how I read it in the first place.

Since I didn't take a stance for or against it in that post I see no relevance to your response.

Pages