Twitch Upcoming!

We're delaying our Twitch till AFTER a very specific KS update. You'll know what one, we'll talk about the twitch in the update. We need all hands to get this one ready.
Which still means something good is coming.
https://www.twitch.tv/missingworldsmedia

Rotty's stream ended.
Check him out at right here

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

615 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

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.

Why is it necessary to have animated capes, wings, tails, hair or clothing in a game like this? Strictly speaking (just like breast jiggle) none of those things are "required" to play and it would be easy to make the case that it would make our Devs' lives much, much easier if they didn't have to bother to include things like that. Games like this are full of "unnecessary QoL features" if you want to be incredibly nit-picky about it.

I'm sorry to say that decades worth of graphical and animation improvement basically points towards you being on the wrong side of history with your objections to this. I will clearly concede that in the particular case of CoT the Devs of MWM might very well decide that including body jiggle (of any kind) might be considered a feature that is simply too "cutting edge" for them due to their uniquely limited budget/time constraints. But as I have mentioned in various previous posts on this thread in the past there are already multiple examples of this kind of thing being implemented in current MMOs and modding packages. Sure it might not happen in CoT, but if you are truly against this kind of thing as a general principle then there are going to be very few new games for you to play in the relatively near future. *shrugs*

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

Tinkhard
Tinkhard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 04/15/2014 - 08:18
I think I'm on the fence

I think I'm on the fence about this. On the list of things I'd prefer the devs spend time doing, this is probably at the absolute bottom. I'm not dead set against it, but I don't see it as important and if we got this ahead of the myriad of other awesome things the devs and community have imagined I'd be pretty bummed. Just because something is going to be the norm in gaming doesn't add any intrinsic importance to it for me. On the (sort of) less technical side... I'm not against jiggle physics if it's actually adhering to physical laws (and preferably an option to disable it) and doesn't apply to just specific parts of the female form. Jiggling big bellies or bust. Pun not intended.

TINK SMASH

DBG Radio

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Tinkhard wrote:
Tinkhard wrote:

I think I'm on the fence about this.

For what it's worth I wouldn't give up on CoT if it doesn't have jiggle physics. But after overcoming the challenges of things like animated hair and clothing (which the Devs here have already indicated are likely going to be included in CoT) I would say that implementing jiggle physics would be on the very short list of the "next thing to tackle" in terms of continued character model improvement.

Tinkhard wrote:

On the list of things I'd prefer the devs spend time doing, this is probably at the absolute bottom.

If this was still 2004 I'd agree with you 100%. But since reasonable jiggle physics now exists in a number of various incarnations I'm more inclined to think its time has come for this game.

Tinkhard wrote:

I'm not dead set against it, but I don't see it as important and if we got this ahead of the myriad of other awesome things the devs and community have imagined I'd be pretty bummed. Jus because something is going to be the norm in gaming doesn't add any intrinsic importance to it for me.

Every player's "most important features" list likely differs from every other player. What's actually important is what the Devs consider to be worth spending time on. When it comes to "cosmetic QoL details" the Devs are never going to please everyone in terms of what they spend (or don't spend) effort on regardless of what they do.

Tinkhard wrote:

On the (sort of) less technical side... I'm not against jiggle physics if it's actually adhering to physical laws (and preferably an option to disable it) and doesn't apply to just specific parts of the female form. Jiggling big bellies or bust. Pun not intended.

It's already be suggested several times in this thread the best way to handle this would be via a slider in which a min (or max) setting on that slider would completely inhibit any jiggle at all. Also it's clear that if they can get breast jiggle to work it would lead to getting any other kind of body jiggle to work as well. As you yourself implied having jiggles everywhere might be too hard to implement at first so having just female breast jiggle would be a reasonable interim compromise.

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

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
'Jiggle' animation is not the

'Jiggle' animation is not the same as clothing physics.

Edited
Sorry didn't really make my point clear.
Jiggle animation seems to be easier to do than clothing physics. Almost every 3d program now includes intuitive and simple ways to make it possible.
I'm not sure what program MWM is using to animate the models so here are a few videos showing how it is done in various programs.
Maya

Blender

Unreal

In contrast clothing physics seem to require more work as seen in these.

Maya

Blender

Unreal

Seems like jiggle is fairly simple while clothing physics need a lot more work.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Seems like jiggle is fairly simple while clothing physics need a lot more work.

And given that the Unreal 4 engine (among the other tools MWM is using for CoT) can handle clothing physics fairly well there's never actually been much of a question of whether or not CoT could also support jiggle physics of various kinds. The only real question is whether the Devs choose to implement that particular type of cosmetic QoL feature over any others they are considering.

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

StellarAgent
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 21 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 13:48
To be clear, this comment is

To be clear, this comment is from a guy, admittedly an older guy who has seen and explored a lot of this world (the Military was good for some things ;P )

To me, Jiggle is Okay. Bounce is not. The problem is that there is a very fine line between the two, and one person's version of Jiggle is going to be someone else's Bounce. I found it very interesting how wildly different we see sexuality in every place I've been to. And not one single thing was (technically speaking) Logical. Sometimes I found it funny, other times I found it quite sad as some cultures will not allow any freedom of (for want of a better term) Fashion Expression. There a lot of cultures that dictate no only what women can wear/show, but the men as well. And I don't just mean breasts (which have nothing to do with sex, they are a mammary gland and their sole purpose is to make milk for babies), but, feet, ankles, calfs, knees, wrists, shoulders, faces, etc; the list is huge.

I'm sorry Nadira, but I'm afraid that with current software technologies and the needs (and lets face it, the Wants) of our player base, you are going to see Jiggle in the game. How much Jiggle, we don't know, we can only speculate.

I'm curious though about some of your comments and I want to make sure I understand. Is it your contention that ANY amount of Breast Jiggle is (to you) Sexualization?

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

The only real question is whether the Devs choose to implement that particular type of cosmetic QoL feature over any others they are considering..

The videos show that the work to include this is pretty low when compared to adding clothing physics. Just looking at the first maya video, it seems that giving jiggle options to the few character models the game will have would only take a few hours for each and if the models were made in unreal then it looks as easy or easier. I hope MWM's development schedule is not so tight that a day or two put towards jiggle is unavailable.
On the other hand cloth physics look like they take a similar amount of time to make but needs to be done for each outfit. It would not take that many outfits to pass the time that is required of jiggle by a large margin.

Most seem to expect cloth physics will be in the game while jiggle seems to be at best optional. Makes me think that the question isn't 'whether' it be implemented but really 'should' it be. I mean if most people don't care even though it takes such a small amount of work to do then why bother with it at all.

I also tried to find videos that showed jiggle wasn't just breasts but that was not as easy because 'BEWBS'.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Makes me think that the question isn't 'whether' it be implemented but really 'should' it be. I mean if most people don't care even though it takes such a small amount of work to do then why bother with it at all.

Again it mostly comes down to what the Devs decide to prioritize when it comes to things like this REGARDLESS of player demand OR Dev effort involved. If the eight years of CoH are any measure we'll get things in CoT ranging from:

  • Feature A that took a huge amount of Dev time/effort but was never asked for by players and/or never widely used.
  • Feature B that took a huge amount of Dev time/effort but was widely wanted and used by most players.
  • Feature C that took a trivial amount of Dev time/effort but was still never asked for by players and/or never used.
  • Feature D that took a trivial amount of Dev time/effort but was widely wanted and used by most players.
  • or anything in-between ...

I'm not going to make the argument that jiggle physics "is so easy" that we should get it for that reason alone. Obviously any feature like this would take some extra time/effort regardless of how easy it might be to implement. But I will argue that for the simple sake of furthering the advancement of body models for MMO games in general it's pretty much the next logical step to explore.

The Devs of CoT will end up giving us a mixed bag of cosmetic QoL features and as I pointed out before no one will be 100% satisfied with them no matter what the Devs do. But since jiggle physics would likely be purely optional (based on slider settings) it's really hard to categorically claim that this particular class of cosmetic QoL feature would be all that much "better" or "worse" than any other that gets included in the game.

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

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I'm not going to make the argument that jiggle physics "is so easy" that we should get it for that reason alone. Obviously any feature like this would take some extra time/effort regardless of how easy it might be to implement. But I will argue that for the simple sake of furthering the advancement of body models for MMO games in general it's pretty much the next logical step to explore..

I think how easy it is to do is a pretty big plus in its favor. I'd pick up a dollar on the street even if I already had 20 in my pocket. It just seems that most don't really value jiggle to be worth a dollar like you and I do. To them its a penny and can be ignored because they have a 20 already.
I'm also not sure that jiggle is the next logical step. Character models have been continuing to get better over the years because computer can show things in higher resolution and more polygons just like in that picture of the Tomb Raiders you showed before. The jiggle in Tomb Raider has actually gone from none to mastabatory to gratuitous and is now very subtle.

Its also important to remember that the more you push the limits of models in a game the less people who can actually enjoy it because not everyone has the best hardware. I remember a while back the trouble people had with Crysis because of how far they pushed graphics. IMHO I would like there to be some natural body jiggle in the most obvious places, notably breasts bums and bellys. Doing more than those might require too much computer for most people. I just don't see a need to give the players a slider for it becuase it could possibly cause more problems with players.

Just a little while ago Blizzard changed a pose for a character in Overwatch because it was thought be overly sexualized. People can get upset over pretty much anything so why poke the bear with something known to be an issue?

Which brings me back to thinking that the question of 'should it be done' it be done' is more important than trying to measure its value over other QoL things. Should city of titans be the game to deal with any fallout over immature uses of a jiggle slider? Should city of titans be the game to push the graphics requirements to another level? Should city of titans try to match or beat a game like Black Desert in realistic character models? I just don't think it should.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Nadira wrote:
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.
Why is it necessary to have animated capes, wings, tails, hair or clothing in a game like this? Strictly speaking (just like breast jiggle) none of those things are "required" to play and it would be easy to make the case that it would make our Devs' lives much, much easier if they didn't have to bother to include things like that. Games like this are full of "unnecessary QoL features" if you want to be incredibly nit-picky about it.
I'm sorry to say that decades worth of graphical and animation improvement basically points towards you being on the wrong side of history with your objections to this. I will clearly concede that in the particular case of CoT the Devs of MWM might very well decide that including body jiggle (of any kind) might be considered a feature that is simply too "cutting edge" for them due to their uniquely limited budget/time constraints. But as I have mentioned in various previous posts on this thread in the past there are already multiple examples of this kind of thing being implemented in current MMOs and modding packages. Sure it might not happen in CoT, but if you are truly against this kind of thing as a general principle then there are going to be very few new games for you to play in the relatively near future. *shrugs*

The objection. has. nothing. to do. with. technology.

You keep returning to 'but technically we can easily do it now' while completely glossing over the objection that animated breast jiggling /unnecessarily sexualises female characters/.

And you keep brining up the animated capes and hair, as if they are the same, but neither of those is a secondary sex characteristic, and both apply equally to men and women.

My question to you, still, is: what purpose does animated breasts serve to make the game better?
And to counter two possible (and in other games frequently presented) reason I pre-emptively counter those
If the reason brought up gets anywhere close to the word 'realism' I must point out that /realistically/ women who expect to engage in strenuous physical activity, especially if that includes a lot of running and jumping, will wear a sports bra (and if they are as well endowed as the typical superheroine is depicted, she wiill wear a sports bra AND a regular bra), and no jiggle will be noticeable. Because allowing your breasts to jiggle all over the place is an embarassment waiting to happen, it will really hurt at the end of the day and it will make your breasts look like you're 80 by the time you turn 40.
If the reason is related to 'it looks nice' (aka: I like looking at breasts) then I should politely point you towards games like Scarlet Blade or DoA: Extreme, as they shamelessly pander to that mindset (and are much derided for it too, I might add). And I would urge you to consider seriously if that association is really what you want for the spiritual successor of our beloved City of Heroes.

And there's an enormous list of issues that the developers can choose to burn processor cycles on that will actually improve the gameplay that seem to me more important than animating the breast of my charactes (and degrade them from being hero to mere eye candy in the process).

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
StellarAgent wrote:
StellarAgent wrote:

snip
I'm sorry Nadira, but I'm afraid that with current software technologies and the needs (and lets face it, the Wants) of our player base, you are going to see Jiggle in the game. How much Jiggle, we don't know, we can only speculate.
I'm curious though about some of your comments and I want to make sure I understand. Is it your contention that ANY amount of Breast Jiggle is (to you) Sexualization?

First of all, you are presuming a male, heterosexual audience. While the superhero genre draws a predominantly male audience, City of Heroes was notable because it had a much more evenly distributed player base. If City of Titans similarly focuses on facilitating different playing styles and shies away from stressing player competition it is likely to draw a larger percentage of female players than DCUO or CO do.
Second, there is no need at all. There is a want here, but should the game ship without nothing particular will happen that wouldn't if the game only had jiggle physics.

The question 'how much is too much jiggle' is a false one, because it presupposes that some jiggle is inevitable. I question the assumption that it adds anything to the game at all.

And while the primary purpose of breasts is feeding babies, if that was the only reason for their existence human women wouldn't be walking around with permanently swollen ones, we would only have noticeable breasts if we actually had a baby to feed. Just like all other primates. They are a secondary sex characteristic and they have the additional purpose of advertising fertility and health. On top of that in our culture breasts have been sexualised to such extremes that their primary function now becomes unmentionable and must remain hidden because the culture message overrides everything else.

Jiggle physics are traditionally created by game developers specifically to draw attention to the breasts of female characters. Even if this does not longer /have/ to be so, there is no escaping that at this point this is still the association in games with animated breasts. It sends a message loud and clear that the female character is in the game for the titillation of a presumed straight male player.

So the first question that needs answering in my opinion would not be 'how much' but: 'what would it add to the experience of the players (disregarding any assumptions about the gender identity and sexual orientation of the players)'

I can not think of any answer to that question, and so far in this discussion nobody has provided me with an answer either. (other than: because we can and other games do it too. To which I reply: we are not G.L.A.D.O.S. and there is no cake. That we can do something is no reason that we must do it).

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 40 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Nadira, I'm going to start

Nadira, I'm going to start off by politely asking you to please cease being condescending. We all try to be friendly here, but your posts have a blatantly hostile air, and you talk like you speak from a position of authority, which you do not. Please work on that, before someone is actually pulled into insults. Telling people to 'go play another game' is already fairly insulting.

But beyond that, have you considered the differentiation between standard clothing and the sort of clothing you wear during strenuous activity? A woman working construction will be wearing comfortable but concealing clothing such as a sports bra that doesn't jiggle at all under their clothing, sure, but what about a reporter, a desk jockey, a secretary, or someone who's nearly nude (which does happen in superhero stuff)? What about the outfits made for characters when they're just hanging out, such as at a club? I always had a costume slot taken up by an outfit for going clubbing in at Pocket D, and among women clothing that shows off (and therefore by its nature doesn't bind and conceal) is very common.

There is a reason for it. It likely shouldn't come up in the costumes your character actually uses to go out to fight crime in, but the 'realism' argument does suggest there's a reason for its presence.

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".

Garrilon
Garrilon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 5 days ago
Joined: 02/05/2015 - 21:45
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.

Nailed it!!! Yes, a slider might be a lot of fun later on, but, not necessary to start with... What is more important IMHO is having the clothing work right, like what is supposed to be a rigid plate such as a breastplate (properly used terminology) to move from side to side as motion irl causes a real one to move. Ex.: a chest part of armor that looks a bit similar to Stormtroopers in the Star Wars movies and such...

If the jiggle work has been done already, so be it, but, it should be a last minute or an update in priority if it hasn't IMO... I really want to play asap, so, getting the game up and running properly has to be the top priority IMHO!!

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Breasts are not the only

Breasts are not the only place jiggle can be used. Besides the video I already showed how about these,

or how about comedic breast jiggle like this

Nadira you have taken a position that clearly states breast jiggle is sexual in nature and then ask us to convince you how sexual breast jiggle will add to the game. It won't. Framing the question based on your personal bias has removed any chance for discussion.

When you talk about breast jiggle you seem to be thinking about the exploitative examples like DOA or Soul Edge. But breast jiggle does not have to be sexual. The new tomb raider and uncharted games both have strong female characters which are not diminished by the fact that those games also have breast jiggle.

If all you think about when you hear breast jiggle, I really hate that term so I am going to use breast physics, is those silly uses and then worry about it driving women away you are doing women a disservice. Most women do not take the position that breast physics are inherently sexual. Here are a couple quotes from some articles to give you an idea of what I mean.

From Kate Gray
"I understand that boobs are sexy, and often hilarious. That’s cool. That’s biology. But their depiction in games doesn’t always have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And designers definitely don’t have to show complete disdain for their female audience by treating digital women like the Page 3 models that the Sun has just scrapped."

and from Patricia Hernandez
"Across the board, [the response from women] wasn't a neutral response, it was a negative response," Alex said. Curiously, the negative response occurred both when the physics were unrealistic, and when the physics were turned off. It seems as if there's a very fine line to walk when it comes to breast physics: they can't be too exaggerated or too toned down without having people feel as if something is wrong. You might think of it as "the uncanny valley of breasts."

Even the early stages of gamergate supported the idea of natural breast movement before the crazy people on both sides invaded and it got stupid.

If we can agree that breast physics do not HAVE to be sexual but still has the POSSIBILITY to be sexual then we can discuss the value of it on equal ground.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Except for the fighting game,

Except for the fighting game, all of those amusing uses of jiggle are in Movies and are put there Intentionally, for stimulating the audience, and not for 'realism' per se.

Frankly, the same seems to be true in the 'breast jiggle' department. It's there for the titillation of the audience and not for realism. If it were there for realism, then jiggle would have to be applied to the entire Body. And then, six fat guys doing calisthenics would melt your GPU, or grind you down to 3 frames per second.

Proponents are saying 'jiggle isn't hard' and 'jiggle isn't just about breasts', and, like Nadira, I find myself wondering, "What is jiggle For?" "Why is it that people are demanding it?" Because, unless it's exaggerated to uncomfortable levels, no one is ever going to see it!

Be Well!
Fireheart

StellarAgent
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 21 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 13:48
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

snip . . .

Proponents are saying 'jiggle isn't hard' and 'jiggle isn't just about breasts', and, like Nadira, I find myself wondering, "What is jiggle For?" "Why is it that people are demanding it?" Because, unless it's exaggerated to uncomfortable levels, no one is ever going to see it!
Be Well!
Fireheart

I work beside a World Health gym, and let me tell you I See It Every Day! The number of people wearing inappropriate clothing for their workouts is astounding! Jiggle abounds in real life and believe it or not, breast jiggle or even breast bounce is Not Always Sexual! In a lot of the cases I've seen through their windows, it is downright sad and pathetic.

Even with sports bras on, if the woman is large enough, guess what happens?

I'm sorry Nadira, but I completely and totally disagree with your stance. It SEEMS to ME that you refuse to accept the fact that breast jiggle/bounce is a real life fact of life and it is going to be in the game.

I'm sorry for anyone else who may also see this as sexualization, and I'm pretty sure that the devs are closely watching this discussion and are Having The Exact Same One We Are; maybe not with the same language, but the same discussion nonetheless. The question that needs to be asked is: How much is too much? And please lets not use gratuitous videos of extreme jiggle/bounce. Lets use ones from real life and have a simple vote: Too Much or Just Right.

Just my 5 cents worth (no pennies in the Great White North)

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Except for the fighting game, all of those amusing uses of jiggle are in Movies and are put there Intentionally, for stimulating the audience, and not for 'realism' per se.
Frankly, the same seems to be true in the 'breast jiggle' department. It's there for the titillation of the audience and not for realism. If it were there for realism, then jiggle would have to be applied to the entire Body. And then, six fat guys doing calisthenics would melt your GPU, or grind you down to 3 frames per second.
Proponents are saying 'jiggle isn't hard' and 'jiggle isn't just about breasts', and, like Nadira, I find myself wondering, "What is jiggle For?" "Why is it that people are demanding it?" Because, unless it's exaggerated to uncomfortable levels, no one is ever going to see it!
Be Well!
Fireheart

Well said!

One of the things I really enjoyed about our old City was that it attracted a greater number of female players than many other MMOs. I believe that enriched our community in myriad ways.

I would be simply amused by all the mansplaining going on here, trying to convince us that breast jiggle is technically inevitable or anything but prurient, if the responses that try to make Nadira out to be anything but calm, rational, and -- frankly -- someone with a lot more patience than I have for ludicrous forum arguments didn't end up chasing away from our community precisely the people we need to keep it unique and positive.

This is starting to smack of other similar internet arguments and it's starting to make me embarrassed for our burgeoning CoT community. I had hoped we were better than this. I still believe that the vast majority of people who will end up playing the game are.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Except for the fighting game, all of those amusing uses of jiggle are in Movies and are put there Intentionally, for stimulating the audience, and not for 'realism' per se..

Are you honestly trying to tell me you cannot see how those movie examples can't be used in games? Where did I say all body physics have to be realistic? There are two discussions going on, one is about body physics in general and the other that is being directed specifically towards breast physics by those who don't want any body physics.

Fireheart wrote:

Frankly, the same seems to be true in the 'breast jiggle' department. It's there for the titillation of the audience and not for realism. If it were there for realism, then jiggle would have to be applied to the entire Body. And then, six fat guys doing calisthenics would melt your GPU, or grind you down to 3 frames per second..

It would take a long time to explain how this isn't true. Basically targeted motion has been around since the first animation to simulate movement. Long before kids would doodle stick man cartoons on the page margins in text books people have used targeted motion to trick viewers eyes into seeing full motion. What I am saying is that realism in animation is not done by making every single part of a body perfectly animated.

Fireheart wrote:

Proponents are saying 'jiggle isn't hard' and 'jiggle isn't just about breasts', and, like Nadira, I find myself wondering, "What is jiggle For?" "Why is it that people are demanding it?" Because, unless it's exaggerated to uncomfortable levels, no one is ever going to see it!.

Ok we can agree then. If the breast jiggle is not exaggerated to uncomfortable levels then you won't see it and it won't bother you and can be included in the game.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Cinnder wrote:
Cinnder wrote:

Well said!

One of the things I really enjoyed about our old City was that it attracted a greater number of female players than many other MMOs. I believe that enriched our community in myriad ways.

I would be simply amused by all the mansplaining going on here, trying to convince us that breast jiggle is technically inevitable or anything but prurient, if the responses that try to make Nadira out to be anything but calm, rational, and -- frankly -- someone with a lot more patience than I have for ludicrous forum arguments didn't end up chasing away from our community precisely the people we need to keep it unique and positive.

This is starting to smack of other similar internet arguments and it's starting to make me embarrassed for our burgeoning CoT community. I had hoped we were better than this. I still believe that the vast majority of people who will end up playing the game are.

Nadira has been calm and rational and all of her arguments make perfect sense from a specific point of view. But not everyone who opposes that viewpoint is male, horny or asking for anything out of the realm of good taste.
The only embarrassing thing in this thread is you saying our motives are prurient and our arguments are mansplaining. You may not be intending to start an flame war but that is what will happen if you keep making unfounded and easily disproved accusations.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
StellarAgent wrote:
StellarAgent wrote:

I'm sorry Nadira, but I completely and totally disagree with your stance. It SEEMS to ME that you refuse to accept the fact that breast jiggle/bounce is a real life fact of life and it is going to be in the game.

Real life breast jiggle is not what Nadira opposes. She does not think it is suitable for this game. Also, I don't think it is conclusively going to be in the game.

StellarAgent wrote:

The question that needs to be asked is: How much is too much? And please lets not use gratuitous videos of extreme jiggle/bounce. Lets use ones from real life and have a simple vote: Too Much or Just Right.

I don't agree at all. Asking 'how much' before answering 'should we' is a bad idea. It is not hard to find examples of real life breast movement that is not sexual at all. I doubt that many would accuse Rhonda Rousey or Holly Holm of jiggling their breasts provocatively here:

And the videos on this channel, that are all made to be used as reference for animation, show natural breast motion as well.

Treating breast movement, or any body physics, as a foregone conclusion before figuring out its worth to this game only makes it harder to find a positive use for this feature.

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
I'm probably boiling the

I'm probably boiling the arguments down a bit too much. But here is my take. Respect a woman's femininity by including breast jiggle versus Respect a woman's femininity by not having breast jiggle. It has been my experience that some women will require this option and some will deride it. The middle ground is a slider that allows them to make their own individual choice about how they portray themselves to the community. This is very similar to the reasoning behind allowing male avatars access to "feminine" costume options. Some people require it and some think it's unnecessary. My thinking is give everyone the option and let them decide what is appropriate for their character the way they want to play.

(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

Voldine
Voldine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 10:57
I would like to see Jiggle

I would like to see Jiggle implemented with one main caveat.

An option in costume creation to disable Jiggle for any given costume.

A gynoid character with a torso made of metal shouldn't jiggle.

A female wearing plate armor wouldn't visibly jiggle.

A person in civilian garb? Yeah, sure, jiggle.

If you include it, let the player creating the character control it for that character.

The original Lady of Ysgard. -Virtue

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 19 hours ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Voldine wrote:
Voldine wrote:

I would like to see Jiggle implemented with one main caveat.
An option in costume creation to disable Jiggle for any given costume.
A gynoid character with a torso made of metal shouldn't jiggle.
A female wearing plate armor wouldn't visibly jiggle.
A person in civilian garb? Yeah, sure, jiggle.
If you include it, let the player creating the character control it for that character.

That's essentially what has been suggested lately here, a jiggle/firmness slider that goes from "non at all" to "full normal".

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 11 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Voldine wrote:
I would like to see Jiggle implemented with one main caveat.
An option in costume creation to disable Jiggle for any given costume.
A gynoid character with a torso made of metal shouldn't jiggle.
A female wearing plate armor wouldn't visibly jiggle.
A person in civilian garb? Yeah, sure, jiggle.
If you include it, let the player creating the character control it for that character.
That's essentially what has been suggested lately here, a jiggle/firmness slider that goes from "non at all" to "full normal".

Personally, for a T rating, I'd think to discourage above "normal" jiggle, e.g. Dead or Alive :p Even Mortal Kombat pushes it at times.

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

elegantmess
elegantmess's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 day ago
Joined: 02/14/2016 - 10:57
Not to mention that'd be

Not to mention that'd be hella taxing on graphics with everything else going on.

Khione, Boreal Princess of Phantoms/The Riveter, Hammer of Liberty/Rosa Amarillo, Sweet Belle with a Six-Shooter

Magical Girl in a Marvel Comics World

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I'm also not sure that jiggle is the next logical step. Character models have been continuing to get better over the years because computer can show things in higher resolution and more polygons just like in that picture of the Tomb Raiders you showed before. The jiggle in Tomb Raider has actually gone from none to mastabatory to gratuitous and is now very subtle.

Having "very subtle" jiggle is the ONLY kind of jiggle I have ever advocated for in CoT. As you point out the polygon counts in modern-era character models allow for that level of subtly now more than ever.

Brainbot wrote:

Its also important to remember that the more you push the limits of models in a game the less people who can actually enjoy it because not everyone has the best hardware. I remember a while back the trouble people had with Crysis because of how far they pushed graphics. IMHO I would like there to be some natural body jiggle in the most obvious places, notably breasts bums and bellys. Doing more than those might require too much computer for most people. I just don't see a need to give the players a slider for it becuase it could possibly cause more problems with players.

Giving players a "jiggle slider" is the actual solution to your concern that some players might not have the hardware to support this level of detail. Like any other graphics settings if jiggle physics causes a player to have unacceptable graphics performance they could always turn it off completely (via the minimum setting on the slider). Also (to restate the obvious) if a player doesn't want to see jiggle physics on their screen for ANY other reason the slider will allow them to turn it off. It could even be set "off" as a default and have to be actively turned on for those people who want to see it.

Brainbot wrote:

Just a little while ago Blizzard changed a pose for a character in Overwatch because it was thought be overly sexualized. People can get upset over pretty much anything so why poke the bear with something known to be an issue?

Because you know as well as anyone that there will always be someone who'll be upset by ANYTHING no matter how major or minor the detail is. There were plenty of people who complained in the old CoH forums that even the supposed amount of "sexualization" present in that game was too much for their liking. If the Devs of CoT choose to "play it safe" to an extreme degree as you suggest we might very well end up only being able to put burkas on our characters.

What has been proposed here is, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative/reasonable level of detail. The Devs of CoT will never be able to please everyone so "not being able to please everyone" should never be an excuse for not trying something new.

Brainbot wrote:

Which brings me back to thinking that the question of 'should it be done' is more important than trying to measure its value over other QoL things. Should city of titans be the game to deal with any fallout over immature uses of a jiggle slider? Should city of titans be the game to push the graphics requirements to another level? Should city of titans try to match or beat a game like Black Desert in realistic character models? I just don't think it should.

We can only hope that the Devs of CoT can/will aspire to create as much graphical quality in their character models as possible. I see no advantage in asking our Devs to impose arbitrary limits on what they might ultimately be able to achieve with this game. *shrugs*

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
elegantmess wrote:
elegantmess wrote:

Not to mention that'd be hella taxing on graphics with everything else going on.

It has been mentioned practically countless times on this thread that the proposed "jiggle slider" for CoT would/should allow for a minimal/off setting. Even the Devs who have commented on this thread have agreed to this in principle. If you don't like jiggle for ANY reason ranging from you reflexively believe it's hopelessly sexist to it being a drag on your graphics performance you could just TURN IT OFF.

I have no problem if people want to keep trying to make the case that having jiggle physics like this in CoT is a bad idea. But for the sake of everyone's sanity I would hope that people will realize that trying to convince people with the argument that "jiggle physics is bad because it would be too taxing for people's computers to handle" is effectively stupid/pointless.

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

You keep returning to 'but technically we can easily do it now' while completely glossing over the objection that animated breast jiggling /unnecessarily sexualises female characters/.

And you continue to gloss over the fact that you've made the fundamental assumption that EVERYONE agrees with your opinionated assessment that "jiggle physics" (as modestly proposed by many posters here) would automatically over-sexualize female characters. I can accept the premise that YOU individually think any degree of jiggle is too much - the core problem you have here is that not everyone agrees with your reflexively hyperbolic position on this.

For what it's worth I might actually agree with your blanket negativity on this issue if jiggle physics was going to be something that the CoT Devs imposed upon us with without any way to opt out of it. But since it has been exhaustively suggested that any "jiggle slider" that would exist in CoT should be designed in such a way to allow any player to effectively turn off any/all jiggle-type motion you really have no legitimate grounds to argue against its proposed implementation for CoT.

Nadira wrote:

And you keep brining up the animated capes and hair, as if they are the same, but neither of those is a secondary sex characteristic, and both apply equally to men and women.

And again you're the one who has hyperbolically conflated "jiggle physics" in general with "secondary sex characteristics". Jiggle physics for character models, just like animated clothes, capes and hair, are ALL details which are not strictly necessary for CoT to function as a game yet they ALL add various levels of realism and quality. There was a time when Pac-Man was the cutting edge of character model technology. There was a time when animated capes and wings were too difficult for CoH to provide. There will be a time when character models in games possess natural degrees of animation (hair, clothes, body fat jiggle, etc.) and those animations will have absolutely no overtly "bad" sexual connotations you seem to be overly obsessed with.

Nadria wrote:

My question to you, still, is: what purpose does animated breasts serve to make the game better?

And my answer, as always, is why draw an arbitrary line there? Human bodies jiggle. That's the ONLY reason it will likely exist in ALL games eventually. It's got nothing to do with desperately claiming it has anything to do with "sexualization" or not. It's not even a question of making games functionally better or worse. Using your restrictive logic we would all still be playing games with characters that looked like Pac-Man.

Nadria wrote:

If the reason brought up gets anywhere close to the word 'realism' I must point out that /realistically/ women who expect to engage in strenuous physical activity, especially if that includes a lot of running and jumping, will wear a sports bra (and if they are as well endowed as the typical superheroine is depicted, she wiill wear a sports bra AND a regular bra), and no jiggle will be noticeable. Because allowing your breasts to jiggle all over the place is an embarassment waiting to happen, it will really hurt at the end of the day and it will make your breasts look like you're 80 by the time you turn 40.

If you wanted to roleplay action-oriented scrapper-type females then I would completely agree that, realistically speaking, you'd likely want to have them wear clothing that would adequately keep any jiggling down to a minimum. Those characters would probably not wear boots with stiletto heels either. But what if I want to play female characters who use magic spells or otherwise interact with the world in way that would not need to account for keeping their chests encased in a sports bra? How could you legitimately tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to have some kind of celestial angel type-character who only wears shimmering gown-like dresses and effectively remains braless underneath such as the following:

Having a "jiggle slider" in CoT will allow anyone to create their characters with any amounts of "realistic jiggle" regardless of their individual circumstances or definitions of what "realistic" is.

Nadria wrote:

If the reason is related to 'it looks nice' (aka: I like looking at breasts) then I should politely point you towards games like Scarlet Blade or DoA: Extreme, as they shamelessly pander to that mindset (and are much derided for it too, I might add). And I would urge you to consider seriously if that association is really what you want for the spiritual successor of our beloved City of Heroes.

As already exhaustively expressed no one here is asking for the Scarlet Blade/DoA level of jiggle silliness for CoT. Stop using these pathetically extreme examples as some kind of unavoidable proof of "the evil that would befall CoT" if the Devs implemented their version of reasonable jiggle physics into CoT.

Nadria wrote:

And there's an enormous list of issues that the developers can choose to burn processor cycles on that will actually improve the gameplay that seem to me more important than animating the breast of my charactes (and degrade them from being hero to mere eye candy in the process).

We both know the Devs are going to "waste" a bunch of time implementing all sorts of QoL features whether we agree with 100% of them or not. One more time (in case you didn't understand the last dozen times it's been mentioned) the Devs have already agreed in principle to making any kind of "jiggle slider" that would exist in CoT be completely optional. If you want to stick with your obtuse stance that "jiggle=sexism" then you can turn it off and never see it.

Stop assuming everyone agrees with your narrow views on this. I'm advocating that we all have the CHOICE to have jiggle whereas all you're doing is attempting to completely deny others an arguably inevitable feature just because you don't like it. That's pretty much as stupid as saying people shouldn't have the choice to play Masterminds just because you might not like the archetype. If a jiggle slider ends up in CoT I will likely have some female characters that jiggle AND some that don't jiggle. I want the freedom to have it work either way depending on my specific character concepts and particular costumes worn. Stop telling us we should have things work only one way and like it that way just because you think it would be better for everyone like that - who are you to judge what's best for my characters?

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I'm amazed that, of all the

I'm amazed that, of all the things we have to talk about, the top two active topics of the forum are about breasts. (Amazed, not surprised) Both overdeveloped males and overdeveloped females are part of the superhero genre. Deal with it.

Hyperrealistic has its place, but the superhero genre is not it. The superhero genre is all about living out the fantasy of being the supreme personification of the human ideal and with immense power that allows you to enact the change that you would be powerless to do in the real world. To be admired and adored. (or in the villian's case, to be feared and obeyed)

Sexuality can be wielded as a weapon and the women and men who flaunt it for the power they get are no less alpha than the alphas who use violence to get power.

Overly-sexualized avatars say more about the person who made them than they do about the game or the community. So for one person to say the game shouldn't have sexualized avatars is the same as that one person telling you that you can not make the character you want to make. That is just wrong. Period.

I may not like your avatar, but I will defend to the death your right to make it.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 57 min 5 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I just feel like as long as

I just feel like as long as the graphics will realistically support it (which it sounds like they generally will), it's pretty simple.

Zero to light jiggle, possibly on a slider, on breast/chest, buttocks/booty, and groin/"package" area just to keep things--you know--under control. And rated T.

Other than that, let the elastic/gelatinous powered heroes go wild with jiggly arms, legs, bellies, and bodies.

All of this subject to any technical limitations, which would make the point moot anyway.

Am I missing something?

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I'm amazed that, of all the things we have to talk about, the top two active topics of the forum are about breasts. (Amazed, not surprised)

Both of these "breast" threads have been necroposted several times. IIRC one of the threads even managed to lie dormant for like six+ months before it was brought back. As you alluded to the topic at hand will likely always be (forgive the pun) titillating. Given the relative lack of any other tangible things to talk about related to CoT (i.e. no public beta to review/test) I suspect topics like these will continue be popular here.

Huckleberry wrote:

Both overdeveloped males and overdeveloped females are part of the superhero genre. Deal with it.

Hyperrealistic has its place, but the superhero genre is not it. The superhero genre is all about living out the fantasy of being the supreme personification of the human ideal and with immense power that allows you to enact the change that you would be powerless to do in the real world. To be admired and adored. (or in the villian's case, to be feared and obeyed)

Clearly the superhero genre has always skewed towards the Olympian. One could legitimately make the case that many artists have drawn their comic book characters in ways that practically no man or woman could ever hope to duplicate in real life. In that necessarily wrong? Are the modern personifications of Hercules or Aphrodite who appear in fictional fantasy stories required be drawn in ways that would let all their readers think "Gee, when I grow up I'll be able to look just like they do"? Let's face it: 99.9% of boys who grow up reading Superman comics or watching Conan movies are not ever going to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger did in his prime.

It's not "sexist" to expose others to images and ideas that may be effectively unobtainable by most normal people. Is it against the law to want to play a game where my characters might look better than most real people do in real life? Real people exist who have long blonde hair. Some people find hair like that sexy. Real people jiggle in real life. Some people find that kind of jiggle sexy. I ultimately see no significant difference between those two types of details when it comes to graphical body models in a game. This is why I continue to expect that all games will eventually offer reasonable forms of jiggle and why I continue to hope it will be a feature of CoT at some point.

Huckleberry wrote:

Overly-sexualized avatars say more about the person who made them than they do about the game or the community.

In any social setting there will always be "norms" and a few who try to exceed those norms. In MMOs there will always be griefers/idiots who will try to annoy or otherwise cause trouble. As with any MMO you simply have to ignore/report those people and move on.

The narrow-minded claim that OPTIONAL body jiggle would be the "final tipping point" that would automatically doom a game like CoT to mindless chaos is questionable at best. Based on how "sexualized" we were already allowed to be in CoH I just can't see how subtle amounts of jiggle could really be that much worse than the near-nakedness that's already been deemed socially tolerable in games like these for decades now. *shrugs*

Huckleberry wrote:

So for one person to say the game shouldn't have sexualized avatars is the same as that one person telling you that you can not make the character you want to make. That is just wrong. Period.
I may not like your avatar, but I will defend to the death your right to make it.

This summarizes the main reason the "anti-jiggle" folks really don't have much of a leg to stand on here.

We all have our limits as to what we will tolerate or find socially acceptable. We all even have our own definitions of what we consider sexual or "over-sexual". As computer technology has advanced the level of graphical detail has always improved. This has been a double-edged sword because it allows for "debates" about jiggle physics that frankly would've been impossible to consider even 20 years ago. Sure the idea of jiggle physics may be controversial now, but I promise you things like this will be taken for granted 20 years from now. The "anti-jiggle" folks are simply on the wrong side of history even if CoT individually never gets around to supporting it.

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

I just feel like as long as the graphics will realistically support it (which it sounds like they generally will), it's pretty simple.
Zero to light jiggle, possibly on a slider, on breast/chest, buttocks/booty, and groin/"package" area just to keep things--you know--under control. And rated T.
Other than that, let the elastic/gelatinous powered heroes go wild with jiggly arms, legs, bellies, and bodies.
All of this subject to any technical limitations, which would make the point moot anyway.
Am I missing something?

No, you're not really missing anything with this. The only question is whether the Devs will get around to it or not.

The argument that "it's not worth the effort" is effectively moot since we know the Devs are already bound to include hundreds of "pointless" QoL features in CoT that will have no critical effect on the basic functionality of the game. The game's going to be loaded with them whether we like any of them or not - it just boils down to which "useless" QoL details get prioritized ahead of others.

Even the "over-sexualization" argument is questionable at best. Everyone knows that women in real life who have huge fake breasts tend to have one thing in common - they DON'T jiggle very much. Big, hard Barbie-doll breasts might look good on porn stars but the fact that they don't jiggle in a natural way highlights just how fake and plastic those women usually are. With this I can easily make the point that I'd want a game like CoT to allow my female characters to jiggle to show the world they have natural breasts and aren't just over-sexualized sexual objects. In effect the old style "no jiggle" default we've been forced to live with in games up until now is actually MORE SEXIST than letting us have jiggle because without the natural jiggle the hardwired assumption is that all my characters are shallow enough to have hard, fake breasts. Basically I want my characters to have natural-looking breasts in CoT and "natural" to me includes a reasonable amount of natural jiggle.

Finally if we can accept the legendary Lynda Carter as the gold standard for what a superheroine could "realistically" look like in real life then why shouldn't that be modeled in a superhero game?

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Finally if we can accept the legendary Lynda Carter as the gold standard for what a superheroine could "realistically" look like in real life then why shouldn't that be modeled in a superhero game?

Then lets see some of that same thigh jiggle too. ...or is thigh jiggle like that too much, and unseemly? Where do we as consumers of graphical simulation draw the line between acceptable realism and unacceptable? Or are we consuming graphical simulation only to the point of graphical stimulation?

I believe this is where there role of artist comes into play. In this case there are two artists:
First is the art director of the game who chooses what artistic style is available and what level of modification can be achieved.
Second is the player who takes the art style of the game's art director and then molds it to create what he or she desires.

Look at the art styles of FFXIV, The Secret World and Blade & Soul. Each has a very distinct aesthetic associated with the very unique art style of its respective art director. No one could make a character look the same in each. Good job art directors, although I find TSW to be located in the uncanny valley.

The art directors of these games made conscious decisions what level of customization to include and what level of detail to include. Every character has the same white teeth. No one has yet to ask for a game's art director to provide them with tooth yellowing and crookedness options to look like Austin Powers. Likewise, we don't see too many assymetries, but some games are now making assymetric eye colors a standard option, so how long will it be until we get to make crooked smiles?

In other words, the art directors choose which options to include because that is their responsibility to make a world we want to immerse ourselves into. I suppose that's the raison d'etre for this thread. I agree with Lothic that chest jiggle is now an acceptable given. I can't think of a modern MMO that does not have it. But this thread isn't just about jiggle of the chest, as I understand it. What about thighs, bottoms, bellies and the rest, just like Empyrean mentioned? Is it a slippery slope that can only end in debauchery, or is it just a chart of the path of acceptable convention? And shall we appoint ourselves the judges of acceptable convention? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Then lets see some of that same thigh jiggle too. ...or is thigh jiggle like that too much, and unseemly? Where do we as consumers of graphical simulation draw the line between acceptable realism and unacceptable? Or are we consuming graphical simulation only to the point of graphical stimulation?

I believe this is where there role of artist comes into play. In this case there are two artists:
First is the art director of the game who chooses what artistic style is available and what level of modification can be achieved.
Second is the player who takes the art style of the game's art director and then molds it to create what he or she desires.

Look at the art styles of FFXIV, The Secret World and Blade & Soul. Each has a very distinct aesthetic associated with the very unique art style of its respective art director. No one could make a character look the same in each. Good job art directors, although I find TSW to be located in the uncanny valley.

The art directors of these games made conscious decisions what level of customization to include and what level of detail to include. Every character has the same white teeth. No one has yet to ask for a game's art director to provide them with tooth yellowing and crookedness options to look like Austin Powers. Likewise, we don't see too many assymetries, but some games are now making assymetric eye colors a standard option, so how long will it be until we get to make crooked smiles?

In other words, the art directors choose which options to include because that is their responsibility to make a world we want to immerse ourselves into. I suppose that's the raison d'etre for this thread. I agree with Lothic that chest jiggle is now an acceptable given. I can't think of a modern MMO that does not have it. But this thread isn't just about jiggle of the chest, as I understand it. What about thighs, bottoms, bellies and the rest, just like Empyrean mentioned? Is it a slippery slope that can only end in debauchery, or is it just a chart of the path of acceptable convention? And shall we appoint ourselves the judges of acceptable convention? If not us, who? If not now, when?

I'd obviously agree that the fundamental artistic style of a game (as established by its art team) will dictate its ultimate "look and feel". It's up to the artistic vision established by the Devs to define exactly how "realistic" they want to be within the confines of what the current software/hardware will allow from a graphics quality point of view.

Having said that it's also clear that the word "realistic" is very vague and can mean different things to different people. I think there's a critical difference between wanting better body model graphics quality/detail overall versus focusing on minutiae that would only please a very tiny minority. To use your examples of "tooth yellowing and crookedness" I'd bet there's actually one or two people out there who'd figuratively pay a million dollars to get a game with those options available. The point of course is that I would also safely assume that practically no one else would care about such things. Where this "cost versus benefit" mindset applies to jiggle physics is that we're finally at a collective point where we have enough people who'd want it paired with the technology that would make implementing it relatively easy to accomplish. In simple terms I feel its time has come for games like CoT.

You also mentioned the Uncanny Valley and the problems it causes. Sometimes in the quest for trying to provide as much "realism" in a game as possible the art folks overreach their skills or tools and produce something like looks downright horrible. I would always favor something that looks "good" (even if it's based on artistic abstraction) than to have something that tried too hard to be "realistic" and failed. In the long run I believe that ever increasing graphics quality will solve the disconnects between what works "artistically" and what seems realistic. Just like worrying about breast jiggle 20 years ago would've been pointless I think pushing the next thresholds of detail (thigh jiggle, belly button lint, nose hair, etc.) will be solved by future capabilities. One baby step at a time.

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

Elios Valoryn
Elios Valoryn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 02/27/2016 - 06:59
Jiggle physics in my opinion,

Jiggle physics in my opinion, does help further the game. For me, its the small details that make a game better. Thing like destrutible environments, citizens cheering or cowering for you, even the sounds of the game make it all the more enjoyable. And its not hurting anybody, and its not like devs are incapable. So, Nadira, if none of those other reasons do it for you try this one. Detail gets a game a larger player base, because as sad as it is nowadays people only care about graphics, and with more people, theres more money, which means more updates, and that helps further the game, at least when I look at it.

As foolish as this seems,

Gotem.

From ya boy, Elios.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Finally if we can accept the legendary Lynda Carter as the gold standard for what a superheroine could "realistically" look like in real life then why shouldn't that be modeled in a superhero game?

Huckleberry wrote:

Then lets see some of that same thigh jiggle too.

Not to sound crass, but the jiggle visible on the legendary Lynda Carter in that clip ... all of it ... is very much "worthy" of inclusion into a game like City of Titans is angling to make possible. So yeah ... bring on the thigh/calf jiggle physics!


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
It was almost month and a

It was almost month and a half before you responded so I am sorry I missed your reply.

Lothic wrote:

Having "very subtle" jiggle is the ONLY kind of jiggle I have ever advocated for in CoT. As you point out the polygon counts in modern-era character models allow for that level of subtly now more than ever.

You're reply doesn't seem to be related to what I was saying or I am missing your point. I was trying to point out that body physics and character models in games are not parallels and that your example of Tomb Raiders graphical improvements have very little to do with body physics and more with the detail level of the model itself. I said this to show that I do not agree that body physics are the next logical step in realism because the upper limits of polygons and textures and even lighting have not been met yet. With 4k coming down the pipe, Analytically antialiased micropolygon rendering, advancements in raytracing, PhyseX FleX, immediate photcapture streaming to interject the user in the game and so on are the next step because they have more universal applications than body phsyics. I think that body physics are not going to become the next step until after the next big breakthrough at the earliest because it is not where those making the advancements are putting their efforts.

Lothic wrote:

Giving players a "jiggle slider" is the actual solution to your concern that some players might not have the hardware to support this level of detail. Like any other graphics settings if jiggle physics causes a player to have unacceptable graphics performance they could always turn it off completely (via the minimum setting on the slider). Also (to restate the obvious) if a player doesn't want to see jiggle physics on their screen for ANY other reason the slider will allow them to turn it off. It could even be set "off" as a default and have to be actively turned on for those people who want to see it.

This isn't a solution to my concern because my concern isn't that people wouldn't be able to play the game. My concern is a feature like this might not be accessible to the majority of the players. This isn't a pointless or stupid question as you claim. It speaks directly to the value of its inclusion. If less people can use this feature than those who are able to then it might not be worth putting in.

Lothic wrote:

Because you know as well as anyone that there will always be someone who'll be upset by ANYTHING no matter how major or minor the detail is. There were plenty of people who complained in the old CoH forums that even the supposed amount of "sexualization" present in that game was too much for their liking. If the Devs of CoT choose to "play it safe" to an extreme degree as you suggest we might very well end up only being able to put burkas on our characters.

What has been proposed here is, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative/reasonable level of detail. The Devs of CoT will never be able to please everyone so "not being able to please everyone" should never be an excuse for not trying something new.

Uh, I didn't actually suggest anything and I certainly didn't suggest anything extreme. I asked the very valid question of body physics value versus potential fallout.
This is one of those hot button topics in games now. Even conservative and reasonable levels of body physics are under scrutiny. And yes, people can get upset over anything which is why this is a question MWM shouldn't ignore before jumping into deciding how much is conservative and reasonable which you seem ready to do.

Lothic wrote:

We can only hope that the Devs of CoT can/will aspire to create as much graphical quality in their character models as possible. I see no advantage in asking our Devs to impose arbitrary limits on what they might ultimately be able to achieve with this game. *shrugs*

Many of your arguments fall into the Fallacy Of Extension category. I'm not asking for arbitrary limits. Any limits imposed on the graphics and physics of this game should be carefully considered.
Thats what I am saying here. The question of if body physics be included should to be answered before discussing how much to include. Not just the questions I posed in the post you replied to but others that are just as important like:
What level of realism is the game striving for? What art style is the game going to have? Will body physics conflict with clothing models or animations? How much work is involved in not only including the body physics but the slider as well? What value does body physics bring to the game over other possible features?
To name just a few.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
The the new update there is a

The the new update there is a FAQ. the last lines in the Costume creator section say: Including something new for female characters no other game has done. Now we need to make it look good.

I think this means the jiggle slider is a reality! Woo Hoo!

It will likely be something that costs extra. How much would you be willing to pay for gaming awesomeness?
so the default will be none or very slight jiggle. anything else and we'll have to fork out the big bucks.

Now I need to purchase a program that can take video of my game playing sessions. and share with the world!

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
(No subject)

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
The jiggle slider is not

The jiggle slider is not really new.... Second Life now has body physics sliders as well as player made mods that provide sliders for other games like skyrim, GTAV and DoA5. I guess technically the body physic sliders in second life are player made as well but as the game is pretty much completely mods that seems like a fine line to draw. There are also a few Japanese games that have used body physics sliders to various degrees.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

The the new update there is a FAQ. the last lines in the Costume creator section say: Including something new for female characters no other game has done. Now we need to make it look good.
I think this means the jiggle slider is a reality! Woo Hoo!

Calm down kid. Boob jiggle has been done before in multiple games. Most likely it will be the option for a huge female model.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
but not an optional pay for

but not an optional pay for jiggle slider.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

The question of if body physics be included should be answered before discussing how much to include.

I appreciate you'd rather step backwards and ask if body jiggle physics is even necessary in a game like CoT. That's fine, but I'll point out that no one asks if computer games should include colors in their graphics instead of just various shades of grey. I submit your question is ultimately anachronistic because it asks whether a feature should exist that ALREADY exists in an ever increasing number of other current modern games. The cat has long been let out of the bag on this.

I simply believe its far more constructive at this point to discuss HOW jiggle physics should work in CoT (I still advocate for the subtle, conservative approach) instead of debating whether or not it even OUGHT to be included. We've already collectively accepted jiggle physics (like color graphics) is not strictly NECESSARY to make any game. But since most games are full of unnecessary QoL features by default (like color graphics) trying to negatively cast jiggle physics as an especially "unnecessary" feature is laughably pointless. Obviously it's abstractly "pointless", but since a reasonable percentage of players still want it or don't care either way it remains a completely relevant and meaningful feature to suggest and discuss for CoT.

Again I'm all for debating how/when this feature might be implemented for CoT. But asking if it's even "necessary" for a game like this is frankly the type of question that might have been more appropriate back in 2004, not 2016. I'll just leave it this way: If CoT ultimately does not implement body jiggle of any kind it'll likely be one of the LAST games that doesn't.

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

I think this means the jiggle slider is a reality! Woo Hoo!
It will likely be something that costs extra. How much would you be willing to pay for gaming awesomeness?
so the default will be none or very slight jiggle. anything else and we'll have to fork out the big bucks.

If MWM chooses to implement the fabled "jiggle slider" (and/or any visible body jiggle at all) as an optional feature in the cash store that'd be fine with me. People who didn't want to deal with the feature could simply not pay for it. But I would actually be strongly against having something like a "free" version of a jiggle slider that allowed for only a SLIGHT amount of jiggle and a "pay for" version that unlocks additional "special" levels of jiggle. The idea of paying to get "extra" jiggle is bad and leads towards validating the otherwise dubious arguments the anti-jiggle folks have been making.

One more time (even though I've probably already said this about 50 times by now) the jiggle slider should range from "absolutely no jiggle" to "reasonably conservative" amounts of jiggle. Basically I'd offer the Wonder Woman GIF I posted a few posts ago as a visual representation of the "max" amount of breast jiggle allowable by this game. There should never be the possibility of getting "stupidly obsessive anime-style fanservice" amounts ever. If the Devs make it so the jiggle slider has to be unlocked then there should never be a way to "pay more" to make it "do more".

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
I think this means the jiggle slider is a reality! Woo Hoo!
It will likely be something that costs extra. How much would you be willing to pay for gaming awesomeness?
so the default will be none or very slight jiggle. anything else and we'll have to fork out the big bucks.
If MWM chooses to implement the fabled "jiggle slider" (and/or any visible body jiggle at all) as an optional feature in the cash store that'd be fine with me. People who didn't want to deal with the feature could simply not pay for it. But I would actually be strongly against having something like a "free" version of a jiggle slider that allowed for only a SLIGHT amount of jiggle and a "pay for" version that unlocks additional "special" levels of jiggle. The idea of paying to get "extra" jiggle is bad and leads towards validating the otherwise dubious arguments the anti-jiggle folks have been making.
One more time (even though I've probably already said this about 50 times by now) the jiggle slider should range from "absolutely no jiggle" to "reasonably conservative" amounts of jiggle. Basically I'd offer the Wonder Woman GIF I posted a few posts ago as a visual representation of the "max" amount of breast jiggle allowable by this game. There should never be the possibility of getting "stupidly obsessive anime-style fanservice" amounts ever. If the Devs make it so the jiggle slider has to be unlocked then there should never be a way to "pay more" to make it "do more".

The Wonder Woman standard is perfectly fine by me. I'm just looking to make MWM some cold hard cash, because the more they make the better the game will be. Cause I'm just that kind of thoughtful guy.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I appreciate you'd rather step backwards and ask if body jiggle physics is even necessary in a game like CoT. That's fine, but I'll point out that no one asks if computer games should include colors in their graphics instead of just various shades of grey. I submit your question is ultimately anachronistic because it asks whether a feature should exist that ALREADY exists in an ever increasing number of other current modern games. The cat has long been let out of the bag on this.

Just because it is possible to include some feature that other games use does not mean it fits this game. If you want I can give you examples of features that exist in an ever increasing number of games that also might not have that much value in this one.

Lothic wrote:

I simply believe its far more constructive at this point to discuss HOW jiggle physics should work in CoT (I still advocate for the subtle, conservative approach) instead of debating whether or not it even OUGHT to be included. We've already collectively accepted jiggle physics (like color graphics) is not strictly NECESSARY to make any game. But since most games are full of unnecessary QoL features by default (like color graphics) trying to negatively cast jiggle physics as an especially "unnecessary" feature is laughably pointless. Obviously it's abstractly "pointless", but since a reasonable percentage of players still want it or don't care either way it remains a completely relevant and meaningful feature to suggest and discuss for CoT.

Its more constructive to you because you hold the uninformed opinion that body physics are a foregone conclusion in todays gaming environment which is just not true. I also would not call body physics a QoL feature. Its a graphical and immersive one and should be treated as such.
I can't even discuss the argument of games being full of unnecessary features so discussing the value of body features is pointless because its so insane a concept I can't be sure you understand what goes into deciding to include a feature , QoL or not, in a game.

Lothic wrote:

Again I'm all for debating how/when this feature might be implemented for CoT. But asking if it's even "necessary" for a game like this is frankly the type of question that might have been more appropriate back in 2004, not 2016. I'll just leave it this way: If CoT ultimately does not implement body jiggle of any kind it'll likely be one of the LAST games that doesn't.

If you think CoT would be the one of the last games to include body physics then I have to wonder where that opinion comes from because the majority of games released now and in the near future do not include even cloth physics let alone body physics. Body physics are only common in two types of games right now, realism games and titillation type games, and even realism games tend to rely more on textures and polygons than body physics if they include them at all.
But if all you are interested in is discussing how to use this feature and not if this feature is worth anything to this game, a game that has not even discussed its final art style, then don't reply because I know this feature is not as common or inevitable as you keep asserting it is.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

The Wonder Woman standard is perfectly fine by me. I'm just looking to make MWM some cold hard cash, because the more they make the better the game will be. Cause I'm just that kind of thoughtful guy.

I'm all for MWM finding ways to make money - I just don't think paying "more" to get "more" jiggle is the way to go.

Basically the default game could come with the "jiggle slider" for every costume slot greyed out and set to the "absolutely no jiggle" setting. Via the cash store a player could permanently "unlock" the slider for all costume slots on the account for a reasonable one time fee (say $10 for example). That should be a feasible compromise for everyone and provide another thing MWM could make money on.

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

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Cyclops wrote:
The Wonder Woman standard is perfectly fine by me. I'm just looking to make MWM some cold hard cash, because the more they make the better the game will be. Cause I'm just that kind of thoughtful guy.
I'm all for MWM finding ways to make money - I just don't think paying "more" to get "more" jiggle is the way to go.
Basically the default game could come with the "jiggle slider" for every costume slot greyed out and set to the "absolutely no jiggle" setting. Via the cash store a player could permanently "unlock" the slider for all costume slots on the account for a reasonable one time fee (say $10 for example). That should be a feasible compromise for everyone and provide another thing MWM could make money on.

Completely reasonable. I can go for that.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

But if all you are interested in is discussing how to use this feature and not if this feature is worth anything to this game, a game that has not even discussed its final art style, then don't reply because I know this feature is not as common or inevitable as you keep asserting it is.

We have a fundamental disagreement here and we are clearly talking past each other on this issue. *shrugs*
Then again asking me to "not respond" is pretty much the surest way to get me to respond, just saying...

First off how do you KNOW that body model jiggle physics will not become a de facto standard in computer games?
You might as well buy yourself a lottery ticket with that much predictive absolutism.
At least I make my educated assertion based on computer technology trends and actual examples that I and others have mentioned here.

I get that you've chosen to focus on whether or not body jiggle physics is fundamentally "necessary" for CoT.
I've also answered that narrowly defined question many times: Of course its not strictly NECESSARY.
Graphics with color isn't necessary either but surprisingly enough a lot of people still desire it.

Bottomline you simply can't dismiss this line of discussion/debate by trying to "prove" that it somehow is not necessary/appropriate for this game. Over the course of 8 years I saw plenty of things get "suggested" for CoH in the CoH forums. At one point things like "power customization" was actually highly controversial with a vocal minority trying to "prove" it wasn't necessary for CoH. Things like readjusting astronomically impossible badge requirements were seen as "pointless" until the Devs decided those changes were actually "necessary". The list of these kinds of things could be continued ad nauseam if necessary.

I get that you don't want to see jiggle physics in CoT, or at least you want some kind of peer-reviewed doctorial dissertation for why it's "necessary". But in reality I can only tell you that Devs for games like these will just as likely spend thousands of hours on QoL features that no player wants as they won't spend 10 minutes on trivial fixes that virtually every player wants. The Devs don't really need a huge amount of "documented justification" to implement anything. Perhaps you need to reassess what fundamental advantage would be collectively gained from restricting/preventing a specific feature in this game that other games are rapidly adopting every day...

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

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

We have a fundamental disagreement here and we are clearly talking past each other on this issue. *shrugs*
Then again asking me to "not respond" is pretty much the surest way to get me to respond, just saying...

You're right, it was baiting. I should have said that your responses only further my agenda of continuing the debate of features value to this game. I am sorry And should have not been so flippant.

Mr. Drupal wrote:

First off how do you KNOW that body model jiggle physics will not become a de facto standard in computer games?
You might as well buy yourself a lottery ticket with that much predictive absolutism.
At least I make my educated assertion based on computer technology trends and actual examples that I and others have mentioned here.

You continue to take what I say to extremes as a way to discredit my points. At no point did I say body physics will not become a standard. I said that in the foreseeable future they won't be.
And the isolated examples you give are not the trend or expectation of future games. For every Tomb Raider that uses body physics there are multitudes of games like the Homefront, GTAV, Dark Souls, COD, Rainbow Six Siege and so on that made the choice not to spend much if any time on body physics in their game. Your educated guess is nothing more than Observer-expectancy, Selective perception or Confirmation bias. The facts about current trends in graphical feature inclusions in games do not support the estimation that body physics are as common or will be as common in the foreseeable future as you claim.

Lothic wrote:

I get that you've chosen to focus on whether or not body jiggle physics is fundamentally "necessary" for CoT.
I've also answered that narrowly defined question many times: Of course its not strictly NECESSARY.
Graphics with color isn't necessary either but surprisingly enough a lot of people still desire it.

Again twisting my point to support your faulty conclusion. I am not focusing on the necessity of body physics but the value of it to this game. Answering a question I didn't ask means nothing. And I am not seeing this lot of people who desire it. I do see a lot of people follow your faulty expectations and agree that a slider with realistic maximums would be acceptable but few actually say this is a desired feature.

Lothic wrote:

Bottomline you simply can't dismiss this line of discussion/debate by trying to "prove" that it somehow is not necessary/appropriate for this game. Over the course of 8 years I saw plenty of things get "suggested" for CoH in the CoH forums. At one point things like "power customization" was actually highly controversial with a vocal minority trying to "prove" it wasn't necessary for CoH. Things like readjusting astronomically impossible badge requirements were seen as "pointless" until the Devs decided those changes were actually "necessary". The list of these kinds of things could be continued ad nauseam if necessary.

I am not dismissing a line of debate, I am saying its presumptive to discuss how to use a feature that even the devs have said they considered for less time than it takes to cook minute rice before you discuss the value of it to this game.

Lothic wrote:

I get that you don't want to see jiggle physics in CoT, or at least you want some kind of peer-reviewed doctorial dissertation for why it's "necessary". But in reality I can only tell you that Devs for games like these will just as likely spend thousands of hours on QoL features that no player wants as they won't spend 10 minutes on trivial fixes that virtually every player wants. The Devs don't really need a huge amount of "documented justification" to implement anything. Perhaps you need to reassess what fundamental advantage would be collectively gained from restricting/preventing a specific feature in this game that other games are rapidly adopting every day....

Its funny just how clueless you can be at times and how insightful at others. Why the devs choose to include a specific feature in a game over others is not arbitrary despite your dismissal of their process. They take time to weigh the value of the feature and that is all I am asking to discuss here. It would be nice to discuss something with you without the hyperbolic exaggeration of my posts but I doubt that is going to happen with you. Oh and just so you know, I would like body physics but don't know if it is worth it or if it even fits the art style of the final game.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Your educated guess is nothing more than Observer-expectancy, Selective perception or Confirmation bias. The facts about current trends in graphical feature inclusions in games do not support the estimation that body physics are as common or will be as common in the foreseeable future as you claim.

The funny thing about educated guesses is that no matter how much you personally don't like them they still have a chance of being right. Sure I may be "overestimating" that every modern game that features character creation as key feature (i.e. CoT) is trying their best to implement body physics of various types but you saying "I may be wrong about that" isn't actual proof that I WILL be wrong. Besides if you want CoT to be a game that doesn't at least consider pushing every boundary it can when it comes to body model technology then on some level I kind of feel sorry for you.

P.S. I'll let you in on a little secret here that I hope the Devs won't read. In essence I don't really have to convince YOU of anything I say here. My goal with supporting body jiggle in CoT with "overtly favorable language" is to convince the Devs it would be a good idea. If you think body jiggle would be a bad idea (like Nadira has argued) then say that directly and then we could actually debate the points on the same playing field. Your attempts to subvert me by playing "Devs' advocate" doesn't really help either of us as players because I'm almost certain neither one of us actually knows with 100% certainty what the Devs themselves want CoT to achieve as a game. Debate your position as yourself; stop trying to debate as something you're not.

Brainbot wrote:

I do see a lot of people follow your faulty expectations and agree that a slider with realistic maximums would be acceptable but few actually say this is a desired feature.

If I can convince enough people (or more importantly a Dev or two) that a jiggle slider would be an "acceptable enough" feature that it actually happens in CoT then I couldn't care less how many players consider it a "desired" feature. Paraphrasing a great captain in every revolution there's one person with a vision...

Brainbot wrote:

I am not dismissing a line of debate, I am saying its presumptive to discuss how to use a feature that even the devs have said they considered for less time than it takes to cook minute rice before you discuss the value of it to this game.

Even if I accept the hyperbolic claim that the Devs have only considered this idea for a minute (even though the Devs have actaully been responding to this thread for months) how could they honestly assess the "value" of this feature in the game without any discussion of HOW it would be used. Basically you're claiming that a decision must be made whether or not body jiggle physics will be implemented first in a total vacuum before any discussion about what forms it might possibly take.

When players suggested having wings in CoH they didn't say to the Devs "we want generic wings" and wait before suggesting the TYPE of wings they wanted until after the Devs worked on it for 2.5 years and annouce "we will now have wings in the game". Of course it didn't happen that way: Every time players suggested the wing idea they said "we want angel/devil/bird/tech/fiery/etc. wings". They suggested the EXACT things they wanted as part of the suggestion. Likewise when the idea for "body jiggle" came up YEARS AGO (this has been long discussed/debated for years way back in the CoH forums much less the forums of this game) the HOWs of the various forms body jiggle (such as the desire for a breast jiggle slider) has ALWAYS gone hand-in-hand with the core suggetion.

Basically the idea that we must wait until the Devs make a judgment whether to implement generic body jiggle in any form or fashion before we the players can start suggesting specific details of HOW that might work is rediculously asinine at best. Essentially you're saying that players aren't allowed to talk about why a possible feature might be good for the game until the Devs first decide to create that feature without any input from players. At best yours is a "chicken before the egg" paradox.

Brainbot wrote:

Its funny just how clueless you can be at times and how insightful at others. Why the devs choose to include a specific feature in a game over others is not arbitrary despite your dismissal of their process. They take time to weigh the value of the feature and that is all I am asking to discuss here.

Obviously the Devs will consider the merits of incuding a QoL feature like body jiggle physics in this game, but they will do that on their OWN terms, not ours. What you seem to be clueless about is that we can offer suggetions for features and even offer evidence to support those features but only the Devs can judge the "value" of those suggestions. This was the point I was making - despite our best intentions or perceptions the Devs will ultimately do what they think is best regardless if it appears "abritary" to us or not. Essentially the Devs move in mysterious ways and you're naive if you think you could pontificate on your own (with any degree of certainty) what the Devs will consider "worth" doing or not.

Your fundamental flaw here is that you're assuming any player's suggestion must provide a clearly enumerated accounting of its exact "value" added to the game. You're almost literally implying that unless someone like me can show the Devs the exact cost analysis spreadsheets and exact engineering impacts of my suggestion that it will never happen. I'm here to tell you (once again) that the ACTUAL way player suggestions have ultimately become implemented in games has almost NOTHING to do with things like that. I've seen way too many "suggestions" become reality based simply on convincing a Dev to tinker around with ideas in their spare time and have those things become finished enough to be patched into the game. The value these things add to the game is often unmeasurable - some are effectively pointless, others become universally loved. There's almost no way to predict that outcome beforehand.

Brainbot wrote:

Oh and just so you know, I would like body physics but don't know if it is worth it or if it even fits the art style of the final game.

So you say that you'd want to see "body physics" in the game. If that's true then stop pretending you have knowledge of the entire inner workings of MWM and what they might judge as having "value" for the game or not. Trust me you don't know what makes their minds tick any more than I do. Instead you should be suggesting what your version of body physics ought to be and support it with reasonable points/evidence. Sure the Devs might not listen to you, but we both know your ideas will have a 0% chance of happening doing whatever you're trying to do here.

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

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

The funny thing about educated guesses is that no matter how much you personally don't like them they still have a chance of being right. Sure I may be "overestimating" that every modern game that features character creation as key feature (i.e. CoT) is trying their best to implement body physics of various types but you saying "I may be wrong about that" isn't actual proof that I WILL be wrong. Besides if you want CoT to be a game that doesn't at least consider pushing every boundary it can when it comes to body model technology then on some level I kind of feel sorry for you.

You are not giving an educated guess. You're just guessing without educating yourself on the subject. And I am not saying you "may" be wrong about current and foreseeable trends in features I am saying you "are' wrong about them. Or at least you were until you pointed out that you were talking about a very small subsection of games. I am assuming that it is a further subsection of those games by pointing out those whose character creation emphasis is coupled with a more realistic art style and not ones with more stylized art direction. If that is the distinction then you are just overemphasizing the importance of body physics in those games.

Lothic wrote:

P.S. I'll let you in on a little secret here that I hope the Devs won't read. In essence I don't really have to convince YOU of anything I say here. My goal with supporting body jiggle in CoT with "overtly favorable language" is to convince the Devs it would be a good idea.

This is not a secret in any way. You have been presenting misleading and misinformed posts in the thread for a while now and have attempted to shut down any discussion that does not support your desires. Which brings me to this:

Lothic wrote:

If you think body jiggle would be a bad idea (like Nadira has argued) then say that directly and then we could actually debate the points on the same playing field. Your attempts to subvert me by playing "Devs' advocate" doesn't really help either of us as players because I'm almost certain neither one of us actually knows with 100% certainty what the Devs themselves want CoT to achieve as a game. Debate your position as yourself; stop trying to debate as something you're not.

I have been attempting to debate points on a level field only to have you dismiss them with hyperbolic exaggeration and a complete refusal to discuss them. I even expanded my original concerns to include the questions of its worth vs other features to try and get a discussion going. I am not playing the devs advocate when I say that hand waving the importance of discussing the value of body physics to this game away with the argument that the game will have a lot of features we might not personally see value in is crazy. I say its crazy because the value of any feature is the entirety of reason for inclusion. I don't need to know with 100% certainty what the devs want to achieve in order to discuss the value of a feature based on already presented information.

Lothic wrote:

Even if I accept the hyperbolic claim that the Devs have only considered this idea for a minute (even though the Devs have actaully been responding to this thread for months) how could they honestly assess the "value" of this feature in the game without any discussion of HOW it would be used. Basically you're claiming that a decision must be made whether or not body jiggle physics will be implemented first in a total vacuum before any discussion about what forms it might possibly take.

Well, unless I am really missing something I don't think a dev has responded to this thread since Oct 2015 and the first thing he said was that he wasn't posting as a dev. The last word I can see in the thread from a dev was this one in August of 2014:

DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

I can assure you all that "jiggle physics" as a topic has taken up approximately the following amount of Dev thought:

"Hmmm. Looks like the tool suite supports jiggle physics joints."

"Well, since we need to add several joints to the base skeleton for other purposes, might as well toss in a handful of those so that we can see how they work in practice."

"Okay, simplest way to do that is to just put them on the core skeleton and use different physics constraints to reflect the physiology. Let's see... yeah, okay, five minutes of searching found me enough medical documentation to be reasonably sure we can figure out numbers that won't twist things into a pretzel."

"Mental note: if this works, remember to add them to other fatty tissue deposits as appropriate. But we can worry about that a few revisions down the road when we know they *do* actually work."

I'm fairly sure that we've invested *at least* three times as much effort into getting a place to anchor a tail that will work reasonably, and five times as much in figuring out how to set up the shoulders and upper torso (front and back) to be able to have capes work within the (remarkably tight) tolerances available when trying to do things like brooches or clasps. For that matter, wings required a bolt of inspiration before we figured out how to make them really sync up properly with other animations -- at least without having to have a duplicate (probably more-than-duplicate) set of animations for handling stuff with/without them while avoiding the "uhm, wings don't actually work that way, even if we're throwing physics out the window, it *looks* terrible" issues.

Heck, I suspect that writing on this thread a couple of times constitutes a non-trivial (not large, but definitely observable) percentage of the total thought invested. And pretty much the entirety of the thinking about it that isn't a specific practical question is "how much can we get from the engine cheaply enough to be worth the effort, and what do we need to do to arrange that?"

Besides, there is an entirely practical reason for the first tests to be on the chest rather than elsewhere: because the tissue distribution (large or small) is significantly further from the body's center of gravity, it tends to amplify any problems that do creep in, making them easier to spot and fix.

So yes I was being a bit hyperbolic but only a bit. I wasn't really making false claims like you did. Now back to this.

Lothic wrote:

Essentially you're saying that players aren't allowed to talk about why a possible feature might be good for the game until the Devs first decide to create that feature without any input from players. At best yours is a "chicken before the egg" paradox.

This isn't even close to what I am saying. I am saying pretty much the opposite. Discussing the value of a feature from the players view is how we influence the devs decisions. What you have been doing is trying to shut down that discussion so you can, by your own admission, manipulate the devs into giving you something you want. You don't want a discussion that presents novel ideas like facts or even different opinions you just want to keep talking about this as if its an inevitability and a foregone conclusion.

Lothic wrote:

Obviously the Devs will consider the merits of incuding a QoL feature like body jiggle physics in this game, but they will do that on their OWN terms, not ours. What you seem to be clueless about is that we can offer suggetions for features and even offer evidence to support those features but only the Devs can judge the "value" of those suggestions. This was the point I was making - despite our best intentions or perceptions the Devs will ultimately do what they think is best regardless if it appears "abritary" to us or not. Essentially the Devs move in mysterious ways and you're naive if you think you could pontificate on your own (with any degree of certainty) what the Devs will consider "worth" doing or not.

They will decide the merits of the feature themselves but our discussion has an impact on that decision. That is the entire basis for any discussion of features here. How much they actually take our discussions into account is arguable but dismissing the discussion on the basis of a devs will decide argument isn't even a little valid.

Lothic wrote:

Your fundamental flaw here is that you're assuming any player's suggestion must provide a clearly enumerated accounting of its exact "value" added to the game. You're almost literally implying that unless someone like me can show the Devs the exact cost analysis spreadsheets and exact engineering impacts of my suggestion that it will never happen. I'm here to tell you (once again) that the ACTUAL way player suggestions have ultimately become implemented in games has almost NOTHING to do with things like that. I've seen way too many "suggestions" become reality based simply on convincing a Dev to tinker around with ideas in their spare time and have those things become finished enough to be patched into the game. The value these things add to the game is often unmeasurable - some are effectively pointless, others become universally loved. There's almost no way to predict that outcome beforehand.

I am not saying that suggestions need to provide accounting I am saying that this features value should be discussed before you treat it as a foregone conclusion as you have been doing.

Lothic wrote:

So you say that you'd want to see "body physics" in the game. If that's true then stop pretending you have knowledge of the entire inner workings of MWM and what they might judge as having "value" for the game or not. Trust me you don't know what makes their minds tick any more than I do. Instead you should be suggesting what your version of body physics ought to be and support it with reasonable points/evidence. Sure the Devs might not listen to you, but we both know your ideas will have a 0% chance of happening doing whatever you're trying to do here.

Even when you have the quote right there you misrepresent me. I clearly said I don't know if this feature is worth having even if I would like it. Why would I suggest a version of body physics when I don't see its value? And the whatever I am trying to do here is have an honest debate on this feature instead of the underhanded manipulation you have been presenting. That doesn't seem possible with you. I will leave others with this:

Lothic wrote:

If I can convince enough people (or more importantly a Dev or two) that a jiggle slider would be an "acceptable enough" feature that it actually happens in CoT then I couldn't care less how many players consider it a "desired" feature. Paraphrasing a great captain in every revolution there's one person with a vision...

Lothic's motivations, methods, disdain and self importance are all neatly summed up in that quote.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:
If I can convince enough people (or more importantly a Dev or two) that a jiggle slider would be an "acceptable enough" feature that it actually happens in CoT then I couldn't care less how many players consider it a "desired" feature. Paraphrasing a great captain in every revolution there's one person with a vision...
Lothic's motivations, methods, disdain and self importance are all neatly summed up in that quote.

Actually, I found that statement to be refreshingly honest and open. I wish more people would be so. Understanding people, and where they come from is by far the most important goal of good communication.

I have great respect for Brainbot and Lothic. You have both made some wonderfully insightful and entertaining posts in the forums. It pains me to see you both at each other like this; especially over something as silly as this. There comes a time when the only thing that keeps you arguing is your own pride. I believe you have reached that point.

Brainbot, Lothic attempted to escape, you should have let him; but now your desire to have the last word will cause a defense and it will continue. The question is whether Lothic is mature enough not to take your bait.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Warcabbit said this costuming

Warcabbit said this costuming female surprise was not the SheHulk body, but a quiet, respectful thing.
I think that means a slider. Everyone can have what they want. But that is my guess

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

If I can convince enough people (or more importantly a Dev or two) that a jiggle slider would be an "acceptable enough" feature that it actually happens in CoT then I couldn't care less how many players consider it a "desired" feature. Paraphrasing a great captain in every revolution there's one person with a vision...

Brainbot wrote:

Lothic's motivations, methods, disdain and self importance are all neatly summed up in that quote.

Huckleberry wrote:

Actually, I found that statement to be refreshingly honest and open. I wish more people would be so. Understanding people, and where they come from is by far the most important goal of good communication.

I have great respect for Brainbot and Lothic. You have both made some wonderfully insightful and entertaining posts in the forums. It pains me to see you both at each other like this; especially over something as silly as this. There comes a time when the only thing that keeps you arguing is your own pride. I believe you have reached that point.

In keeping with your attempts to "mediate" this latest whirlwind of pointless disagreement on this topic I'll say a few parting words here.

For what it's worth I didn't start this forum topic (which has survived for over two years now) which means there's at least one other person out there who's interested in seeing body jiggle as part of the game. I will gladly give up the mantle of "self importance" based on that alone. As far as the claim that I expressed "disdain" for others I'll just point out that everyone who makes a suggestion for a game obviously cares about their ideas regardless if others care for them or not. I happen to think that the PURELY OPTIONAL ideas for body jiggle being discussed here could only be a "value added" to this game and would not negatively affect any player who chose not to make use of it. If expressing that in an honest way is an example of me showing "disdain" for my fellow players then I'll be happy to stand guilty as charged on that as often as necessary.

Apparently being "honest" about my motivations here, which somehow weren't overtly clear to everyone in the last several dozen posts I've made on this thread, is somehow so shocking that it's worth casting me as some kind of self-serving egomaniac. I'll simply continue to be amazed every time I face a poster like Brainbot who stands in opposition to expanding the features and capabilities of a game that we are ALL looking forward to enjoying. *shrugs*

Huckleberry wrote:

Brainbot, Lothic attempted to escape, you should have let him; but now your desire to have the last word will cause a defense and it will continue. The question is whether Lothic is mature enough not to take your bait.

I have never claimed that "maturity" was one of my strong suits. But in keeping with the time-honored idea that "pictures are worth a thousand words" I'll simply repost the quintessential GIF I posted earlier in this thread. It "neatly sums up" pretty much everything being debated here.

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

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Apparently being "honest" about my motivations here, which somehow weren't overtly clear to everyone in the last several dozen posts I've made on this thread, is somehow so shocking that it's worth casting me as some kind of self-serving egomaniac.

Being honest about being misleading is not being honest. But you are right Lothic, lets move past it.

Lothic wrote:

I happen to think that the PURELY OPTIONAL ideas for body jiggle being discussed here could only be a "value added" to this game and would not negatively affect any player who chose not to make use of it.

Lothic wrote:

I'll simply continue to be amazed every time I face a poster like Brainbot who stands in opposition to expanding the features and capabilities of a game that we are ALL looking forward to enjoying. *shrugs*

I fully agree that body physics would be value added and I do not stand in opposition because I don't like this graphical feature. My opinion is the amount of value added is not worth possible and actual deductions from the game.

I really did not want to post a huge wall of text and would rather have discussed each point on a case by case basis but I guess thats not going to happen.

There are lots of things to consider about this feature that go far beyond just how much is acceptable to use.

There is the issue of features like this compounding the graphical requirements of the game. Expected and confirmed graphical features like animated hair, individual finger animations, particle effects, destructable environments and so forth all will add to the load of minimum and maximum graphics requirements. Piling on another feature like body physics only adds to those requirements, even with a slider that reduces its impact.
When you have a game that has graphical components that most cannot access, even if they are able to play the game at minimum settings, it directly affects the games acceptance. This is not speculative or an educated guess. Games from the Crysis, Arkham and Farcry series have cutting edge graphics capabilities that the majority of players cannot even use which is evident by the multitudes of articles that speak about waiting to upgrade before playing or about how to get the most out of your graphics card for those games. It should also be noted that those games make very little use of body physics beyond ragdolls.

A big plus for including body physics is the ease to include them. It really is not difficult for a single naked human form to include what people have been calling jiggle here. There is also very little difference in workload for the amount of jiggle, so discussing how much is unimportant before deciding its inclusion. Sheep spoke a bit about body physics way back in the early part of this thread. What wasn't spoken about was all the stuff that add to the work to include this feature in a game that is expected to include a wide variety of body shapes, clothing and animations. What went from effectively flipping a switch to include body physics now become an lot of work to iron out kinks and conflicts with clothing, animations and body shapes and only grows when you include a dial because now there isn't just one configuration to contend with but multiple. I want to be clear though, this is not an excessive amount of work and could be done without breaking the bank in terms of workload. But it does contribute to reducing the value added of this feature.
Its obvious that CoT cannot include every feature that any other game has ever used so they need to make choices about which they want to use. This fact cannot be dismissed by saying the game will include many features a player might not use.

Another component of this features value is art style. Body physics lose a lot of value when applied to certain art styles and are simply not suitable for others. To give some examples of art styles here are a few pictures:


In the first picture you have the same model in 3 different types of shading. These shading styles are related to but not the same as the commonly know cell shading of the Telltale games and Borderlands series. Body physics are seldom suitable for cell shading or toon shading. Also body physics are not exactly suitable or will have limited value in all but the wire frame and bitmap models of the second picture.
In the second picture the second arm is an example of bitmaps. This is the most common and, when coupled with bump maps, the easiest way to provide a highly detailed, realistic or stylized models. It is these types of models that will have the most to gain from including body physics with a few exceptions of course. The examples we have seen of the game so far are models of this variety and CoH used this type of model design. I would like to point out that the final art style has not been decided yet and can be any of those you have seen in the pictures or other games.
The point is that final art style has a major impact on this features value. Deciding to include body physics or debating how much is too much should come after this decision is made IMO.

Another factor to consider is just how many people consider this an important or even warranted feature. Adding this feature to the game could push out other features so judging how many people actually care about its inclusion is not something to just wave off. Judging from this thread, which I can't stress enough is not representative of the majority, the opinion is body physics are of low priority. To get a better idea of how body physics are viewed in a larger sense you need to do some investigation. What I have found is that it only becomes important for games that have chosen to include it or deliberately didn't include it despite expectations. Games like GTAV and Fallout 3 have very little community interest in its inclusion.
What I have found is that the vast majority of games do not include body physics except for those designed in Japan or Korea. And even those games are now being modified for western audiences. This leads me to the conclusion that it is not a feature that many consider important. It should be clear that this argument is very subjective and should not be taken as gospel. Do your research and make up your own minds on this part, well actually its always a good idea to do research for yourself about anything.

Lets get to the sticky point. How body physics and more specifically breast physics are received in general. Getting past the more titillating uses of breast physics you find in DoA and various Japanese dating sims, you will see that games that include breast physics as an enhancement instead of a feature are better viewed than those who want to showcase the body physics. Its been brought up that both Tomb Raider and Uncharted4 include breast physics to add to the realism of the models. To their credit they did so in a respectful way and there has been no serious backlash for it, breast physics were just another component of a realistic and detailed model.
This changes when you include a slider specifically dedicated to breast physics. It does not matter that intentions are good or if the max value is respectful. Attention is drawn to the chest in an obvious way. These arguments are not new, they were used when games started including chest scaling in games and we got over it eventually and now its an expected feature.
The issue is we are not at the stage where breast physics are in the same place as breast scaling in terms of general opinion. Breast physics will eventually be an expected feature but is still a long way off.
Right now there is the potential for breast physics to be painted in a negative light. So I have reservations about including it in a game that will be rated teen because it does not add enough value to the game to balance out the potential fallout of activist groups.

The Lynda Carter Gif is so misleading that I am awed by its use.
I can agree that the amount of jiggle in it might be acceptable in the game. But it shows only one size breast in one style of clothing.
I have three videos I will only link to and not display here as they might be considered too much for the forums. They are non-nude but still you should view them knowing they are NSFW, and moderators please let me know if this is ok to link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH9MfThEP_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJve6j1ZhMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxVpL66xSA
These are all women who have natural breasts while wearing a variety of clothing and performing different activities, dancing, running and jumping. Both the clothing and activities will likely include in the game.
Using that gif of Lynda Carter as an example of acceptable breast movement does not account for breasts that could be larger, could have more revealing clothing or even repetition of basic activities.
Denying, or at least minimizing, the fact that bouncing breasts have a sexual component is ignoring cultural instincts. Even that clip of Lynda Carter was at one time considered very risque and at the limits of what was allowed to be shown. It is obvious from both the Lynda Carter gif and my much more obvious clips that the intention of the camera angles and activity was to provoke a sexual response. I would like to say that people in general are beyond that type of reaction but we are not. And this is not the game to address that issue IMO.

I will leave you with a clip that shows natural breast movement, even if the breasts were not all natural, to emphasize that how an action game with breast physics could easily be exploitive despite the devs best intentions.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 51 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Apparently being "honest" about my motivations here, which somehow weren't overtly clear to everyone in the last several dozen posts I've made on this thread, is somehow so shocking that it's worth casting me as some kind of self-serving egomaniac.
Being honest about being misleading is not being honest. But you are right Lothic, lets move past it.
Lothic wrote:
I happen to think that the PURELY OPTIONAL ideas for body jiggle being discussed here could only be a "value added" to this game and would not negatively affect any player who chose not to make use of it.
Lothic wrote:
I'll simply continue to be amazed every time I face a poster like Brainbot who stands in opposition to expanding the features and capabilities of a game that we are ALL looking forward to enjoying. *shrugs*
I fully agree that body physics would be value added and I do not stand in opposition because I don't like this graphical feature. My opinion is the amount of value added is not worth possible and actual deductions from the game.
I really did not want to post a huge wall of text and would rather have discussed each point on a case by case basis but I guess thats not going to happen.
There are lots of things to consider about this feature that go far beyond just how much is acceptable to use.
There is the issue of features like this compounding the graphical requirements of the game. Expected and confirmed graphical features like animated hair, individual finger animations, particle effects, destructable environments and so forth all will add to the load of minimum and maximum graphics requirements. Piling on another feature like body physics only adds to those requirements, even with a slider that reduces its impact.
When you have a game that has graphical components that most cannot access, even if they are able to play the game at minimum settings, it directly affects the games acceptance. This is not speculative or an educated guess. Games from the Crysis, Arkham and Farcry series have cutting edge graphics capabilities that the majority of players cannot even use which is evident by the multitudes of articles that speak about waiting to upgrade before playing or about how to get the most out of your graphics card for those games. It should also be noted that those games make very little use of body physics beyond ragdolls.
A big plus for including body physics is the ease to include them. It really is not difficult for a single naked human form to include what people have been calling jiggle here. There is also very little difference in workload for the amount of jiggle, so discussing how much is unimportant before deciding its inclusion. Sheep spoke a bit about body physics way back in the early part of this thread. What wasn't spoken about was all the stuff that add to the work to include this feature in a game that is expected to include a wide variety of body shapes, clothing and animations. What went from effectively flipping a switch to include body physics now become an lot of work to iron out kinks and conflicts with clothing, animations and body shapes and only grows when you include a dial because now there isn't just one configuration to contend with but multiple. I want to be clear though, this is not an excessive amount of work and could be done without breaking the bank in terms of workload. But it does contribute to reducing the value added of this feature.
Its obvious that CoT cannot include every feature that any other game has ever used so they need to make choices about which they want to use. This fact cannot be dismissed by saying the game will include many features a player might not use.
Another component of this features value is art style. Body physics lose a lot of value when applied to certain art styles and are simply not suitable for others. To give some examples of art styles here are a few pictures:
In the first picture you have the same model in 3 different types of shading. These shading styles are related to but not the same as the commonly know cell shading of the Telltale games and Borderlands series. Body physics are seldom suitable for cell shading or toon shading. Also body physics are not exactly suitable or will have limited value in all but the wire frame and bitmap models of the second picture.
In the second picture the second arm is an example of bitmaps. This is the most common and, when coupled with bump maps, the easiest way to provide a highly detailed, realistic or stylized models. It is these types of models that will have the most to gain from including body physics with a few exceptions of course. The examples we have seen of the game so far are models of this variety and CoH used this type of model design. I would like to point out that the final art style has not been decided yet and can be any of those you have seen in the pictures or other games.
The point is that final art style has a major impact on this features value. Deciding to include body physics or debating how much is too much should come after this decision is made IMO.
Another factor to consider is just how many people consider this an important or even warranted feature. Adding this feature to the game could push out other features so judging how many people actually care about its inclusion is not something to just wave off. Judging from this thread, which I can't stress enough is not representative of the majority, the opinion is body physics are of low priority. To get a better idea of how body physics are viewed in a larger sense you need to do some investigation. What I have found is that it only becomes important for games that have chosen to include it or deliberately didn't include it despite expectations. Games like GTAV and Fallout 3 have very little community interest in its inclusion.
What I have found is that the vast majority of games do not include body physics except for those designed in Japan or Korea. And even those games are now being modified for western audiences. This leads me to the conclusion that it is not a feature that many consider important. It should be clear that this argument is very subjective and should not be taken as gospel. Do your research and make up your own minds on this part, well actually its always a good idea to do research for yourself about anything.
Lets get to the sticky point. How body physics and more specifically breast physics are received in general. Getting past the more titillating uses of breast physics you find in DoA and various Japanese dating sims, you will see that games that include breast physics as an enhancement instead of a feature are better viewed than those who want to showcase the body physics. Its been brought up that both Tomb Raider and Uncharted4 include breast physics to add to the realism of the models. To their credit they did so in a respectful way and there has been no serious backlash for it, breast physics were just another component of a realistic and detailed model.
This changes when you include a slider specifically dedicated to breast physics. It does not matter that intentions are good or if the max value is respectful. Attention is drawn to the chest in an obvious way. These arguments are not new, they were used when games started including chest scaling in games and we got over it eventually and now its an expected feature.
The issue is we are not at the stage where breast physics are in the same place as breast scaling in terms of general opinion. Breast physics will eventually be an expected feature but is still a long way off.
Right now there is the potential for breast physics to be painted in a negative light. So I have reservations about including it in a game that will be rated teen because it does not add enough value to the game to balance out the potential fallout of activist groups.
The Lynda Carter Gif is so misleading that I am awed by its use.
I can agree that the amount of jiggle in it might be acceptable in the game. But it shows only one size breast in one style of clothing.
I have three videos I will only link to and not display here as they might be considered too much for the forums. They are non-nude but still you should view them knowing they are NSFW, and moderators please let me know if this is ok to link.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH9MfThEP_Qhttps://www.youtube.com/watch...
These are all women who have natural breasts while wearing a variety of clothing and performing different activities, dancing, running and jumping. Both the clothing and activities will likely include in the game.
Using that gif of Lynda Carter as an example of acceptable breast movement does not account for breasts that could be larger, could have more revealing clothing or even repetition of basic activities.
Denying, or at least minimizing, the fact that bouncing breasts have a sexual component is ignoring cultural instincts. Even that clip of Lynda Carter was at one time considered very risque and at the limits of what was allowed to be shown. It is obvious from both the Lynda Carter gif and my much more obvious clips that the intention of the camera angles and activity was to provoke a sexual response. I would like to say that people in general are beyond that type of reaction but we are not. And this is not the game to address that issue IMO.
I will leave you with a clip that shows natural breast movement, even if the breasts were not all natural, to emphasize that how an action game with breast physics could easily be exploitive despite the devs best intentions.

tl;dr *shrugs*

You realize your latest wall of text on this topic alone probably took more effort to create than it would take MWM to implement the kind of reasonable/subtle body jiggle physics I've been advocating here for CoT. People have periodically accused me of being a little too obsessed with this subject in general, but even considering as much as this topic has been covered over the years (ever since the old CoH forum days) I think you're starting to take the cake as its current champion.

For what it's worth everything you've added to this conversation (regardless of your intentions) has contributed to what the Devs will need to consider to make this thing work well. If it took you needing to "prove me wrong" about this to get that much more constructive feedback for this then I'll let you or anyone else "prove me wrong" as much as needed. ;)

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

Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
Make city of titans, not city

Make city of titans, not city of war.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

You realize your latest wall of text on this topic alone probably took more effort to create than it would take MWM to implement the kind of reasonable/subtle body jiggle physics I've been advocating here for CoT.

Reasonable/subtle body physics have almost the same amount of effort required to put in the game as unreasonable/obvious body physics. That you can only muster this argument in response and dismissing my post as too long is beneath you.
Trying to paint me unfavorably as being obsessive and calling me out for 'proving you wrong' is just another manipulation. I am responding to 3 pages of arguments you have made for over 2 years. I did this in one post because all my efforts to discuss these points separately have been shut down by you and thought perhaps someone else might join in.

Lothic wrote:

For what it's worth everything you've added to this conversation (regardless of your intentions) has contributed to what the Devs will need to consider to make this thing work well. If it took you needing to "prove me wrong" about this to get that much more constructive feedback for this then I'll let you or anyone else "prove me wrong" as much as needed. ;)

Well, despite your claims of victory, I have more faith in the devs to see this topic and the thread properly. My 'proving you wrong' was just offering an opposition to the factually wrong and one sided arguments you have presented so far. I even presented positive aspects of body physics in my posts, trying to be honest about the topic. But predictably even those positives are the only ones I can think of as someone who opposes its inclusion.
It would have been much more informative and a greater benefit to the game as well as the community if you would have discussed this topic in earnest. I have seen you discuss other topics with a very firm footing instead of what we have seen here and wish we could have done so here.
If you are done with the conversation I would appreciate you to stop with the attack ads, if you are not done then please discuss actual arguments made.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I think it bears repeating:

I think it bears repeating:
People will make their avatar as sexy or not as they like. No amount of jiggle is going to change that. And however sexy they make their avatars is a reflection on them, not the game and not on anyone else who plays the game. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with sexiness. Women are far more guilty of sexing themselves up than the men who look at them will ever be. Most women have figured out that it is empowering and use it as a weapon. Some women see it as objectifying. To which I say, any man who objectifies a woman is himself to blame for it. And any women who think it is objectifying is just as guilty of objectification even if they think they are stating so in another woman's defense.
Can't we just let people be who they want to be and stop judging each other under the guise of blaming jiggle. Trust me, jiggle is a symptom, not the problem. The extrapolation of our own insecurities into the minds of others is the problem.

Besides there are so many other things to discuss, like man-packages. http://tennesseemountainbike.com/board/showthread.php?4799-Why-Bike-Shorts-are-Black
Are we going to have man-packages in the game?

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

People will make their avatar as sexy or not as they like. No amount of jiggle is going to change that. And however sexy they make their avatars is a reflection on them, not the game and not on anyone else who plays the game. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with sexiness. Women are far more guilty of sexing themselves up than the men who look at them will ever be. Most women have figured out that it is empowering and use it as a weapon. Some women see it as objectifying. To which I say, any man who objectifies a woman is himself to blame for it. And any women who think it is objectifying is just as guilty of objectification even if they think they are stating so in another woman's defense.
Can't we just let people be who they want to be and stop judging each other under the guise of blaming jiggle. Trust me, jiggle is a symptom, not the problem. The extrapolation of our own insecurities into the minds of others is the problem.

Yes, its very true that the players will ultimately be responsible for how they make characters. It's also true that the game provides the tools that players will use in portraying those characters. It will be MWM that bears the responsibility for what players do with those tools.
Despite MWM's intentions there is always the possibility of any element of the game to be viewed in a negative light. This would affect game sales through game ratings, public opinion and what stores will carry the game.
It isn't an issue of objectification or a projection of insecurities, its one of public perception.
Its simply a possibility that is proven by complaints and controversies other games have had. Tomb Raider and Last of Us both came under fire for its use of sexual assault as a plot devise. Last of Us also came under fire for it's same sex kiss. The hot coffee mod in GTA was the center piece for congressional hearings and this was a part of the game that was disabled for release. Even The Sims has gotten pressure from special interest groups for the mod community despite it being completely unfounded. These are only some examples of problems game companies had to deal that cost them time and money to deal with.

It does not take much imagination to see that a dial specifically dedicated to making boobs bounce could cause problems for MWM.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

<

Political correctness destroys everything it touches.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
How is my post political

How is my post political correctness?

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Yes, its very true that the players will ultimately be responsible for how they make characters. It's also true that the game provides the tools that players will use in portraying those characters. It will be MWM that bears the responsibility for what players do with those tools.

If some guy plays a snake-like character with a long neck and puts on a Sikh dastar turban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar#/media/File:Sikh_man,_Agra_10.jpg), makes his dastar and skin the same color, affects a german accent, and calls himself Herr Dickhead, there's nothing MWM can do about that except perhaps suspend his account if someone complains. However, if MWM actually makes a costume helmet look like a phallus, then yeah, I would hold them responsible.

Brainbot wrote:

It isn't an issue of objectification or a projection of insecurities, its one of public perception.

You say potato I say potato.

Brainbot wrote:

Its simply a possibility that is proven by complaints and controversies other games have had. Tomb Raider and Last of Us both came under fire for its use of sexual assault as a plot devise. Last of Us also came under fire for it's same sex kiss. The hot coffee mod in GTA was the center piece for congressional hearings and this was a part of the game that was disabled for release.

These are all examples of single person games in which the players were subjected to the content created by people who took their money for it. They are not applicable to the discussion. Remember, Pegi ratings declare that online content is unrated and MWM may be responsible to moderate it to an extent, they are not responsible for it.

Brainbot wrote:

It does not take much imagination to see that a dial specifically dedicated to making boobs bounce could cause problems for MWM.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Providing a slider is an admission by the developers that the jiggle they provide is known to cause offense. I recommend doing away with any slider and just put the jiggle in and call it a day.

Besides, if we are worried about causing offense, why in the world would we make a game that simulates being a villian? Seriously. If I was a parent of an impressionable young tween who is in a villian group in which his friends and mentors are encouraging him to snatch purses, rob banks and kill innocent people, I would be far more concerned than if, in the course of his playing, he ran across a character in a bikini top.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Providing a slider is an admission by the developers that the jiggle they provide is known to cause offense. I recommend doing away with any slider and just put the jiggle in and call it a day.

I disagree. The slider is so that the player can decide whether and how much the clothing the character is wearing (or other considerations such as a metal body or invisible force fields) inhibit jiggle. If it were to avoid offense, it would be on the viewer's side, suppressing jiggle seen on other players' characters.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.

Millennium City Refugee

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

If some guy plays a snake-like character with a long neck and puts on a Sikh dastar turban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar#/media/File:Sikh_man,_Agra_10.jpg), makes his dastar and skin the same color, affects a german accent, and calls himself Herr Dickhead, there's nothing MWM can do about that except perhaps suspend his account if someone complains. However, if MWM actually makes a costume helmet look like a phallus, then yeah, I would hold them responsible.

Legally, MWM will be responsible for not enforcing decency and copyright laws that its users break. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the possibility that special interest groups take offense to some aspect of the game that results in MWM spend time and money on damage control. This is a possibility for any part of the game but I do not think including body physics is going to add enough to the game to make it worth the possibility of dealing with potential fallout. You are free to disagree but later you seem to understand there is a possibility for some problems.

Huckleberry wrote:

You say potato I say potato.

It goes a bit deeper than this. You are trying to use a form of 'get over it' argument to support your position. Its a moral argument that does not relate to my logic argument. Personal feelings on body physics as objectification are not important. My point is simply about the possibility for issues and weighing it against the value added aspect of body physics. I want to be clear that I am not going to get bogged down in moral arguments because they are not productive.

Huckleberry wrote:

These are all examples of single person games in which the players were subjected to the content created by people who took their money for it. They are not applicable to the discussion. Remember, Pegi ratings declare that online content is unrated and MWM may be responsible to moderate it to an extent, they are not responsible for it.

If the reason you think they are not applicable is because they are single player games and that both the ERSB and Pegi rating systems have disclaimers for online interactions then you should look into this a bit more. The disclaimer is not a free pass to do anything in online games it is completely about interactions between people.
Both Pegi and ERSB have and do rate online games but use the 'interactions' disclaimer as a safeguard against government interference. This would be a separate discussion but in relation to your point you should understand how a game is rated. They both rate games based on what the game provides and disclaimers the possibility for other players to be offensive in chat or actions. To put it in a more understandable and applicable fashion, ERSB and Pegi will rate what you are able to do with the character creator but will not rate just seeing what others created in the game.
If you meant something else by this part then clear it up for me.

Huckleberry wrote:

Besides, if we are worried about causing offense, why in the world would we make a game that simulates being a villian? Seriously. If I was a parent of an impressionable young tween who is in a villian group in which his friends and mentors are encouraging him to snatch purses, rob banks and kill innocent people, I would be far more concerned than if, in the course of his playing, he ran across a character in a bikini top.

Again, this is confusing the moral aspect with the logic aspect. I am not saying this game should aim for complete acceptance. I am saying that the inclusion of this one feature is not worth possible fallout I will readily admit may never happen. Its about determining the value of Body Physics. I think exploring the villain side of superheros is worth the potential fallout but do not think having bouncing boobs is worth enough to have to deal with any amount of self righteous special interest groups.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

disagree. The slider is so that the player can decide whether and how much the clothing the character is wearing (or other considerations such as a metal body or invisible force fields) inhibit jiggle. If it were to avoid offense, it would be on the viewer's side, suppressing jiggle seen on other players' characters.

This has not been the only argument for a slider. It has been said that it would not just affect your character but all body physics in the game.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

I disagree. The slider is so that the player can decide whether and how much the clothing the character is wearing (or other considerations such as a metal body or invisible force fields) inhibit jiggle. If it were to avoid offense, it would be on the viewer's side, suppressing jiggle seen on other players' characters.

From looking through this thread, It appears as if Lothic proposed the jiggle slider to address the armor stiffness issue back on 6/10/2014. So, you're right about that.
However, that conversation about armor stiffness quickly took a back seat to the often heated discussion of using the slider to adjust physics to level deemed acceptable by the end user. It is this discussion that continued up to the present upon which I based my comment.
Besides, I do not expect that the character's nude body will be existing underneath the animated costume in this game. Rather, I expect that the character's unclothed torso, bottom, arms, head, etc., will be swapped out with a costumed versions as is done with nearly every other game. And since the costumed torso can have its own physics coefficients (will it, devs?), it could be an academic exercise to make a steel breastplate have no jiggle at all, regardless of the presence of any breast physics in the game, slider or not.
If I may be presumptive, it appears as if you would not like stiff armor to jiggle. I share that opinion and hope the game does something to address it.

...relatedly, however, it would be cool if dangly bits of armor did still bounce around. Legionnaire skirts, shoulder guards, foot protectors and tool belts. All these things, though stiff, should bounce. When I run in armor, it would be cool to see and hear the armor flop around as if it were hinged or tied down in places. Blade and Soul does this wonderfully, but then every costume in that game is a full-body costume that doesn't need to worry about clipping between costume pieces.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 7 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
As long as its in good taste,

As long as its in good taste, i'll be ok with it.
Catwoman: OK.
Vampirella: not so much! :p

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

As long as its in good taste, i'll be ok with it.
Catwoman: OK.
Vampirella: not so much! :p

Bingo. Lothic's Wonder Woman clip is a perfectly acceptable example.

BTW kudos for saying in just a few words what the massive walls of text could not.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Acceptable or not, body

Acceptable or not, body physics won't add enough to the game to make it worth the amount of work, potential fallout, increasing the graphical requirements or limiting the final art style of the game IMO.

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 40 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Acceptable or not, body physics won't add enough to the game to make it worth the amount of work, potential fallout, increasing the graphical requirements or limiting the final art style of the game IMO.

I disagree completely. and i'm not going to go into why because you've already doubled down on your stance, so there's not a whole lot of point in discussing it with you.

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".

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I remember growing up in the

I remember growing up in the 80's watching NFL highlights in slow motion on weekend mornings after all my cartoons were done. Yes, I'm dating myself.
Those guys looked so heroic doing everything in slow motion. All the hard hits, graceful leaps, and general impressiveness of it all.
Hollywood has taken cues from it and now we see those kind of slow-motion bits all over the place, perhaps most famously in The Matrix series.

One of the cool things about watching someone get punched in slow motion is watching their face get all gooey at the moment of impact. o.O

I hope we have physics in this game beyond just the use of ragdolls. (I hope we have ragdolls again like CoH did. They make me feel uber) If we have physics I would expect that hair, capes, floppy costume bits and such should flip and fly around when we do cool stuff like jump off a building into the middle of a mob of toughs, call up a well of power under our own feet, or perform a cartwheel breakdancing cycle kick. Casting a spell while wearing long flowing sleeves would be so much more enjoyable if they actually were long sleeves that flowed. There are a zillion reasons why making things react to physics would make this game better.

How cool would it be if your dark brooding anti-hero on the rooftop actually had his cape flap in the wind?

On the other hand, it always drives me crazy when I see someone with long hair stuck to her lips, so maybe that OCD side of me would hate a physics engine ;-P

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

I disagree completely. and i'm not going to go into why because you've already doubled down on your stance, so there's not a whole lot of point in discussing it with you.

You can disagree but calling me inflexible and using that as a reason not to engage is schoolyard tactics. If you don't want to discuss it I am not going to try and make you but if the only reason you won't discuss it is because you think I will never agree with you then you are missing the point completely. Its not about convincing anyone to agree, its about having people with opposing opinions present their reasons to give anyone involved a new outlook. I said in this thread that I have a position and am unable to think in a neutral way to present equal arguments for both sides and would like someone else to discuss why they think this feature has enough value to be added to the game.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I hope we have physics in this game beyond just the use of ragdolls. (I hope we have ragdolls again like CoH did. They make me feel uber) If we have physics I would expect that hair, capes, floppy costume bits and such should flip and fly around when we do cool stuff like jump off a building into the middle of a mob of toughs, call up a well of power under our own feet, or perform a cartwheel breakdancing cycle kick. Casting a spell while wearing long flowing sleeves would be so much more enjoyable if they actually were long sleeves that flowed. There are a zillion reasons why making things react to physics would make this game better.

How cool would it be if your dark brooding anti-hero on the rooftop actually had his cape flap in the wind?

Body Physics are only superficially the same as clothing or hair physics. Including one does not affect if another is included. AFAIK there will be at least some clothing physics and MWM is planning but not promising some hair physics.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Alright, then. My opinion is

Alright, then. My opinion is that 'jiggle', realistic or not, doesn't add anything valuable to the game. That said, if the game engine has the capability for handling 'jiggle' and the only question is whether to add that module to the final build, or not, then I agree that the thing should be put in for the Devs to play with, later. Diverting Dev effort from creating a good game, towards a bit of insignificant eye-candy, is not a good use of resources, at this time, if ever.

I observe that, for the most part, we will be looking at the backside of a model that is about six inches tall, at 72 dpi. At that scale, any realistic jiggle is going to be be all but invisible, unless the jiggling parts are grotesquely exaggerated. We simply aren't going to See the magnificent Ms. Carter, or any of the Baywatch gals, since this is going to be a game and not a platform for creating machinima.

Be Well!
Fireheart

PS: I note that nobody has even attempted to answer my 'what is it good for' question.

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

PS: I note that nobody has even attempted to answer my 'what is it good for' question.

Its been answered a few times. Answers have ranged from adding realism, expected feature to adding graphical value.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Body Physics are only superficially the same as clothing or hair physics. Including one does not affect if another is included. AFAIK there will be at least some clothing physics and MWM is planning but not promising some hair physics.

My apologies if you thought my comment was directed at or related to anything you may have said in this post. I was building upon my earlier post about other floppy bits that should jiggle.

Carry on.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 40 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

You can disagree but calling me inflexible and using that as a reason not to engage is schoolyard tactics. If you don't want to discuss it I am not going to try and make you but if the only reason you won't discuss it is because you think I will never agree with you then you are missing the point completely. Its not about convincing anyone to agree, its about having people with opposing opinions present their reasons to give anyone involved a new outlook. I said in this thread that I have a position and am unable to think in a neutral way to present equal arguments for both sides and would like someone else to discuss why they think this feature has enough value to be added to the game.

Honestly, from what I've read you seem pretty inflexible. there's been a lot of long, long discussion about it and you don't seem to have changed your stance at all.

My disagreement was primarily that your stance was that it wasn't worth the effort. Why isn't it? Because you think it's just for sexualization purposes? Well, let me ask you what the purpose of clothing physics is then? The purpose it's useful for is the feeling of flow. A cape as a static object looks horrible; you can see it several times in even high end games like skyrim (which is, admittedly, rather dated at this point) or Fallout 4, and both of them have static hair as well, which is another thing we want to flow. And in fact, we'd complain if it wasn't present. Meanwhile, body physics such as fat, breasts, and other skin jiggle is actually far, far easier to do than clothing based flow, and in the opinion of many adds to the realism of the game; the trick is not to oversell it, as that's where you get crap like Black Desert or TERA coming in where the breasts can't seem to sit still for more than a second without wobbling like jello. Getting the right balance makes everything feel better, and weight painting is easy, comparatively.

Yes, yes, I know it's not the same deal, but there's demand for it, and there shouldn't be a reason we can't turn it off anyways, so there's no reason not to include it for those that do want it, particularly since given the way clothes morph to the body they only need to weight-paint one set of bodies, whereas with clothes they'll be looking at a pretty considerable timesink.

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".

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Honestly, from what I've read you seem pretty inflexible. there's been a lot of long, long discussion about it and you don't seem to have changed your stance at all.

My disagreement was primarily that your stance was that it wasn't worth the effort. Why isn't it? Because you think it's just for sexualization purposes?

How does someone respond to your reasoning behind calling me inflexible. You do realize that you have not changed your position as well. Why does a discussion have to result in total agreement? Why can't a discussion be about just making the other understand why you think a certain way instead of requiring we both think the same? That kind of discussion offers more to those who just read and don't post when both sides of an argument is presented.

Now to be clear you seem to have missed a lot of what I have said in this thread. None of it was that body physics are 'just' for sexual purposes and have in fact said the opposite. I have a few reasons for why I don't think body physics are worth adding to the game supported by evidence, including how much work is involved in doing body physics in a game that will have multiple clothing options and how a dial devoted to body physics could be taken wrong. If you do want to discuss this then please take the time to know what I have said so we are on the same page.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I don't see clothing physics,

I don't see clothing physics, or hair physics, as similar or equivalent to either 'jiggle' physics, or body physics. In fact, it seems to me that 'body physics' is a shift away from 'jiggle' physics.

In my mind, 'body physics' is a 'smarter' rag-doll physics, and applies to both actor and reactor. 'Body physics' has bones, joints, and internal tensions that control how a body reacts to forces being applied to it. In a way, 'jiggle' physics is a subset of 'body physics' that applies to elastic masses, like fat and muscle. As such, taking the argument away from 'jiggle' physics and arguing it as 'body physics', seems like a trick. Because nobody wants to argue against Body physics, right?

Let's stay on target and topic, here.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I don't see clothing physics, or hair physics, as similar or equivalent to either 'jiggle' physics, or body physics. In fact, it seems to me that 'body physics' is a shift away from 'jiggle' physics.
In my mind, 'body physics' is a 'smarter' rag-doll physics, and applies to both actor and reactor. 'Body physics' has bones, joints, and internal tensions that control how a body reacts to forces being applied to it. In a way, 'jiggle' physics is a subset of 'body physics' that applies to elastic masses, like fat and muscle. As such, taking the argument away from 'jiggle' physics and arguing it as 'body physics', seems like a trick. Because nobody wants to argue against Body physics, right?
Let's stay on target and topic, here.
Be Well!
Fireheart

I think you are quite wrong about the differences. Below the aesthetic level everything is a polygon mesh. The movement of the various polygons is a function of their connections to the polygons around them, and the summation of resultant forces upon the nodes in the mesh, which result in accelerations. Hair is no different than breasts, except for the geometry and organization of calculation nodes, and what spring and dampening functions there are in particular axes.
Even in a ragdoll body, the various skeleton elements are also nothing more than nodes upon which forces are applied.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I think you are quite wrong about the differences. Below the aesthetic level everything is a polygon mesh. The movement of the various polygons is a function of their connections to the polygons around them, and the summation of resultant forces upon the nodes in the mesh, which result in accelerations. Hair is no different than breasts, except for the geometry and organization of calculation nodes, and what spring and dampening functions there are in particular axes.
Even in a ragdoll body, the various skeleton elements are also nothing more than nodes upon which forces are applied.

They are different and use different scripts to run them. They are only superficially the same in the sense that they simulate real world forces but they not made the same way and in many cases hair and clothing are not even polygon meshes.
There are many types of hair the devs could use, polygon, particle, cycles, dynamics, softbody or one of the less common methods. Applying hair physics is likely very different than body physics. This is just one of the common ways hair is made.

Clothing physics also operate different than body physics. They are usually made with a dynamic draping script and pinned to the character model so when a force is applied to the clothing model, like the character moving, gravity or wind, the clothing moves naturally. Here is an example of how cloth is done.

Ragdoll is a function of simulated kinetics on the models rigging. For a model to ragdoll it requires it to have rigging. Here is how ragdoll is done.

Body physics have different ways it can be made as well but I would assume that if the devs do include it they would use UE4's spring joint scripts. Here is a quick video that shows what that is.

The game can exclude any of these features without it affecting the others, they are not created the same way or use the same type of physics.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

They are different and use different scripts to run them. They are only superficially the same in the sense that they simulate real world forces but they not made the same way and in many cases hair and clothing are not even polygon meshes.
There are many types of hair the devs could use, polygon, particle, cycles, dynamics, softbody or one of the less common methods. Applying hair physics is likely very different than body physics. This is just one of the common ways hair is made.
Clothing physics also operate different than body physics. They are usually made with a dynamic draping script and pinned to the character model so when a force is applied to the clothing model, like the character moving, gravity or wind, the clothing moves naturally. Here is an example of how cloth is done.
Ragdoll is a function of simulated kinetics on the models rigging. For a model to ragdoll it requires it to have rigging. Here is how ragdoll is done.
Body physics have different ways it can be made as well but I would assume that if the devs do include it they would use UE4's spring joint scripts. Here is a quick video that shows what that is.
The game can exclude any of these features without it affecting the others, they are not created the same way or use the same type of physics.

Thank you for those links. You really helped us all here. In fact, you helped me make my point that all the physics is the same.

Let me start by using your hair example. The next video in that series is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgHDH3u74nw
and in this video, they actually apply the hair onto the model. If you look at time 17:05, you will see that all the hair is just following visualization curves, and you see by the knots in the guide curves, that it is all just a mesh of nodes being acted upon by forces, with stiffness and spring coefficients, just like I was saying.

Your next video example is of a simple flag on a pole, which really doesn't help us much. So I hope you don't mind if I offer a more illustrative example for this discussion here, in which the artist is applying clothing to a character used in UE4 for a real-time game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOELBNBt04#t=238.79661
Of particular notice are the discussions from about time 5:00 to 10:00. Notice that the cloth is a polygon mesh of nodes being acted upon by forces, with stiffness and spring coefficients just like I was saying. Notice also that he mentions using a ragdoll model in the 9:00 minute area in order to place collision avoidance areas. Which is an excellent segway to your next video.

Your third video example is an example of a ragdoll which also discusses collision avoidance. But if you don't mind, I'd again like to propose a more illustrative example for our discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkcFCwRGlLg#t=238.363511
Notice when he applies physics to the wrist at time 1:05 so that it is affected by physics when the rest of the body is stiffly adhering to the animated movement. Remember this when I talk later about how breasts are bones. And at about the 3:00 mark, you see how he modifies the spring and dampening coefficients of the neck bone joint.

Which is an excellent segway to your next video. Which is the culmination of this entire discussion. He actually discusses how he incorporated boob jiggle in his model. He's done it by making the breasts bones in his skeleton. Those bones have physics applied to them with spring and dampening coefficients, just like all the other examples. To expound on this, I've found a great video that discusses how to apply physics to get jiggle effects on a bone here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nHQIJhGaQk

You stated last that they don't use the same physics. I learned long ago to try to hear what people mean to say, not just the words they say. So when you say they don't use the same physics, I am assuming you mean they don't use the same physics algorithms or software. But that statement is still wrong because UE4 uses the same physics engine for all of the examples you and I used. The only difference between all these examples is the user interface the artist used to optimise the time spent with those particular materials, whether they be hair or clothes or bones. You don't care about joints or surfaces when you are trying to create hair, so the hair UI focused on what the artist needed to do for hair. The meshes it created were lines and the nodes were the 'knots' in those lines. And the same for cloth. When the UI was done taking the artist's input, it merely applied all of his input as display and coefficients onto the nodes of mesh surfaces. For skeletons, the UI applied the physics in 3D. But the physics is all the same.

So any discussion about level of effort and physics should be educated now. Rather than discuss generalities and make wild assumptions about level of effort, we can discuss facts. And the fact is that you pulled me back into discussing breasts. But the fact is that applying jiggle to breasts is an extremely simple thing to do compared to applying physics to other parts of a character, like clothing and hair.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
The OP asked what else could

The OP asked what would be a good example of jiggle, and I want to come back to that.

I bring attention to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkcFCwRGlLg#t=238.363511, where at about time 1:05 when the developer makes the wrist floppy by making it susceptible to physics rather than abiding by the animation.

Now imagine if your character is wounded, stunned, or suffers some debilitating effect in battle and the game makes your hand or your arm get all floppy like that. I also imagine some shooting red or yellow lightning bolts (the same way a comic book would show pain) as a GUI overlay emanating from that joint to be a more obvious visual cue that you've been injured or otherwise effected. A ragdoll dead body is one thing, but how cool would it be to have ragdoll arms when you have been debuffed and unable to attack! (and don't worry about unrealistic backwards bending elbows and the like. I said ragdoll, not loose noodle. Bending limits are already addressed in the formulas that define the base skeleton)

This reminded me of this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfTyEtVIe84

And if your character has been put asleep, why should the developers have to create a separate animation for a sleeping character when all they need to do is put your character in a standing rest position and apply physics to your neck and shoulders so you get to watch your upper body just flop into a hunch. Add a GUI overlay with a bunch of zzzzzZZZZs and you have an instant sleeper. The physics is already there, so it would surely be less code this way. When you wake up, all that would happen is just remove physics from your neck and shoulders and your upper body will snap right back into the position is it supposed to be in according to the animated stance you are in.

Can you think of any other uses for skeleton jiggle?

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

You stated last that they don't use the same physics. I learned long ago to try to hear what people mean to say, not just the words they say. So when you say they don't use the same physics, I am assuming you mean they don't use the same physics algorithms or software. But that statement is still wrong because UE4 uses the same physics engine for all of the examples you and I used. The only difference between all these examples is the user interface the artist used to optimise the time spent with those particular materials, whether they be hair or clothes or bones. You don't care about joints or surfaces when you are trying to create hair, so the hair UI focused on what the artist needed to do for hair. The meshes it created were lines and the nodes were the 'knots' in those lines. And the same for cloth. When the UI was done taking the artist's input, it merely applied all of his input as display and coefficients onto the nodes of mesh surfaces. For skeletons, the UI applied the physics in 3D. But the physics is all the same.

I said they don't have the same type of physics. They use different scripts. UE4's physics engine is a collection of scripts. And that hair is not polygon, its particle.
But the important part of what I said was that each is made different and that not including one won't affect including the others. How hair is made dynamic is different than how clothing is made dynamic which is different than how body physics are applied. There are similarities but even when you have the same force, such as gravity, act on different types of objects, like hair and cloth, they have different restraints, constraints, limits and use a different part of the UE4 physics engine. The general principle of physics being a function of polygons connecting to other polygons, while technically true to an extent, is very simple and glosses over the entire process to create physics.

Huckleberry wrote:

So any discussion about level of effort and physics should be educated now. Rather than discuss generalities and make wild assumptions about level of effort, we can discuss facts. And the fact is that you pulled me back into discussing breasts. But the fact is that applying jiggle to breasts is an extremely simple thing to do compared to applying physics to other parts of a character, like clothing and hair.

I said this myself. But I included how adding the body physics will increase the work for clothing, animations and body scaling. If that work is worth body physics to you then I can understand that but it isn't to me.
And I am not just talking about breasts. Its why I use the term body physics and not jiggle. Jiggle is too vague while body physics is a term for applying modifiers to areas of a character model to simulate movement when a force is applied to them. Its why your example of jiggle in the ragdoll part is off. Ragdoll is not adding physics to a model but removing restraints and letting whatever forces you apply to the object have free reign. If you do that for body physics you will see the body part behave in wild and unpredictable ways, like many gratuitous breast physics do. To properly apply body physics it requires limits and constraints. Ragdoll is notoriously bad physics and very hard to dial in properly because it has so few limits. How many times have you seen a ragdoll model behave in wild and unrealistic ways, even in modern games. They can fold into themselves, get stuck in walls, go spinning off wildly or just bend into bizarre contortions because of the lack of limits. Once you start adding limits you are not really talking about ragdoll anymore, now you're talking about body physics.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Its why your example of jiggle in the ragdoll part is off. Ragdoll is not adding physics to a model but removing restraints and letting whatever forces you apply to the object have free reign. If you do that for body physics you will see the body part behave in wild and unpredictable ways, like many gratuitous breast physics do. To properly apply body physics it requires limits and constraints. Ragdoll is notoriously bad physics and very hard to dial in properly because it has so few limits. How many times have you seen a ragdoll model behave in wild and unrealistic ways, even in modern games. They can fold into themselves, get stuck in walls, go spinning off wildly or just bend into bizarre contortions because of the lack of limits. Once you start adding limits you are not really talking about ragdoll anymore, now you're talking about body physics.

So now you're arguing over the semantics of the word ragdoll? I thought it was pretty obvious from the videos presented by you and by me that a ragdoll is any body subjected to physics instead of being constrained by simulation/animation.
But even if I was misunderstood, that is what I meant.

It appears as if your definition of ragdoll removes spring and dampening coefficients on the bones. That's fine as long as we understand each other.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 58 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I just wanted to pop in here

I just wanted to pop in here and let everyone know we're aware of the continuing discussion.

As to the current particulars in how stuff is done:
UE4 does use 1 physics engine
UE4 has different types of meshes - how those meshes are compiled use the same building blocks, but how they're put together makes them different.
The blue prints system is a form of visual scripting. That is instead of typing lines of code into a script, you can make scripts that use physics in different ways. The same is for UE4's blue prints.

The building blocks are all the same, how their put together makes them different, and how you decide to make them do things (like use the physics engine) ends up with different results.
Also, everything we do must be done with the eventuality of scaling up from one model to hundreds since this will be an MMO.
It is possible to make great looking hair that looks and acts realistically within the engine. For a single model. It is possible to get that working up with a small group of models. Get that going to say one hundred? Slide show city or worse - crashes.

Ragdoll is Body Physics with lots of stuff changed to get that behavior to happen (most games use a particular event - typically the target being defeated to trigger the script).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Online
Last seen: 12 min 3 sec ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

So now you're arguing over the semantics of the word ragdoll?

It may be a bit arguing semantics but my purpose was to illustrate how clothing, hair and body physics are not made the same way. I focused on ragdoll because it has easy to point out differences.
The reason why I was trying to point out the differences between those types of physics was because a common argument has been to conflate hair or clothing physics with body physics when the reality is they are separate features.
If you took offense to my semantic starting point I'm sorry, wasn't trying to insult you.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Also, everything we do must be done with the eventuality of scaling up from one model to hundreds since this will be an MMO.
It is possible to make great looking hair that looks and acts realistically within the engine. For a single model. It is possible to get that working up with a small group of models. Get that going to say one hundred? Slide show city or worse - crashes.

I understand that physics is mostly on the client side. I use mostly, because I suspect that some physics-based phenomena like the position of objects in the world may be physics based and so the server would need to judge where they are.
So if the physics is on the client side, should we expect to see some sort of sliders and/or toggles for various physics effects so that people can adjust them based upon the performance of their home machines?

We are all familiar with toggles and sliders like this. Everything from grass to wind to number of objects to distance of render and a whole lot more options have been at the players' fingertips for years in countless games.

This is another reason why I think a benchmark tool running the gameplay engine should be part of the character creator advance download. FFXIV did this also and again before their Heavensward expansion came out.

An additional benefit of a benchmark tool like this is that it helps build anticipation for the game when we see our own characters involved in some teaser content.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Pages