Goblin Squad Member
|
Additionally, we are trying to follow the rule of reason more than most games in the sense that we aren't treating bare female skin in armor suits like it has an apparent massive AC bonus ;). That doesn't mean we won't show some skin on both males and females, but it may correspond more directly to the level of armor of the suit. With robes, it is entirely about the decorative element, since they have no effect on AC. We will certainly try to provide a range of looks on them as well though. We're still working through a lot of the designs, so hearing your thoughts certainly helps shape our direction.
I think is a good approach. Robes naturally have more of an aesthetic/mood element to them than "functional" armour? I'm reminded of going dancing to be honest, comparing armour to robes! Maybe animations can achieve fluidity in robes which aid with the design?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Tessakc, now Serie
Personally, I don't see too much to be concerned with in the images posted. There were basically two female type models shown with variations. One was showing only her face and the other may have had the cleavage window, as you describe, but I still thought it was fairly modest.
For most of the people here it's not a case of amount of skin showing/modesty/morality. It's the passive sexism in the idea that female characters should be awesome at fighting, awesome at crafting, awesome at magic etc... AND LOOK SEXY WHILE THEY DO IT. It's such a prevalent expectation a lot of people may not notice it happening especially if the only focus is on counting % of skin showing.
Yes players should be able to choose to dress their characters like that if they want to. While the Pathfinder material is a lot more subdued in that respect than other fantasy/video game fare there still sure are a ton of boob windows in cloth armor.
The issue brought up was "Why can't I just be a spellcaster instead of a sexy spellcaster?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know the one you're talking about. She is a robust woman.Looks great!
Maybe it's the mannequin but the clothing on the hips looks flare out too much.
I wouldn't even call that robust yet, that's just a touch past frail (the other female mannequin). It's as fit as I'd expect a person who regularly engages in melee combat to be. Personally I was glad to see it because I want my fighting female character to have that build (or just a touch wider in the hips and shoulders for more power) and I hope that is an option during character creation in EE.
I like the details and layers in the look and the range of body types. I can hardly wait to see them moving around bashing things and casting spells.
My request for character art: facial tattoos. Not lame ones like zigzags or hearts. Real facial tattoos based on what people actually have (other than tear drops or Mike Tyson).
And even if you can't get all these art options in from the beginning do the devs think it's reasonable to add a big art overhaul package and allow a free character make-over so we can get all the options that weren't available when EE started?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately we want to know what you think and want, and I'd specifically love to hear from more women who want to play female characters in the game... on either side of the liberal/conservative dress argument. I think we all want a more balanced male/female player base in the game, so my goal is to provide everyone options that makes them enjoy playing their character (keeping in mind our relatively small team and timeline).
Wow, I get pulled away by Real Life for a month, and look what's waiting for me when I make it back to the forums!
Mike and Ryan, thanks for the posts. As a female gamer planning to play female characters, I'll take you up on that request for feedback. Please bear with me; I can be a bit long-winded (texted?).
I'll work from Ryan's "desirable" versus "exploitive" framework, and I'll reference the iconic character art where illustrations are needed. Let me also add, here, that I'm happy with the pictures from the blog; I like the layered look, and while I definitely hope you get to add some different body types (and heights, please; and also PLEASE don't make all female characters big-breasted!), that's actually less important to me than getting the gear on the "desirable" side of the equation. Good start so far!
(1) I tend to think "exploitive" when there is far more female skin on display than male skin. That's not so much in evidence in the blog pictures, but if you look at the eleven iconic characters, it jumps out: only one of the five male characters - Sajan - is showing any sizable expanse of skin, while three of the six female characters - Amiri, Seoni, and Merisiel - are. (Merisiel actually isn't showing much at all in total amount, but the bare skin is that very focused "boob window" area... which is pretty much drawing attention right to her cleavage, so I've included her here. My opinion; others may disagree.) So, half the female characters, but only one in five male characters, are clad in "revealing" outfits. As specific portraits of specific characters, that's not an issue... but if that's the ratio of female-to-male revealing clothing in game, that's what I'd consider exploitive. It would tend to mean that I would find a higher propertion of revealing armor than my husband would, meaning it would be harder, or at least more time-consuming, for me to assemble a non-revealing outfit than it would be for him. I'd be edged toward being eye candy just by the proportion of skimpier armor pieces available. That's not a "desirable" outcome for me.
(2) I tend to think "exploitive" when the graphics for a particular item are gendered. Early WoW was bad about this (plate chestpiece on a male character was full coverage, but looked like a bra on a female character). There's no evidence you've even thought of starting down this path, but I just thought I'd throw it out there. However, this can be a problem when you design skimpier armor. Sajan's bare-chested robe probably wouldn't fly at all on a female character, and Seoni's robe would look odd on a male character. Which is why my strong preference would be to get a good selection of non-gender-specific armor out there for each armor type, and start adding the gendered "sexy" stuff later.
And finally, just to head off any complaints about my taste, here are a couple of links to my WoW characters; WoW has an Appearance Tab system so these are custom outfits I've selected myself. Note that while I do have a full-coverage warrior I've also got variations (purely by chance) of Amiri's bare midriff and a more prominent version of Merisiel's boob window. Choice is good. Choice is very definitely, to use Ryan's term, "desirable". As long as it's choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gah wish I could see it here at work. Apparently the DoD hates Goblinworks.Doesn't DoD offer a telework option or are you in a position that has to be on site?
DoD has eliminated most telework options, and the network guys block most sites that have anything to do with gaming. Luckily Reddit and Ars Technica are available, but those are the exceptions.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Thanks for soliciting input Mike.
I dropped out of the thread discussing the subject because I didn't see a chance of anyone changing their mind. I'm going to say that the fifth? picture in the blog update, showing the full render and evrionment of the three characters, shows a very reasonable set of options; specifically, it doesn't show skin where armor should be, and it has a female with fully covered breasts in equally fashionable attire as one with partially exposed breasts.
I think that by making an active effort for all of the released images to show that options are available, you can walk the line between too much and not enough.
I know that offering three models per type (male, female, sexualized female) is a 50% increase in resources per outfit. I would rather see 20 outfits with three options each than 30 with two options each.
. We will certainly try to provide a range of looks on them as well though. We're still working through a lot of the designs, so hearing your thoughts certainly helps shape our direction.
Ultimately we want to know what you think and want, and I'd specifically love to hear from more women who want to play female characters in the game... on either side of the liberal/conservative dress argument. I think we all want a more balanced male/female player base in the game, so my goal is to provide everyone options that makes them enjoy playing their character (keeping in mind our relatively small team and timeline).
It's really cool to hear from you guys. Having this sort of communication with Devs is unheard of, especially at this stage. Usually we hardly know a game is in development at this stage, so knowing that our ideas are considered is novel and really cool :)
I almost always roll a Rogue/Thief first on any new game, so that class is one I love to see done well. In any games today rogues wear armor that could easily be mistaken for plate, large rounded pieces, crazy spikes and jutting angles. Although difficult to see, this Image shows the grim truth we have to live with in many games. The Thief I grew up playing was a lightly armored rogue who favored freedom of movement over having big shoulder pads, plate like elbow and knee pieces and bulky armor covering the rest of him. I would much prefer seeing rogues covered in leather with buckles and straps holding daggers, pouches for poison and various other mysterious items.
I'm going to add a couple of links to images showing what I'm talking about, Here and Here Some long coats in Rift looked really cool on my character, but as with any gear grubbing game, you went through armor so quickly you were forced to accept armor with obviously better stats.
If at all possible, I will make my character fairly slender, not the muscle bound hulks many games make you accept, so bulky armor just doesn't look right on a guy who's supposed to favor freedom of movement. I will stop here, no real point in putting up more pics of over armored characters. I hope this helps at least give one persons ideas for rogue armor.
As another of the females planning on playing a female character, I humbly offer my coppers -- okay there's probably a few silvers here at least -- on the subject.
If I can steal a suggestion from people more clever than I, if you want to know when something crosses from "desirable" to "exploitative," just take the outfit in question and put it on a male character. Does it look silly? It's probably not good. (Please google "Hawkeye Initiative" if you are uninitiated in the effectiveness, and hilarity, of this technique.) To take an example from the blog and this discussion -- that "boob window" (excellent phrase) would actually work on a male character as a "chest window," I think. Why the male version of the same outfit doesn't give me a peek while the female's does is a concerning question, don't you think?
Let me present and defend a hard line position that would simplify things greatly asset-wise but might not be the most popular idea given the current fantasy-gaming milieu and extant expectations:
Don't make separate outfit designs for males and females.
"Madness!" you might bellow indignantly, but hear me out, fellow adventurers!
Firstly, clarifications. Obviously there will need to be slight adjustments for different body types, of which male and female will surely exist at the minimum. This does not, and should not, mean that every piece of flat male chest armor should be adapted via pounding outward two round bowls like great big letters that say "Hello, I am boobs under here. Don't panic. I'm indeed a lady." The fact that such armor is dangerously impractical has been discussed and the message I heard the devs put across from previous forum kerfuffles was that they were not going that direction. Personally, I'm not going to throw a hissy-fit over ample leather corsets because they at least make a smidgen more sense than boobplate. I reserve the right to throw a royal, screaming, throwing things fit over chest plate armor with boobs, however. Hollywood has gotten it right at least twice with Snow White and Elizabeth. No excuses.
Now that we know where I stand there, let me explain the benefits of keeping the same armor design between males and females besides the cut-down on assets and concepts needed. A little bit of skin on a male character doesn't always have to be sexual -- as it doesn't on a female. If it doesn't look unintentionally sexual on the male model, you know it won't on the female. Traditional, Conan-inspired male Barbarians can be put into this camp -- assuming one believes that there is such a thing as non-sexual full or partial nekkedness in the first place.
The moment you pose that Conan male Barbarian furtively clutching someone's leg in a desperate pose, head thrown back, shoulders hunched in -- or gods-forbid a broken-spine chest-and-rear (read: T&A) pose... Something changes. The character no longer exists for their own sake, but to be my passive, consumable plaything. Sense and function no longer factors in because poor Conan is only there to look sexy. He's not a person, fictional or otherwise; he's a decoration, a pin-up, an ideal that belongs to me. We're less used to seeing males that way on the whole in fantasy art (or, y'know, most everywhere).
The gender-pose/outfit-switch is, practically put, a roughshod way to trick our acclimated brains into telling us if something is sexy in an exploitative way.
I'm taking "exploitative" here to mean: "nonsensical in favor of sexual appeal at the expense of the presupposed person-hood of the looked at." I think that's pretty rigorous a definition and I'm quite proud of it.
(Here is where I have to be careful to not sound homophobic or trans-phobic or sex-negative, because I think all those things are bad juju. Please know that if anything I say sounds that way it is not my intent.)
I believe men can be intentionally sexy without making other males uncomfortable or exploited -- same goes for women -- especially in the medium of video or paper and pencil games. Sometimes, we enjoy playing a character that is what we want to be. Not everyone cares about being sexy, but as long as it isn't the one and only, overarching, painfully tunnel-visioned thing about the character to the point that sense is being woefully torn from the poor thing right along with all of his/her clothes, it shouldn't be a deal-breaking issue if there is a sexy element. (That said, why would you cut out a window from a long-sleeved, ankle-length robe, anyway?) I would bet money that the archetypal swashbuckling male Rogue with an open, billowy shirt doesn't make male gamers feel overly uncomfortable. I mean, there's a reason the "swashbuckler" keeps appearing in the game in one form or another, right? Can't be entirely the fault of us lusty girls and our insatiable desire for beautiful, long-haired, smirking scoundrels with the perfect, tanned seaman's chest.
The long and short of the conversation is this: I believe in equal-opportunity sexiness if there is sexiness as a vector of appeal. There is no good reason that the female's version of an outfit should have skin here or there where a male's shouldn't, given that we are going for practicality with some desirability (or visa versa) and we aren't wading into Golarion's unique gender politics. (I'll grant many typical male Monk outfits present an interesting challenge to compliment.) I'm not going to mind seeing a bit of chest -- or midriff or back or shoulder or hinder or thigh or calf -- on a male character model, and I don't think most others will either. Someone else may not enjoy it quite the way I do, but if it is the same difference between the male and female model there's really no gender-split or gender/orientation-privilege to talk about.
It is, dare I say, fair, at the very least.
So, for every boob window, there shall be a chest window. Mysterious thigh-slit robes/pants will be gender neutral. If a collar is going to cut loose and explore the southern regions of a body, we will see belly buttons of both genders equally often. Sexy, sexy belly buttons, y'all.
To me, it's that simple. I hope it doesn't sound ludicrous, because it shouldn't be that outrageous a request. There's nothing that soothes the sting of "this armor set shows too much skin for my taste" quite like seeing one's male counterparts running around in the same getup, and nothing better for preventing such situations from arising in the first place.
If there are some options as to relative modesty of armor sets, you can sure as hell bet I want an option on male outfits to have more skin showing. Even if I personally never take full advantage of this, I'm positive that some of your players will, and that prevents the problem of a world full of roughly 50% scary-looking walking suits of armor and 50% bikini-chainmail babes. (I won't name names.)
Here's the best part: for a lot of players it will tell a different narrative to choose to be, rather than be defaulted to, more scantly-armored -- badass mercenary, devil-may-care attitude, wild and untamed -- that has nothing to do with sexual appeal and that's good! For others so inclined, one might not be particularly attracted sexually to his/her vixen/scoundrel assassin but they might enjoy playing a character whose archetype has that sexy-dangerous component and will want to communicate that aspect of their character concept to others in the way they choose to dress and equip themselves. And isn't that the entire point of being able to customize the look of your character?
I'll grant that interpretation over whether someone's character is supposed to be an unfettered wilderness wanderer or a cold-blooded femme fatal based on what they wear -- or rather, don't wear -- might be as varied as it is in real life. I'd hope that the artistic design of minimalist armors will vary in its intent enough to make that distinction possible.
Last but not least, some people just enjoy looking at a nice, well-dressed, pleasing -- whatever that is to them -- body while they summarily batter monsters or harvest resources or whatever gameplay aspect is most fun for them. That's fine too, as long as no one is required to have their characters look like someone else's erotic fantasy. That's really the heart of this whole discussion, and why it can get so heated; and why people might freak out at a relatively tame "boob window." One person's seemingly innocent treat, a patch of nice-looking flesh, is another's reminder "this isn't for you, it's for that other guy because we either don't think you care or don't believe you exist."
It... gets old, and raw, and can make us impatient. To say the least. I've been a gamer since before I can remember and this has been an issue the whole way. I think that great strides have been made, and I can't tell you how good it feels to play a game and not feel reminded that the people who made it had a target demographic that I am not part of in mind when they made it and in their attempts to please that demographic they encouraged aesthetic choices that preclude my enjoyment because, try as I might have not to in more innocent times in my life, I can't help but identify with some of those "aesthetic elements" that just so happen to share with me the shape of an odd little phenomenon we call "female." When my shape is used as nothing more than eye candy for someone else in a context that has 100% nothing to do with actually looking at and appreciating the form -- not to mention against all other reason and sense -- it isn't something I can always hand-wave away easily "oh those sillies and their loving of curvy parts that I have, so much that they made them inhumanly disproportionate and forgot to put any sensible armor on them." There's a point where one no longer feels like a fellow adventurer -- which is the proper context for every character in a game -- but instead like a decoration not even afforded the dignity the magic artifact gets. Clothes, armor, body shapes, such as they are, are really only one facet of a gem of issues surrounding this potentially explosive bag of cats, but I think a significant one that warrants the most careful thought. If some people seem overly critical or sensitive on the subject, the above testimonial is probably why, regardless of any opinions or feelings they have on modesty as a moral issue.
If I may briefly parse one thing that people seem to be unconsciously associating here, it is a mistake to think that a request for less revealing outfits is always, or even often, tied to a prudish, "conservative" sensibility. To do so is conflating the issue and trying to make it a legitimate (i.e. unassailable) difference in moral opinion rather than the harder, more uncomfortable situation of fellow human beings asking why their characters can't have full-body robes too just because some other human beings think that type of human looks more pleasing with less robes? Why is what one type of human thinks is pleasing illegitimate or irrelevant while another's is?
Let me be clear, I am not accusing any parties involved here of even entertaining the kinds of ideas that reduce female characters to objects. In fact, I'm only bothering to assemble all these words because I have hope that these fine people have their heads set on straight and want to hear what I have to offer.
I truly, fervently believe that keeping the armor sets consistent across genders is the best solution that will be fair and fun to everyone involved.
It's a slightly kinder compromise than my husband's take on it, which is: "If you wouldn't put your sister in it, it's stupid." (My husband is one of the Legend of the Five Rings Art Directors, so he has dealt with these sorts of things in practice. My brother is the artist half of their duo, and he also has rather articulate and staunch positions on the subject in the same vein -- while still drawing many very pretty, sensibly armored, and highly competent-looking women.)
A last note: if we're going to talk about body types, I must throw my "here, here!" out there with those that have asked for female body types that are actually different -- none of this "boob slider" option nonsense. I don't want to see 4 hourglasses with differing heights and widths and be told that's "different body types" while the males have everything from Hulk to Dr. Horrible. I do want to see a range from big girl -- and I mean swarthy, Northern Europe kind of girl that can punch out a dragon's tooth -- to a veritable pixie. They're all beautiful and desirable for someone to play, and variety is the reason this project even exists in the first place, so don't reject it.
And kudos to you for armor so far that has mass and thickness, and isn't some magical steel latex paint. Along with the golden kudos of, y'know, actually asking us what it is we would like to see.
Thanks and I hope this helps despite its length. I have a habit of being thorough. And I seem to recall being asked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A last note: if we're going to talk about body types, I must throw my "here, here!" out there with those that have asked for female body types that are actually different -- none of this "boob slider" option nonsense. I don't want to see 4 hourglasses with differing heights and widths and be told that's "different body types" while the males have everything from Hulk to Dr. Horrible. I do want to see a range from big girl -- and I mean swarthy, Northern Europe kind of girl that can punch out a dragon's tooth -- to a veritable pixie. They're all beautiful and desirable for someone to play, and variety is the reason this project even exists in the first place, so don't reject it.
And kudos to you for armor so far that has mass and thickness, and isn't some magical steel latex paint. Along with the golden kudos of, y'know, actually asking us what it is we would like to see.
I lied, the program can wait lol. Worth the read.
I quoted the best part, since I completely agree. Its good to have a female opinion on this particular issue. Also every body style needs to be a part of our choices.
Again though I will state. At the start of the game I am not concerned with many options on the appearance of our characters so long as we can change it later once fully implemented.
There is plenty to be done, and keep up the good work devs.
On a lighter note, maybe some armor could have keyword "Sexy" on it that gives a bonus if you have trained or have the right feats just like other armor keywords!
I'm totally kidding. Please don't do that.
On the other hand...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kwizzy
For the most part I am on board with what you say or at least the sentiment. 100% agree on the boobslider though........ thats just /facepalm.
This is the part I disagree with here: "keeping the armor sets consistent across genders".
Its more of an aesthetics thing with me, it just sounds too boring and uninspiring. Now I am fine with there being an equally skin-revealing match to any male or female cloth/armor design. But they should at least half the time be seperate designs. I expect to be able to have a certain amount of femininity for any female characters I roll. Just as I expect to have a certain amount of masculinity for any male chars I roll. So having them look exactly the same all the time just kills diversity.
Ultimately I want the choice to either suit my female character from head to toe in metal, or give her a cute (yet conservative) floral patterned farm dress, or give her clothing that makes her into a sexy amazon warrior (thinking Xena).
However, I wont begrudge any females (or males for that matter) that want to have the option to make their male chars anything from a walking hunk of metal to a barely clothed male stripper at the local tavern.
Even if I choose the full plate route for both my male and female chars, I wouldnt want every set of plate to look exactly the same on male and female. Having some armor be gender neutral is ok, but I'd like half of the armor designs to be different per gender. Not different as in females show too much skin and males are well covered. Different as in the male version of an armor has a nice little lion crest and the female version has a nice little rose crest. And gender neutral options would of course look the same.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To sum up one of the great major points from that wall of text: Use the same set of poses for all characters; avoid creating PR images with males in active or head-on stances and females in passive or 3/4 front stances. Also, unless the character is a contortionist, the model is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't we do the "exploiting women" discussion in another thread?
I really like the looks of what you have shown us and appreciate you showing it. Also, the explanation of graphics related to lag was helpful. I would prefer a little less variety if it means little or no lag in pvp. Maybe one could use it to their advantage by wearing a bright orange, wildly ornate outfit and just lag their opponent to death. *grins*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just for reference, there are probably quite a few players who'll want to look something like this.
If there's an outfit that's perfectly acceptable on prime-time family television, it's hard to understand why that shouldn't even be an option in PFO.
I think the most important thing is to create enough options that players can make their own decision about whether they want to dress more like Brienne of Tarth or Princess Leia in her slave costume. (I intentionally selected a photo from a Comic Con for the latter to illustrate that there are a lot of women who very much want to dress this way.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to add my vote to having all different body types for both males and females of all races. A fat Elf or a skinny Dwarf would likely give rise to some good RP. Perhaps he/she is cursed and looking for a cure, or maybe the Dwarf has vowed to eat and drink little until he/she rights some wrong done to his/her clan. As more races are introduced the possibilities grow almost exponentially. Same goes for classes - many Necromancers, either Clerical or Arcane (Wizard or Undead Bloodline Sorcerers) are often depicted in fantasy literature as emaciated or at least gaunt - well a handsome/beautiful looking male/female shakes that stereotype, as would a fuller-figured one (perhaps he/she is a big fan of Ghouls and Ghasts?) An unatractive Paladin would finally shake the mistaken belief that they are all good looking, as Charisma (yes I know it doesn't play a part in classes in PfO) encompasses more than just looks.
I know that offering three models per type (male, female, sexualized female) is a 50% increase in resources per outfit. I would rather see 20 outfits with three options each than 30 with two options each.
You're forgetting "sexualized male". We're actually talking four models, not three, as male characters should also have choices on the spectrum between Conan and medieval knight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just for reference, there are probably quite a few players who'll want to look something like this.
If there's an outfit that's perfectly acceptable on prime-time family television, it's hard to understand why that shouldn't even be an option in PFO.
I think the most important thing is to create enough options that players can make their own decision about whether they want to dress more like Brienne of Tarth or Princess Leia in her slave costume. (I intentionally selected a photo from a Comic Con for the latter to illustrate that there are a lot of women who very much want to dress this way.)
Hey, as long as there can be male slave Leias as well, I'm fine with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey, as long as there can be male slave Leias as well, I'm fine with it.
I see your male slave Leias and raise you a male Leeloo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It pretty much boils down to a need for options in body size, shape, and proportions as well as in fashion (that sound you just heard was the art department bolting for the door).
Historically clothing and armor followed a function > form model, resulting in practical armors that were later embellished as desired. But not everyone wants to dress in woolen breeches or skirts, muslin shirts or blouses, and sensible leather footwear. My wife, for example, loves her sleek thigh-slit skirts and low-cut shirts. Her favorite shirt is a soft long-sleeved shirt with a boob-window. My eldest sister, on the other hand, wouldn't be caught dead in such a thing.
One amusing thing (for me at least) is the fact that fashion discussions are fractal. You can take a small, specific subset of fashion and run into the exact same discussions. Take swimwear for example. Bikini or one-piece? Speedo or trunks? Overshirt? This? Or This?
You will not find a single style that will please everyone. Some will want sexy, some will want sensible, some will want outlandish, some will want historical, some will want fantastic. The best that can be done is to select a visual style (GW has done a great job with this part I think), and then build your options based on that visual style. But having many options is the key.
Artists don't need to sleep, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Greedalox I don't think we disagree.
I'm on my mobile, so I'll be succinct.
I am not endorsing sexless, neuter outfits. That would be boring and it would pretty much make the choice between male and female characters meaningless, which I do not want.
I am encouraging that the gradient between sexy/aesthetic and functional be shared by both genders. I too am interested in armor sets with roses and lions and skulls and suns. I would not be pleased if everything that had a masculine/feminine association was scrapped out of hand. I just don't think that whether you have any one of those or the other should be based on your character's gender. It should have to do with the theme of the set and crafting customization options.
Historical pieces of armor did have floral print/etching without being for ladies.
Like I said, we don't disagree with you. It's just the old "only girls can wear pink" habit. I'm not calling for a game without pink -- that would be silly and ultimately arbitrary. I'm calling for a game where male and female characters can wear pink.
Now, stats are a while different discussion.
I think we all agree here that bigger is not necessarily better or worse and both are legitimate aesthetic and play-style choices.
You may take that as a euphemism if you want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being is correct, this isn't anime, it is PfO. A great sword or great axe or a pole arm should be large, but in the same scale as the character "toons". Having a character that is supposed to be six feet tall wielding a dagger longer than he/she is tall is fine for a comic and other anime-style MMO's, just not PfO.
@ Kwizzy - LOL, good one :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should go without saying that stats relate to appearance; low quality equipment looks awesome, while midrange equipment looks awesomer.
I hope there will be a way to have armor appearance separated from armor stats. Is it so wrong to want to look less fantastical while still being fantastic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should go without saying that stats relate to appearance; low quality equipment looks awesome, while midrange equipment looks awesomer.I hope there will be a way to have armor appearance separated from armor stats. Is it so wrong to want to look less fantastical while still being fantastic?
Not sure that is a good idea if going the whole hog?
I mean for eg if it looks like chainmail then it probably is chainmail with properties eg turning arrows, but not so strong against axes? Hence to separate the Function > Form hierarchy I think would not serve the visual representation of avatar combat gameplay. I think stats will depend on the type of item and it's quality in crafting. In terms of customizing eg color or other, there definitely should be space eg coat of arms somewhere: I'm sure there will be style variations (and increasing options over time)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should go without saying that stats relate to appearance; low quality equipment looks awesome, while midrange equipment looks awesomer.I hope there will be a way to have armor appearance separated from armor stats. Is it so wrong to want to look less fantastical while still being fantastic?Not sure that is a good idea if going the whole hog?
I mean for eg if it looks like chainmail then it probably is chainmail with properties eg turning arrows, but not so strong against axes? Hence to separate the Function > Form hierarchy I think would not serve the visual representation of avatar combat gameplay. I think stats will depend on the type of item and it's quality in crafting. In terms of customizing eg color or other, there definitely should be space eg coat of arms somewhere: I'm sure there will be style variations (and increasing options over time)?
I don't think Skwiziks was suggesting that Chainmail shouldn't look like Chainmail, but that it should be possible to have a set to Tier 3 Chainmail that looks like a standard Tier 1 Chainmail instead of a obviously magical high-quality Chainmail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think Skwiziks was suggesting that Chainmail shouldn't look like Chainmail, but that it should be possible to have a set to Tier 3 Chainmail that looks like a standard Tier 1 Chainmail instead of a obviously magical high-quality Chainmail.
That is a clearer way of putting it, thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah righto, that's a good question. Not a fan of the bigger/brighter = better system also. Now thinking about it, I wonder if keywords will also have representation visually on an item or it's use vfx? In themepark mmorpgs I've invariably chosen sombre camo colors to not stand out in pvp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of all, I love the art you presented so far, especially the inside picture of the tavern.
On the outfit discussion IMO if we look as it is in real life we will see people who love dress sexy and other to preffer a more classical look. So lets just give people (of both sexes) options and the power to choose.
Actually in real life fashion sometimes impose concepts and let people without much clothing choices to fit their personal style. As an example, I remmember some years ago a girlfriend complaining that she could not find in any shop here in Brazil some jeans leggins that did not look like this, a look that she doesn't like at all, but all shops just decided to sell this because it was the moment's hit.
We obviously have pretty tight limitations on how many assets we can produce initially, but in the long term we hope to provide lots of options. We have even been discussing the possibility of creating a player 'style' setting that would allow you to choose between more conservative or liberal looks. However, this has both a technology and very significant art asset production hit, so it would almost certainly have to come as a later option.
Great stuff! I would love to see such level of customization in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that the work is very impressive. The things I don't see (and this may just be my perspective and not actuality) are monk looks that link to the existing Pathfinder art. Certainly nothing that relates to Jalmaray or the Varisian styles. Are these somewhere in the production schedule and we just haven't seen them yet? I know that flowing garments are more difficult, but I did see some in the Seoni character rendition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read some of the posts in this thread and I think the boob window in the colored picture is highly unnecessary and looks a bit ridiculous, now that I see it in a different light. I don't think it makes sense in such a wizard outfit that is designed for adventuring(the boobs get wet when it's raining and the window has to be cleaned if blood is spilled on it and it makes a great target for archers). I'm not opposed to sexy outfits in the game, but I think those could be non-combat outfits used in taverns and settlements, if such a distinction can be made.
Being is correct, this isn't anime, it is PfO. A great sword or great axe or a pole arm should be large, but in the same scale as the character "toons". Having a character that is supposed to be six feet tall wielding a dagger longer than he/she is tall is fine for a comic and other anime-style MMO's, just not PfO.
@ Kwizzy - LOL, good one :)
I want to toss my vote into the No obscenely oversized weapons group. Oversized shoulder pads are almost as hideous.
If you want to make a weapon stand out, subtitle effects work best, glowing runes, a eerie light that runs the edge of the blade, pulsing scarlet glow when in combat, gold/silver chasing along the guard and hilt with something cool on the pommel like a shining gem or even fashion the hilt/pommel into something like John Snows wolf sword in GOT (forgot what he named it).
Lets continue breaking the mold that MMOs have come to use!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, the "anime giant sword" is literally a giant's sword. It's supposed to be over-sized. And the rest of the weapons are, as far as I know, accurate.
If they are using the art style of PF, there is some of the ridiculous anime giant swords in there. Lets hope they leave that out.
Yea, there aren't too many, but I noticed a few Wow'ish sized weapons too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they are using the art style of PF, there is some of the ridiculous anime giant swords in there. Lets hope they leave that out.
If you are refferring to this picture there is a lore to explain why she uses that sword: It is really a giant sword, Amiri took it from a dead giant and she is only able to use it effectively when she is in rage.
Edit:
I do, however, see another problem with Amiri's outfit: why should a leather armor let her belly totally exposed? It falls in that sexy x non-sexy discussion people were doing in the posts above. As a woman who travels ALONE the last thing she would want is to look sexy to attract men's gazes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kwizzy, I'd like to respectfully offer a qualification to your suggestion. The gender/pose heuristic you mention does have value, and it can help make clear where representations are essentializing a person by body part or function, e.g. reducing a woman to a t%$%/ass support system, as a decoration/supplicant for men, etc.
But those are cultural ideas that are objectionable because they reduce people to means instead of ends. Not all cultural ideas of difference are pernicious. For example, there are cultural ways of movement in being a Marine. Marines are Marines in a statutory sense, but what defines membership is ways of moving and performing, and they stand in contrast to ways of being a civilian. I can imagine using this heuristic to make images that look ridiculous--Marines moving or posing in various civilian ways--but that doesn't mean that such ways are wrong or objectionable.
Bridal gowns and tuxedos are different, and mean something different culturally (which also allows for the possibility for playing with and against that meaning). But tuxedos and gowns in and of themselves are not exploitative.
I think your point, "at the expense of the presupposed person-hood of the looked at" is the appropriate lens. You know:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
-Kant, Groundwork