Update #77: Art in Alpha

[Mor]

 

[...]

 

i have to agree wtih gromnir. distinguishing based on boob or not-boob is pretty ridiculous on its own. it doesn't really have to do with realism/prudism/any other ism.

 

it's just sort of a ridiculous thing to consider. i don't know. when i think female adventurer, the first thing i think isn't boob, (i guess surprisingly).

 

That the problem right there, its not about your general perception of male/female adventurers, except to how it relates to being able to distinguish the two at glance, while looking on a small figures from a top down angle.

 

The only ridiculous thing about this, is the kind of excitement over boobs that I haven't seen since school, only here its "mature" people trying to show how they don't care about boobs, or don't view women that way (as if we do). From everything we know and recently seen with Plate armor, it isn't about hitting the abc's on cap size for sex appeal, its about making subtle change that would make sense. If you have a better suggestion for notable visually distinguishable features please say so..

Edited May 4, 2014 by Mor

[Ineth]

I personally find it silly that they choose to distinguish the characters' gender rather than their role in combat, which seems more useful to me honestly.

 

What makes you think that one precludes the other?

[rjshae]

 

I personally find it silly that they choose to distinguish the characters' gender rather than their role in combat, which seems more useful to me honestly.

 

What makes you think that one precludes the other?

 

I'm not sure how you would distinguish between men and women's role in front-line combat; there you either learn to fight well or you die. But it might be interesting to explore the difference between men and women's soul-based abilities.

 

Just to hypothesize wildly: suppose the role of the male is to draw forth a new (or recycled) soul out of the aether; that of the female is to hold and retain the soul while a body forms around it. Thus like a magnet and a battery: the male is able to draw off some soul energy from a source but cannot retain it; the female is able to retain the soul energy but is unable to draw it off.

 

Now apply that to combat: a trained male can use his ability to temporarily disrupt and weaken the soul of an opponent. A trained female can latch on to that (or any other loose) soul fragment and prevent it from being recovered. By working together, they are stronger than they would be individually.

[Hormalakh]

That the problem right there, its not about your general perception of male/female adventurers, except to how it relates to being able to distinguish the two at glance, while looking on a small figures from a top down angle.

 

The only ridiculous thing about this, is the kind of excitement over boobs that I haven't seen since school, only here its "mature" people trying to show how they don't care about boobs, or don't view women that way (as if we do). From everything we know and recently seen with Plate armor, it isn't about hitting the abc's on cap size for sex appeal, its about making subtle change that would make sense. If you have a better suggestion for notable visually distinguishable features please say so..

 

 

as i and many others mentioned already, there really is no reason to require someone to distinguish between a male and female adventurer. i don't need to come up with changes that mean nothing mechanically in a video game. if you hadn't flown into a blind rage in order to quickly dismiss me and had continued to read the rest of my post, you'd have seen how i choose to distinguish my characters when necessary.

 

outside of the color changes (which I guess you don't like because you want your party to match), you can distinguish your characters by what armor and weapons they wear, what race they are, what they are currently doing (who they have engaged/whether they were hit/etc), audio feedback, as well as unit circle feedback.

 

some of the artistic elements taken into consideration by OEI are reasonable (weapon size adjustments, etc). Some modeling elements are not. This is one of those because it really doesn't bring much to the table, but takes away from overall style of art used due to its "exagerrative" qualities.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Hormalakh

[rjshae]

Variety is definitely a good thing to bring to the table in a CRPG. The more variety in appearance, while staying true to the general form, the better. To me, being able to distinguish male from female forms is good, as are differences in races, class roles, weapons, banners, shield types, and so forth. Again, this is all just a tempest in a tea pot. A very tiny tea pot, covering maybe a dozen pixels or less.

[Deam]

 

I personally find it silly that they choose to distinguish the characters' gender rather than their role in combat, which seems more useful to me honestly.

 

What makes you think that one precludes the other?

 

 

I don't, but you would probably need some ridiculous looking armor which they've said they aren't going to do (Maybe as a joke but otherwise not.), which some people find the boob armor to be (Which probably isn't as ridiculous as what the ridiculous looking armor would be.), which if I was asked I do find a bit ridiculous, but I don't really care if it's in or not either way.

[Ineth]

I'm not sure how you would distinguish between men and women's role in front-line combat

 

I wouldn't.

 

I only care about a gender difference in visual appearance, which (cumulatively with other distinguishing factors!) helps to add personality to characters and makes them easier to tell apart.

 

The fact that gender is only one of multiple distinguishing factors, is not a good argument for removing it. Every bit counts in an isometric game like this, especially for players who have mediocre eye-sight or colour blindness.

Not to mention that gender is one of the most natural and unobtrusive of the possible visual cues, unlike say "different unit circle colors" (how distracting!).

 

 

[Ineth]

A note about realism in isometric games

 

For those still taking issue with the "unrealistic" nature of sightly exaggerated gender-specific armor curvature (or slightly exaggerated axe and sword sizes for that matter), I ask you to consider what kind of realism a cRPG should ultimately strive for.

 

PoE uses a fixed isometric top-down camera, for (correct me if I'm wrong) the following reasons:

• It makes it feasible for players to control 6 party members in tactical RTwP combat.
• It allows the game's creators to deploy beautiful pre-rendered backgrounds.

Note that the following is not among the reasons:

• Because the purpose of the game is to provide a realistic simulation of how a bird flying 200 feet above the ground would experience the events of the game world (NOT!!!!!!!)

On the contrary, as an RPG the game should aim to tell its story from the point of view (in the figurative sense) of the player character.

 

This creates a dilemma of course, because the conceptual point-of-view and the visual point-of-view do not align. In order to compensate, the game designers use some abstraction when it comes to the visual appearance of things.

 

For example: In reality, when someone stands 6 feet in front of you, you will be able to tell whether it's a man or a woman, and whether the weapon they're wielding is an estoc or a broadsword. This is the experience the game is supposed to imitate (not the experience of the bird above). So, the designers make sure that the character & weapon models are designed in such a way that they convey as much as possible of this information in the isometric view, without distorting their shapes so much as to look ridiculous (which of course in practice involves careful trade-offs).

 

TL;DR: When you're demanding pedantic realism of the superficial visual appearance, you're demanding that part of the realism of the player experience be sacrificed (as well as making it needlessly difficult to identify characters). And some of us object to that.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Ineth

[Eleneithel]

For my part, I understand and accept the need to go unrealistic and exagerate certains aspects (such as the weapons) to improve the the characters visibility in-game. Modifying the proportion of the weaponry to help us see more easiliy what weapon does wield such character fulfill a purpose. Such process is also perfectly acceptable when modifying armour to better distinguish the types of armour. However, I do not see a practical purpose behind feminizing armour in an unrealistic way when you choose a more grounded and realistical style of armour aesthetics.

 

In the Infinity Engine games and in Pillars of Eternity - I think it is also the case, since I haven't still read anything that told me otherwise - choosing a male or a female character does not modify the gameplay because there aren't any gender-based abilities or skills... or even classes. (Technicaly, such gender equality would be unrealistic in some ways, but making gameplay distinctions between female and male characters would be highly problematic in some regards. How would you distinguish them impartialy? How would you balance their differences? Ens... So, such equality is perfectly understandable.) A female or a male warrior remains the same, plays the same. So, there aren't any purpose for unrealistic feminized armours there, as there aren't any differences between female and male fighters. And, if you have several characters wearing the same weapons and armours, be it both female and male fighters (as it was often the case for me in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale), such unrealistic visual differences have no uses. Besides, when you want to select a specific character, you click on his /her portrait... it is much quicker than identifying and searching him /her amongst the characters on screen. And that is very much the purpose of these portraits: giving you visually some critical informations on the character (health, endurance, and others) and giving you a way to select quickly a specific character to have him /her execute a specific action.

 

So, if you want to improve the visual experience in a manner to suit the gameplay, such gender-based unrealistic visual distinctions are not really useful in a game where female and male characters have the same access to abilities, skills, and classes. What you want, is class-based visual distinctions to help you identify your warrior from your mage, even if they are wearing the same armour and weapons. For example, if your mage wears the same plate armour than your warrior, have his avatar wearing it differently. (I seem to remember that it will be possible to have mage in heavy armour for those who so wish.) A mage will maybe have more cloth ornaments to his armour such as a coat of arms with esoteric symbols or else to mark proudly that he is a mage whereas a warrior would remains strictly practical in his attire and a rogue would remove some pieces of the same harness to remain light enough on his feet. Such visual distinctions would indeed fulfill a purpose, allowing the player to identify quickly where stand his mage (on screen) amongst his party. That would be more visuality realistic than feminizing armour, since each class have its own needs in terms of equipment and items, even when wearing full plate armour. (The mage need his grimoire, for example, the priest his religious symbol and clothing, ens...)

But such visual class-based distinctions for armours would certainly be more expensive and time consuming to create than visual gender-based distinctions for armours... which explains probably why the Obsidean team go for the latter (in terms of armour).

Edited May 5, 2014 by Eleneithel

[Bryy]

 

 

I personally find it silly that they choose to distinguish the characters' gender rather than their role in combat, which seems more useful to me honestly.

 

What makes you think that one precludes the other?

 

 

I don't, but you would probably need some ridiculous looking armor which they've said they aren't going to do (Maybe as a joke but otherwise not.), which some people find the boob armor to be (Which probably isn't as ridiculous as what the ridiculous looking armor would be.)

 

When talking about Boob Armor, we're talking about Boob Armor, not armor with room for breasts.

[600lbpanther]

To be honest, even though it might not be realistic, I like the inclusion of this type of armor as it is so imaginative, decorative, and really detailed in the design...it's something that just really gets me off.  Can males wear the more "feminine" armor or is it gender specific?  I sure hope not....the armor looks so light and delicate and would really compliment the lithe movements of a muscular, male ranger named - The Bruno.

[Lephys]

as i and many others mentioned already, there really is no reason to require someone to distinguish between a male and female adventurer. i don't need to come up with changes that mean nothing mechanically in a video game.

They're not coming up with "changes." Female torsos are shaped the way female torsos are shaped, and that is not the same as male torsos. Thus, they're simply applying armor to the female torso, and retaining enough of the female torso such that its silhouette/form remains visually distinct on some of the armor (even the more rigid, plate armor and such seems to be distinct for females, just not strictly because it fits around the chest, because it isn't flexible at all.)

 

Talk about "changes" that wouldn't mean anything, "Let's make sure we spend the time to make sure the female models' torsos become EXACTLY like male models' torsos whenever armor is applied! What? No, no don't just make the armor for that model. Make it for a DIFFERENT model, then make it fit that model, too. Yeah... yeah, 'cause this mechanically means a lot."

 

They already talked about how none of the equipment models are universal -- a male Dwarf gets a different armor model than a male Orlan, etc. Thus, why would female models be any different?

 

Also, how do you know all female torsos in the whole game will look the same? Acknowledging that boobs exist isn't sexist. The female characters are defined by a thousand different things. Saying "why is a female defined by her chest size?" Is like saying "why is a male defined by his lack of chest protrusion and the existence of his extra upper-body musculature?"

[Ffordesoon]

To be honest, even though it might not be realistic, I like the inclusion of this type of armor as it is so imaginative, decorative, and really detailed in the design...it's something that just really gets me off. Can males wear the more "feminine" armor or is it gender specific? I sure hope not....the armor looks so light and delicate and would really compliment the lithe movements of a muscular, male ranger named - The Bruno.

Eugh.

[600lbpanther]

 

To be honest, even though it might not be realistic, I like the inclusion of this type of armor as it is so imaginative, decorative, and really detailed in the design...it's something that just really gets me off. Can males wear the more "feminine" armor or is it gender specific? I sure hope not....the armor looks so light and delicate and would really compliment the lithe movements of a muscular, male ranger named - The Bruno.

Eugh.

 

 

Exactly how I feel about a bunch of "grown" men seriously debating the merits of female armor with other "grown" men.

The fact none of you were "Eugh'ing" at each other makes me as nauseated as I'm sure you felt about my post.

 

This is right up there with the whole romance thread...It reinforces the "anti-social grown adult nerd whose never had a girlfriend playing dungeons and dragons in his moms basement" stereotype associated with hardcore RPG people.

 

Hey if romance is or isn't in the game .. whatever.   If female armor is in or isn't in the game .. whatever.  To have passionate post full of flowery rhetoric and air tight logic magnficiently displayed post after post after post on whether armor should have titty slots or not is freaking weirding me out!!!!!!!!

Edited May 5, 2014 by 600lbpanther

[Gromnir]

 

as i and many others mentioned already, there really is no reason to require someone to distinguish between a male and female adventurer. i don't need to come up with changes that mean nothing mechanically in a video game.

They're not coming up with "changes." 

they already did... for b00b plate. the EXACT same reasoning applies to b00b chain and scale as does plate.

 

furthermore, the "rationale" given for b00b armour by obsidian were not that it were a fundamental engine/modeling problem. josh stated that adoption of the ridiculous (if plate with b00bs is ridiculous, then so is chain and scale) differentiation were to distinguish male and females at a glance... and you folks instantly bought that reasoning. the only time b00b armour would be particularly advantageous for discrimination purposes, is in the rare scenario when a male and female of the same race in same party is wearing the same freaking armour and using same freaking gear. otherwise, we could very easily distinguish victor from victoria through various salient attributes.  victor wields a 2-handed sword, and victoria uses warhammer and shield... but they is both in scale. how will Gromnir distinguish one from the other w/o visible b00b swell? but hey, what if vic and vitoria both use sword and board... but vic is a dwarf and victoria is human. surely b00bs will be necessary to distinguish male dwarf from female humans, yes? when you have the unlikely scenario of same race and same kit/gear with heavy armour, that is the only time such a "feature"  as b00b armour is genuine useful. and please note that obsidian is not making some admittedly ridiculous concession to multiple MALES of the same race in the same party with the same gear... 'cause that would be stoopid.  are you not seeing the terrible reasoning?

 

we noted earlier, but perhaps in a different thread, that when we played bgee recently, each party member coulds be given a different colored identifying target circle. the low rez avatars in bg2, particularly in dark environments or when fighting mobs, could kinda... disappear. the colored target circles were quite useful and we would hope obsidian chooses some analogous visible identification feature, 'cause when fighting a dozen orcs/goblins/whatever in a dark and narrow dungeon corridor, it is gonna make b00b swell a freaking pointless and useless way to identify victor from victoria. 

 

and again, 'cause folks got the attention span o' a goldfish, they already changed the equally sexist, demeaning and ridiculous b00b plate, and b00b plate offered the exact same advantages.

 

am seriously worried 'bout some folks.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

So does this mean that boobplate is back in or is it the only armor that doesn't offer visual reference to the sex of the wearer?

[Sarex]

So does this mean that boobplate is back in or is it the only armor that doesn't offer visual reference to the sex of the wearer?

 

Plate is to remain boobless alas.

[rjshae]

So does this mean that boobplate is back in or is it the only armor that doesn't offer visual reference to the sex of the wearer?

 

Well, if the grumblings of the indoctrinated PC crowd means we'll end up with sterile, prudish, gender-neutral armor fit only for a herd of pasty eunuchs wielding fans and oven mitts, that'll soon be fixed by the modders. Hence, I think the point is probably moot. Joking, of course...

[Lephys]

If we got rid of all the stuff in the game that wasn't "necessary," we'd get rid of an awful lot of stuff.

 

It's not that torso shape is some kind of necessary addition to allow even the possibility of gender distinction. It's more that it's already an existing feature, and they're simply rolling with that.

 

There's really nothing else to say. You hate it, plenty of others (including the devs) don't mind it. I get it. No one's like "OMG, this ABSOLUTELY is of the utmost importance, and if you don't think so, you're wrong!" It's just a mild allowance with an acceptable cost-benefit ratio. It hardly costs anything, and it provides a mild benefit. Just like any other individual differentiating factor.

 

I'm sorry that the decision swings away from your preference on this matter, and I hope you can still enjoy the game just as much. Truly.

 

Maybe we can talk about something else now that the devs know how we all feel about the mild abstraction of female armors. They're either going to deem it prudent to alter their course on that matter, or they aren't. More power to 'em, whatever they decide.

[Gromnir]

am far less concerned with b00b armour than we is with obsidian rationale and the way in which the community reacts to b00b armours and the obsidian rationale. 

 

if obsidian told us that the reason they took out b00b plate were their responsiveness to community's recognition that such armour is ridiculous, sexist, demeaning, we could accept that.  'course, if an obsidian developer then posts that yes, b00b scale is no more reasonable than b00b plate, but that b00b scale and chain were resulting in a 20% decrease in cpu load, we would be disappointed in obsidian 'cause clearly such reasons is wacky.  in light o' such ludicrousness, we would expect the community to rage 'gainst boob scale as much as they did for plate considering even the obsidians agree that both is equal implausible. we would also hope that the community would recognize how terrible the rationale is that the obsidians is providing. well, guess what, b00b scale IS the same as b00b plate and obsidian reasoning is no more reasonable than our hypothetical. so where is the outrage?

 

am very much aware that without community outrage such as occurred with b00b plate, obsidian won't change nothing regarding scale or chain. ultimately, b00b scale is not a big issue to us. that being said, we is mystified by obsidian explanations and the gullibility o' some folks. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ffordesoon]

Ugh.  This sort of debate always brings out the worst in people.  Which is a shame, because I'd actually like to have a nice discussion about the history of boob armor and the reasons some people (both male and female) dig it, and some people (again, both male and female) find it degrading and sexist.  There are good points on both sides, though I would generally side with the latter group.

 

What it boils down to, though, is this: most players will probably want to be able to tell male and female characters apart.  Is that sexist?  It depends on the player's reason for wanting it.  Personally, unisex armor would be fine with me.  At the same time, I like seeing my choices in character customization reflected on the character model.  But boob armor is something a lot of backers want, and something a lot of backers don't want.  I don't think creating armor sets that are recognizably feminine from a bird's-eye view is a bad compromise on Obsidian's part.  Whether they should compromise on that is another issue entirely, but I don't think it's a bad decision given their audience.

 

Oh, and shame on anybody who tries to say this is "grownups fighting over boobs" or "twelve pixels on a screen" or whatever.  At issue is the possible influence of the male gaze on fictional armor design.  Things not at issue: anyone's manhood, how great breasts are, how terrible breasts are, how large the tiny women's breasts are on the screen, how small the tiny women's breasts are on the screen, the relative merits of sexiness, political correctness, SJWs, Tumblr, Twitter outrage.  Do take note.

[rjshae]

At issue is the possible influence of the male gaze on fictional armor design.

 

Taken by itself, that is a complete non issue. It is the result of that influence that matters. In the context of a FPS where a high level of detail is apparent and spans a relatively wide viewing angle, yes that influence could potentially have a social impact. That is context where I think this discussion properly belongs. For a small image, the details are barely perceptible and are subject to pixel quantization. There just isn't enough information present to dominate your perception or heavily sway your interests and perceptions. You are more likely to be influenced by the overall screen view, including the artwork. This is why the size of the image matters. So yes, I believe that "twelve pixels on a screen" renders this bunny trail discussion as all but pointless, and I am experiencing absolutely no shame over stating that fact.

Edited May 6, 2014 by rjshae

[Gromnir]

Ugh.  This sort of debate always brings out the worst in people.  Which is a shame, because I'd actually like to have a nice discussion about the history of boob armor and the reasons some people (both male and female) dig it, and some people (again, both male and female) find it degrading and sexist.  There are good points on both sides, though I would generally side with the latter group.

 

 

 

the problem is that folks is clearly confused 'bout what the actual issue is, so this sorta debate becomes increasingly silly.

 

*throws up hands in frustration*

 

am genuine surprised that the issue in question got subverted or camouflaged to point o' non-recognition. is baffling to us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ffordesoon]

@rjshae:

 

Well, I did say I wanted to have a nice discussion, not that I was trying to start one myself.

 

Being serious for a moment, what I said wasn't intended as an attack, and certainly not an ad hominem one. If it came off that way, I apologize. I was attempting to gently chide you and others for missing the point, not attacking you.

 

But that's the problem with these discussions I was just talking about. They have a polarizing effect, because one side (to the extent that there are sides) refuses to grant the other's central premise, even as a simple thought experiment. As such, every attempt to broach the subject becomes an accusation of complicity, and even the smallest challenge to one side's accepted narrative is taken as an acidic barb lobbed with malice at the opposition.

 

As such, my acknowledgment that your subsequent point clarifying your "twelve pixels high" comment is not without merit may be seen as capitulation on my part, or you might regard it with suspicion. My assurance that I mean it is then also suspect, and the implicit pedestal upon which civil discourse stands is further corroded. Hell, perhaps my playful aside at the top of this post will be taken as a calculated attempt to double down on my position, or maybe even a full-on passive-aggressive snipe. In a discussion this charged, all things are possible - though, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that this list of things I don't want to happen is a rhetorical attempt to prevent them from happening.

 

And even that last admission, which seems to me so innocuous, could be taken as evidence of my guile, and concomitant untrustworthiness. The simple practice of persuasive argumentation might render everything I say invalid.

 

Why does this happen, and what can be done to stop it? These are the questions I am most interested in answering.

[StrangeCat]

I like that they use armor that shows more of a female form.  It will help you to know who is female when they wear armor.  Of course just by there walk you could figure this out too, but the armor helps!

 

I love the fact that women in history were clever and knew they could hide under there "armor."

 

As for your whole discussion on this topic you guys need to get out more, hit a bar or club, and go meet some women.

Get off your computer for a couple of days or iphone, ipad....whatever.  Chill out come back with fresh perspective.

 

Looks like there is quite a bit of old history mixed into Pillars of Eternity.  Nice!