Jon, there is no "conundrum". People have given you their reasons for appreciating yet another aspect of MO's adherance to realism, and you simply choose to dismiss that reason because you cannot fathom that some people may have a maturity level greater than what you attribute to them. What you have here is the sound of one hand clapping. Stop...you're just making your shoulder tired.
Totally missing the point. I ask "What is the use?" I read, "For realism!". I then ask, "In what way?". I read, "Because it is!"
Maturity level is irrelevant. In fact, please tell me how a passive feature in a game is mature? Is it based on the merits of simply existing? If so, then what would be removed from the experience if Star Vault opted for perma-undies?
No one seems to be able to answer these questions.
Jon you are very good at breaking down my post and responding to my various points. And most of it I see your what you're saying. But I'm interested in what you have to say about my third paragraph you had ommited from your reply.
Follows:
"What I hope is built into the system is the effects of cold and heat. I think tundra settings should require an avatar to dress warm like the Kallard. The Veela may be a more equatorial race and wear less. But when in cold climates they should dress appropriate or loose attributes. Likewise with the Kallard in warmer climates; would it not be realistic to overheat under all that mail, plate, and leather in the hot, sweltering jungle? And how does stripping armor away affect the Kallardian culturally or practically? Does nudity mean minus a breast plate or showing genitals. Do the Veelans care what a Kallard wears or what they themselves wear for that matter, as long as their totems can be sketched onto it? These are the questions I've been hoping would be brought up in this thread - roleplaying. A concept we don't here much of. I think we as players loose track of all that in our own details as players we forget that this is all just fantasy and not us killing that wildebeest at all."
Jon, there is no "conundrum". People have given you their reasons for appreciating yet another aspect of MO's adherance to realism, and you simply choose to dismiss that reason because you cannot fathom that some people may have a maturity level greater than what you attribute to them. What you have here is the sound of one hand clapping. Stop...you're just making your shoulder tired.
Totally missing the point. I ask "What is the use?" I read, "For realism!". I then ask, "In what way?". I read, "Because it is!"
Maturity level is irrelevant. In fact, please tell me how a passive feature in a game is mature? Is it based on the merits of simply existing? If so, then what would be removed from the experience if Star Vault opted for perma-undies?
No one seems to be able to answer these questions.
Because they are inanities, along the lines of "why is the sky blue? Why isn't it green?"
When a character takes it's clothes off in MO, that character's anatomy has all the parts that one would expect to find on a naked person. If you can't understand how this is realistic, then no amount of posting here is going to help.
Maturity IS relevant, since you seem determined that the only reaon anyone would be an advocate for such realistic details would be for immature reasons. You cannot simply grasp the fact that every detail adds to the overall realistic experience. Nudity, clouds that people see in all aspects of normal gameplay, leaves on the trees that people see in all aspects of normal gameplay, they all contribute to the toality of the realistic presentation.
Saying nudity is realistic because leaves are realistic is a copout. Seriously, can't you come up with a better comparison?
Ask yourself why genitals on your character are any less "mature" than fingers, or toes. Any less or more essential??
Okay. "Jon, why are genitals any less 'mature' than fingers or toes?" Answer: "Maturity doesn't apply. Fingers on a character model are necessary because hands are a prominant feature that will be seen by all for a significant bulk of the time. Whether gesturing or holding a weapon, it would look pretty odd to not have hands (dismemberment situations notwithstanding). Therefore, such a feature is necessary for suspension of disbelief."
"But Jon, genitals are just as much a part of the human body as fingers."
"Of course, and if the game had an active sexual component, it'd be a severe detriment to realism and suspension of disbelief if genitalia were not included. How fun would sex be if everyone had Barbie doll bumps? But since sex is not a part of the game, and a character's survival is dependant in part on making sure his body is covered in some kind of armor, the 'realism' exists only in the theoretical sense."
Hey, this is kinda fun.
You don't need toes on your virtual body...but having them adds to the suspension of disbelief....the realism...the immersion factor.
Of course, because other than a realistic representation of someone who lost their fingers or toes, it would be kind of odd to see characters in the game world without them.
Now, I'm done with this. You're obviously arguing for the sake of argument.
I bet you $5 I can make you reply to this thread.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I think this whole debate is pointless really. Nudity is planned for the game at release. Debating over why it's in the game is pointless. The studio has made the decision already.
Jon thinks it's stupid to have nudity in the game because there's no sex between toons (that we know of atm, could happen later in a future patch?). He's made up his mind that it adds nothing worthwhile to the game and only will make immature idiots happy.
Other are excited about it because they can teabag fallen players in PvP. Stupid, but whatever.
Still others see it as adding more realism to an already realistic game. Some see it as progressive and brave, while others are just "meh" about it, but don't mind having it in the game.
That's where we stand and have been standing for a while. I don't see anything changing no matter how many times people post on one side or the other.
Current: None Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN
I think this whole debate is pointless really. Nudity is planned for the game at release. Debating over why it's in the game is pointless. The studio has made the decision already. Jon thinks it's stupid to have nudity in the game because there's no sex between toons (that we know of atm, could happen later in a future patch?). He's made up his mind that it adds nothing worthwhile to the game and only will make immature idiots happy. Other are excited about it because they can teabag fallen players in PvP. Stupid, but whatever. Still others see it as adding more realism to an already realistic game. Some see it as progressive and brave, while others are just "meh" about it, but don't mind having it in the game. That's where we stand and have been standing for a while. I don't see anything changing no matter how many times people post on one side or the other.
Just to be clear, I only use sex as a plausible reason to have nudity, not that myself want that.
I'll go ahead and make my final point and be done with this thread, too.
I'm a cynical bastard. In my oh so humble but no less valid than anyone else's opinion, I think those who are stumping for nudity really want it for the giggle factor, but they know it would make them look immature if they truthfully said "Ha! There's cocks and cunts! I'm totally going to roll up a character and streak through the towns, make videos to post on YouTube and show all my friends so we can all giggle and snicker at it!" (the Teabag Confessors, of course, don't give a shit that they look like immature twits, but they're not hiding anything). So, instead, they decide to try to look all intellectual by projecting their own inner immaturity on others while coming up with abstract reasons why nudity is "realistic".
I'll list a few:
Cults with nude rituals. Right. That would imply that people are going to role play the parts. Everyone knows that no one plays Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games to role play. (that's sarcasm, btw). Even if this were so, I'm confident that only a dozen people at the most would participate in such a thing and it wouldn't last long.
Nude warriors striking fear into the hearts of their enemies. Seriously, WTF? As an avid roleplayer, even I would look at a horde of nudies with a bemused grin and get to work picking them off because I couldn't reconcile an in-character action like this without inserting the OOC notion that these people are going to die very quickly without armor. Fear would not be a factor. This is one area where a game would fail miserably to facilitate something that might work in real life.
It's progressive! Pro-whuh? How in the name of cheez-whiz is having nudity in a game a show of progress? When I think of "progressive", I think of overcoming a barrier that held back advancement towards greater things. So in this case, the barrier would be the absence of full frontal nudity, and the greater things would be ???. There's a sentence in my head that I'll be damned if I can complete without it pointing back to my original statement about reasons for adding nudity.
"Wow, now that we have full frontal nudity, we can finally ____________." Create Nudist cults? Haven't seen people bitching about that before. Create a nightmarish line of advancing naked warriors with which to incite fear and terror into enemies? Gee, I don't recall seeing a call for that in various wish lists. Teabag our enemies? Yup. You got it. Run around naked for the lulz? That fits pretty well, too. Have sex? The game doesn't feature the ability to have s--THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT YOU STUPID MISGUIDED PURITANICAL AMERICAN WITH A VIOLENCE FETISH! Whoa, slow down there, skippy....
Once again, sex is merely a plausible example of how nudity would be an enhancement to the game. Once again, I don't care that nudity is in. I am firmly in the 3rd category I listed, and think that having nudity neither adds nor takes away from the game, and should come with a toggle for those who don't care to see it. I just don't believe a word anyone in group 1 says, except for the teabaggers.
So, having said my piece, I'm going to turn into a spectator on this thread.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Comments
Totally missing the point. I ask "What is the use?" I read, "For realism!". I then ask, "In what way?". I read, "Because it is!"
Maturity level is irrelevant. In fact, please tell me how a passive feature in a game is mature? Is it based on the merits of simply existing? If so, then what would be removed from the experience if Star Vault opted for perma-undies?
No one seems to be able to answer these questions.
Jon you are very good at breaking down my post and responding to my various points. And most of it I see your what you're saying. But I'm interested in what you have to say about my third paragraph you had ommited from your reply.
Follows:
"What I hope is built into the system is the effects of cold and heat. I think tundra settings should require an avatar to dress warm like the Kallard. The Veela may be a more equatorial race and wear less. But when in cold climates they should dress appropriate or loose attributes. Likewise with the Kallard in warmer climates; would it not be realistic to overheat under all that mail, plate, and leather in the hot, sweltering jungle? And how does stripping armor away affect the Kallardian culturally or practically? Does nudity mean minus a breast plate or showing genitals. Do the Veelans care what a Kallard wears or what they themselves wear for that matter, as long as their totems can be sketched onto it? These are the questions I've been hoping would be brought up in this thread - roleplaying. A concept we don't here much of. I think we as players loose track of all that in our own details as players we forget that this is all just fantasy and not us killing that wildebeest at all."
was there not a topic on this a while back?
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
Totally missing the point. I ask "What is the use?" I read, "For realism!". I then ask, "In what way?". I read, "Because it is!"
Maturity level is irrelevant. In fact, please tell me how a passive feature in a game is mature? Is it based on the merits of simply existing? If so, then what would be removed from the experience if Star Vault opted for perma-undies?
No one seems to be able to answer these questions.
Because they are inanities, along the lines of "why is the sky blue? Why isn't it green?"
When a character takes it's clothes off in MO, that character's anatomy has all the parts that one would expect to find on a naked person. If you can't understand how this is realistic, then no amount of posting here is going to help.
Maturity IS relevant, since you seem determined that the only reaon anyone would be an advocate for such realistic details would be for immature reasons. You cannot simply grasp the fact that every detail adds to the overall realistic experience. Nudity, clouds that people see in all aspects of normal gameplay, leaves on the trees that people see in all aspects of normal gameplay, they all contribute to the toality of the realistic presentation.
Saying nudity is realistic because leaves are realistic is a copout. Seriously, can't you come up with a better comparison?
Ask yourself why genitals on your character are any less "mature" than fingers, or toes. Any less or more essential??
Okay. "Jon, why are genitals any less 'mature' than fingers or toes?" Answer: "Maturity doesn't apply. Fingers on a character model are necessary because hands are a prominant feature that will be seen by all for a significant bulk of the time. Whether gesturing or holding a weapon, it would look pretty odd to not have hands (dismemberment situations notwithstanding). Therefore, such a feature is necessary for suspension of disbelief."
"But Jon, genitals are just as much a part of the human body as fingers."
"Of course, and if the game had an active sexual component, it'd be a severe detriment to realism and suspension of disbelief if genitalia were not included. How fun would sex be if everyone had Barbie doll bumps? But since sex is not a part of the game, and a character's survival is dependant in part on making sure his body is covered in some kind of armor, the 'realism' exists only in the theoretical sense."
Hey, this is kinda fun.
You don't need toes on your virtual body...but having them adds to the suspension of disbelief....the realism...the immersion factor.
Of course, because other than a realistic representation of someone who lost their fingers or toes, it would be kind of odd to see characters in the game world without them.
Now, I'm done with this. You're obviously arguing for the sake of argument.
I bet you $5 I can make you reply to this thread.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I think this whole debate is pointless really. Nudity is planned for the game at release. Debating over why it's in the game is pointless. The studio has made the decision already.
Jon thinks it's stupid to have nudity in the game because there's no sex between toons (that we know of atm, could happen later in a future patch?). He's made up his mind that it adds nothing worthwhile to the game and only will make immature idiots happy.
Other are excited about it because they can teabag fallen players in PvP. Stupid, but whatever.
Still others see it as adding more realism to an already realistic game. Some see it as progressive and brave, while others are just "meh" about it, but don't mind having it in the game.
That's where we stand and have been standing for a while. I don't see anything changing no matter how many times people post on one side or the other.
Current: None
Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR
Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu
Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN
Just to be clear, I only use sex as a plausible reason to have nudity, not that myself want that.
I'll go ahead and make my final point and be done with this thread, too.
I'm a cynical bastard. In my oh so humble but no less valid than anyone else's opinion, I think those who are stumping for nudity really want it for the giggle factor, but they know it would make them look immature if they truthfully said "Ha! There's cocks and cunts! I'm totally going to roll up a character and streak through the towns, make videos to post on YouTube and show all my friends so we can all giggle and snicker at it!" (the Teabag Confessors, of course, don't give a shit that they look like immature twits, but they're not hiding anything). So, instead, they decide to try to look all intellectual by projecting their own inner immaturity on others while coming up with abstract reasons why nudity is "realistic".
I'll list a few:
Cults with nude rituals. Right. That would imply that people are going to role play the parts. Everyone knows that no one plays Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games to role play. (that's sarcasm, btw). Even if this were so, I'm confident that only a dozen people at the most would participate in such a thing and it wouldn't last long.
Nude warriors striking fear into the hearts of their enemies. Seriously, WTF? As an avid roleplayer, even I would look at a horde of nudies with a bemused grin and get to work picking them off because I couldn't reconcile an in-character action like this without inserting the OOC notion that these people are going to die very quickly without armor. Fear would not be a factor. This is one area where a game would fail miserably to facilitate something that might work in real life.
It's progressive! Pro-whuh? How in the name of cheez-whiz is having nudity in a game a show of progress? When I think of "progressive", I think of overcoming a barrier that held back advancement towards greater things. So in this case, the barrier would be the absence of full frontal nudity, and the greater things would be ???. There's a sentence in my head that I'll be damned if I can complete without it pointing back to my original statement about reasons for adding nudity.
"Wow, now that we have full frontal nudity, we can finally ____________." Create Nudist cults? Haven't seen people bitching about that before. Create a nightmarish line of advancing naked warriors with which to incite fear and terror into enemies? Gee, I don't recall seeing a call for that in various wish lists. Teabag our enemies? Yup. You got it. Run around naked for the lulz? That fits pretty well, too. Have sex? The game doesn't feature the ability to have s--THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT YOU STUPID MISGUIDED PURITANICAL AMERICAN WITH A VIOLENCE FETISH! Whoa, slow down there, skippy....
Once again, sex is merely a plausible example of how nudity would be an enhancement to the game. Once again, I don't care that nudity is in. I am firmly in the 3rd category I listed, and think that having nudity neither adds nor takes away from the game, and should come with a toggle for those who don't care to see it. I just don't believe a word anyone in group 1 says, except for the teabaggers.
So, having said my piece, I'm going to turn into a spectator on this thread.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous