Nudity

[Udolf]

So then instead of keeping nudity out of the game, we keep children out of the game? Seems legit, real legit... If this decision was really part of the design process for Sui Generis, I have to say that is very discouraging to hear. The idea that not letting the player undress children feels more unnatural and disruptive than not having any children in the game is absolutely insane.

That's is not the point. There will be no children in the game because there should be no violence against children!

 

[mcmanusaur]

You cannot dictate what people do with your game.
...
If you didn't see that coming, you need to do a reality check.

Just because you know it's unavoidable to some extent doesn't mean you can't take steps to prevent it. And yes, as a designer, you have some (limited perhaps) ability to dictate what people do in a game.

If we just give up and admit such things are just out of one's control, then there will never be any progress in this regard, and I'd personally like to see some progress.

I'm sorry that you're tiring of this thread, and you're welcome to stop responding if you like.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Keeping children out of the game has nothing to do with nudity. Sui Generis is very combat-oriented, and having characters walk around that abide by a completely different set of rules is disruptive, especially in a game where combat is important. The other option is making kids as vulnerable as anyone else, which you really don't want as a game developer trying to sell a game.

Yes, it might 'break immersion', but not as much as those kids in World of Warcraft that walked around with no change in demeanor while their city was raided, as an example. This is a whole lot more important in Sui Generis, where all of your actions have consequences.

Ah, good to know, thanks. Hopefully people can see how I might have gotten the wrong impression from some of the preceding posts. Personally I still don't agree with that design decision- that not wanting kill-able children is grounds from not putting children in the game at all- but that's that.

 

[mcmanusaur]

But hopefully you are not the game designer. And yea, it's just you and 'your' thoughts. So if you ever gonna feel X way, then feel free to live on your own, forget about others. It make no sense even mentioning 'others', since its your very own feelings and not others

Therefore you can't tell anyone how to feel or think. How about keeping them for yourself and stop keeping this endless debate which has no practical use

Real classy post, buddy. All I can say is that I'm glad you were not involved in the discussion up to this point, if this is how you address opinions you disagree with. Stuff like this just reflects poorly on your "side", though thankfully others who have disagreed with me have been able to do so in a somewhat more mature way.

But you do, and in a very oppressive and dominant way which stands out in the whole thread. And you said that you are not gonna complain about nudity, but even at this stage, you never avoid striving and even blandish by going triple posting, for the sake of not having it in the game, which already shows you are contradicting yourself. Just breath at some points.

You really can't just claim something like that- which is tantamount to a personal attack of sorts- without providing any evidence. All I'm doing is responding to people's replies to me, and if you simply don't have the ability or patience to comprehend my position here, that's no excuse for you to single me out as if I'm the one crossing the line (in fact, I don't think anyone crossed any lines until you posted).

Frankly, your post is a travesty, and I can only hope that- for the sake of productive discussion elsewhere on these forums- you don't take any further part in debates, if this is how you conduct yourself. I'm not sure who the "personal attacks" post was directed at, but it's obvious who could benefit from understanding it.

Final line is developers'.

And I have acknowledged that multiple times.

 

[Elric von Rabenfels]

The only travesty I see here is a triple post.
Put in some ****ing effort to put it all in one post without destroying readability, it's absolutely possible without too much hassle. The quote feature for example is a great way of adressing multiple people in detail, without giving your post a height of 4000 pixels.

And this is where I start my time out to cool off, as I'm starting to develop a serious dislike of your posting style, which makes me very prone to writing very unpolite and bold things. And Bare Mettle deserves better.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Well, now that we are all demonstrating our respective levels of maturity in a thread about whether players are mature enough for nudity in a game, I rest my case.

I've never been bothered by double or triple posts if they're directed at different people, and I'm not aware of any rule against them.

 

[tiny lampe]

That's is not the point. There will be no children in the game because there should be no violence against children!

I can almost hear the patriotic music...

I know this is a thread about nudity and not about children but since both topics are controversial for similar reasons (people and their lovely double moral standards) I'll make two observations.

1. I find it pretty ridiculous how players and rating systems are much more tolerant with violence than with nudity. Is a pair of tits really more offensive than a decapitated person? Really?

2. I find it equally ridiculous how nobody cares if you make a game where killing innocent adults is possible yet everybody is ready to crucify you if the same game also allows slapping children. What's going in here? Why do people insist in treating children in videogames as if they were real children while at the same time they are fine in treating adults as 'just pixels'?

 

[mcmanusaur]

That's is not the point. There will be no children in the game because there should be no violence against children!

Alright, I see. Still seems like a classic case of throwing the baby (or child ) out with the bathwater to me, but we'll see how it turns out.

 

[mcmanusaur]

1. I find it pretty ridiculous how players and rating systems are much more tolerant with violence than with nudity. Is a pair of tits really more offensive than a decapitated person? Really?

It's an interesting question, but for me personally (I can't speak on behalf of anyone else) it's more about violence generally being more relevant than nudity in certain genres of video games. The issues tend to arise when you try to shoehorn "gratuitous" content in where it hardly fits. But yes, on the whole there is a cultural preoccupation with violence being more acceptable than nudity, and it's an interesting phenomenon.

2. I find it equally ridiculous how nobody cares if you make a game where killing innocent adults is possible yet everybody is ready to crucify you if the same game also allows slapping children. What's going in here? Why do people insist in treating children in videogames as if they were real children while at the same time they are fine in treating adults as 'just pixels'?

I'm not sure whether anyone here is equipped to explain this, because from what I have seen so far most people bring that up in the context of "other people will think X, and we don't want that", rather than "I think X", but it's another interesting question. I think it's sort of the same reason as why rape is an extra-sensitive matter; abusive relationships with asymmetrical power dynamics are seen as more dangerous than abusive relationships with equal power.

 

[Rob]

@tiny lampe - thanks for putting the thread back on track. The overly argumentative tone of some of the posts made today isn't appropriate for this forum, which is generally very civilized as @Tony has already pointed out. There's no point harboring negative feelings and having a personal vendetta towards other forum members, even if you disagree with what they're saying. I hope everyone's finished venting their frustration... so let's put the thread back on track now.

There's no point reiterating the same arguments over and over again, but if you've got something new and constructive to say then that's great!

 

[lvk]

Ah, good to know, thanks. Hopefully people can see how I might have gotten the wrong impression from some of the preceding posts. Personally I still don't agree with that design decision- that not wanting kill-able children is grounds from not putting children in the game at all- but that's that.

Even if Bare Mettle wanted it in, there's always the issue of it generating a ton of negative PR, which would be a shame given all the effort that was put in, and that this game will be their primary source of revenue for a while. Especially news websites who don't bother putting any effort into researching will be thrilled they'll have a game they could label 'child abuse simulator', generating all the traffic for them without even trying.

I'm really excited for Sui Generis, the last thing I'd want is news websites and/or papers laying waste to the game on something like this. It deserves all the popularity it can get - boundaries of traditional game engines were broken multiple times over for the sole purpose of making this game.

 

[calithlin]

I think there's a certain confusing level of cognitive dissonance going on for those that can accept children being removed from the game but remain up in arms about the possibility that full nudity might get nix'ed for the same reason.

I'm all for a game where the decapitation of children and nudity coexist for the sake of immersion (or the nudity of children if you take the issue to its logical conclusion). I'm also fine with a game without children and without nudity.
However you can't really argue for one without the other and claim logical consistency. Either you're pro censor in the cases of morally questioned immersion setting, or not because you think we can be adults about it.

 

[Tony]

I think there's a certain confusing level of cognitive dissonance going on for those that can accept children being removed from the game but remain up in arms about the possibility that full nudity might get nix'ed for the same reason.

I'm all for a game where the decapitation of children and nudity coexist for the sake of immersion (or the nudity of children if you take the issue to its logical conclusion). I'm also fine with a game without children and without nudity.
However you can't really argue for one without the other and claim logical consistency. Either you're pro censor in the cases of morally questioned immersion setting, or not because you think we can be adults about it.

I see your point but lvk also made a valid point which is relevant. Bare Mettle must make decisions about what will or will not be beneficial for the outcome of their game. Children would play no significant role as far as gameplay goes. They would be about as relevant as weaving a basket (using mcmanusaur's example) in regard to gameplay. If Bare Mettle added children they would have to censor children (no killing, no nudity) to prevent being accused of creating a child abuse simulator. Bare Mettle has no reputation as a game developer and their first game is important to establish one.

Basically, by not adding children Bare Mettle avoids having to censor their game in ways they do not want.

 

[Rod_Lightning]

Not having children in your world does hurt it imo. I always hated the fact that only adults live...Oh well.

 

[Rob]

I agree with all above comments.

Children would play no significant role as far as gameplay goes. They would be about as relevant as weaving a basket (using mcmanusaur's example) in regard to gameplay.

Certainly there are circumstances/games where Children play a significant or relevant role, such as in The Witcher (1). Of course, such roles often solely relate to the RPG/story aspects, and have nothing to do with combat.

Consequently, if Sui Generis is to have a primary focus on combat gameplay mechanics, then it is understandable why they would want to leave Children out of it. If they had enough funding to (and wanted to) create a AAA-type game with theatrical cutscenes, where a linear story was the main drive behind the game, then it might be more relevant to include Children. If relevant to the story/atmosphere, as in The Witcher. Note also that Children were unrealistically invincible in The Witcher, which was appropriate but reduced immersion.

However, in a less linear-story-driven game with a non-linear open world, I agree with Tony that the relevance of Children does become diminished. Great if it's there... but less important. Take Skyrim, for example. The ability to "have Children" just seemed stupid and out of place, IMO.

Ultimately, I think BM have already weighed it up shrewdly.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Children may not always be relevant in an RPG- this is true- but then certainly the same can be said for nudity or violence against random NPCs (including children). Personally I can envision a lot more instances in which I'd want to interact with a child NPC than instances in which I'd want to strip naked or kill an innocent NPC (child or adult) so for me it's kind of a net loss in playability, but that's just me and how I play the game. Thus, I do find the ultimate decision to be a bit of a strange one, but it's fine if other people don't share my perplexity in regard to this.

 

[Rob]

Personally I can envision a lot more instances in which I'd want to interact with a child NPC than instances in which I'd want to strip naked or kill an innocent NPC (child or adult)

I can see exactly where you're coming from, and it's a valid point to consider.

I think you've identified three points that should be considered separately:
(1) have Children;
(2) have nudity;
(3) kill innocent NPCs.

The one of these that strikes the highest resonance with BM's primary objectives is point (3). All objects, inanimate or not (within engine limitations), are subject to the same physics and rules. Thus, since NPCs are subject to the same laws, innocent NPCs are necessarily mutilatable/killable.

Having different fundamental mechanics for different beings is the antithesis of Bare Mettle.

Continuing on with that logic, if Children are included then they must submit to the same laws, thus must be allowed to be killed/mutilated as appropriate.

Subject to those conditions, the ability to have Children and nudity can be contemplated. And understandably, people will have different opinions on this. Importantly, I feel that these two things should be considered separately (acknowledging that including nudity would of course affect Children too). Saying things like "I'd rather have Children than nudity" isn't relevant here, since the reason why Children were excluded was not due to the nudity, but rather due to the potential for Child mutilation. And, as identified above, violence/mutilation/killing is inherently more pivotal to Sui Generis than Children.

 

[malfunction]

So to summarize, based on the design vision of Sui Generis, if you don't want to allow the killing of children you either have to remove children or remove killing.

The game would collapse without any form of killing and so the choice is obvious.

 

[BrecMadak]

Actually I've expected someone to refer the children quest that takes place in mighty Fallout 2. And how children exclusively in city of Den were appreciated back in that time. The first quest was "Find a way to get the orphans off the street." you can read the details in here if you want to. And this is the only quest in the whole giant Fallout 2 universe to do with children. Now I'd like to ask here why quests like this should not take part within SG ? Now don't look at this issue so shallow by saying 'children would be abused if implemented'. Back in 1998 we had even a childkiller perk, so as you see there were no limitations and people were not going all over to be child abusers, since it was a big penalty to player's presence and charisma.

Just as in real life nothing should be going cakes and ale, nothing. And since SG has always been told to be a dark and gritty world which seen to be perfectly obvious thing in addition to devs' confirmation, I don't see why we are even limited whatever our choices would be at the end.

Mankind always search for an evilness as if there always must exist on 'everything'. So to speak, this can't be reasoned just cause devs did not remove children in the first place, it really makes no sense at all. More importantly this is a damn game what's the logic comparing game with the life ? Why you can't make up your mind without putting this can anyone answer this ? Cause same logic then applies to fps which you kill hundreds of people, and then out on streets do you intent to shoot people as well ?

What I mean whatever game would it be, game limitations can not be the cure for psychoz no matter how hard developers 'seem' trying to achieve. Now let's try to look from this perspective for a while and maybe we could come to a more clear conclusion at the end.

Last but not least, devs should do justice if their intention is to build a gritty world, limitations like these are nothing short than immersion breakers and will always remain as being a restricting factor throughout the game mind you.

 

[Tony]

@BrecMadak, I agree that such limitations are not desirable. Children can add to gameplay elements such as fear, drama, or to create a sense of caring/protection. As Rob mentioned children were a part of the story in both Witcher games and they helped create the atmosphere and tone for several scenes. Adding children could enhance parts of Sui Generis too.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be just players that could kill children or leave them naked/looted. NPCs are supposed to have their own agenda and goals in Sui Generis. Finding a village that got raided by NPCs, with slaughtered children and adults lying about, would definitely be a pretty grotesque scene which would likely cause the player to feel strong emotions. Such events would be great for storytelling aspects of gameplay but again might become the focus of the media spotlight, giving Bare Mettle a bad rep.

I mentioned previously that adding children which could be abused would be a big risk for a game developer that has no reputation established. Perhaps if Sui Generis was Bare Mettle's third or fourth game they could get away with more creative freedom without hurting their reputation. But taking such a big risk for a relatively small benefit they decided was not worth it.