Nudity

[calithlin]

hmm I'd said it's left to the devs ethic/morale limitation, but you know all those promising ideas about behavior in combats opens a vast horizon of fantasy about behaviors in the domain of ... affection...
[...]some "behaviors" that could be applied to willing mature partners would be nice, roleplay wise.

I'm thinking that this sort of... mechanic... that you are hinting at is something only a margin of the players of Sui are going to likely participate in, not to mention it takes considerable focus away from the aspect of adventuring. If the developers feel that developing a crafting system for players is too high of a development overhead to warrant, I can guarantee that will go for... this as well.

As well, Madoc's specifically been one to say that they're not looking to have any bait for the game to be banned offhandedly. They don't mind an 'M' rating, but XXX isn't exactly helpful to the distribution of the game. Hence why children are not present in the game to prevent abuse.

 

[Algea]

I can guarantee that will go for... this as well.

That was quite a... meaningful pause.

 

[calithlin]

That was quite a... meaningful pause.

I admit, I'm quite a... sensual typist.

 

[MrIdontKnow]

It's an isometric view, you'd only are the cleverage anyway.

 

[calithlin]

It's an isometric view, you'd only are the cleverage anyway.

Hey, good point. This whole argument's kind of moot then heh

 

[MrIdontKnow]

Haha, good point.

 

[Pantheon]

Haha, good point.

Did you just agree to your own statement?

Also, you will see whole characters from the front, so you wouldn't only see the cleavage

 

[MrIdontKnow]

Did you just agree to your own statement?

Also, you will see whole characters from the front, so you wouldn't only see the cleavage

No haha it made me laugh when he put good point.

 

[Fawz]

I really don't see how nudity would bring anything constructive to the game. It's not like this is a comical game where it would fit and be amusing (ie: Saints Row).

 

[Oona]

I find it hilarious that you think nudity is comical. Also, removing armour is a common thing in rpg games.

 

[MrIdontKnow]

I find it hilarious that you think nudity is comical. Also, removing armour is a common thing in rpg games.

It's not that nudity is comical, but it's unnecessary.

 

[Jonathan]

I find it hilarious that you think nudity is comical. Also, removing armour is a common thing in rpg games.

For online games it's certainly an 'ick' factor to show underwear/nakedness. Although, it'd probably happen even if armour had to stay on, at least it wouldn't look as bad. But in an offline game I don't see how removing armour to underwear would make any negative difference to gameplay so I don't mind either way when it's offline and you have the option to not see it ;D

 

[Infidel]

Do you think that nudity would serve any purpose? ... Not that i don't want to burn and pillage with my glorious ehm hanging out of my trousers ... but what if there is dismemberement?

That's one way to implement a sex change mechanic. Seriously though if I can strip down to my unmentionables (or all the way, I don't care) and run through town it would be fun to have NPC's react by running away, picking fights to chase you away (but not pursuing if you run from them), making comments or even cheering you on if they think it's harmless fun.

There's a lot of potential here for unpredictable, cascading crowd behaviour.

 

[Cooper Holt]

I sincerely hope that the devs take a mature approach to this. If you take off your clothes, you are now wearing underwear or a onesie.

 

[MrIdontKnow]

Well, I don't know the team personally, but they look Mature, reply to posts in a mature manner.

I can safely say we'll not see any penises.

 

[Infidel]

I'm not sure that undergarments are actually the mature approach. If we are to respawn after death without our equipment then it would make more sense to be fully nude. Why should armour and weapons vanish but not clothing? If clothing is to vanish then what's special about underpants?

If depicting the nude form is thought to be more offensive or less acceptable than graphic dismemberment (which seems utterly insane to me, but that's the twisted world we live in) then perhaps a nude character could take on a hunched and vulnerable stance attempting to hide their body with their hands. Something like Rampage did back in 1986.

Perhaps while unclothed a character would refuse to equip items in both hands, constantly preoccupying one hand to cover that which offends so easily. The other hand would of course remain free to dismember anyone who resists when you try to take their pants.

Or perhaps we should just respawn wearing any clothes we had, but not armour. Then permanent undies would make a little more sense.

 

[Komuflage]

I'm not sure that undergarments are actually the mature approach. If we are to respawn after death without our equipment then it would make more sense to be fully nude. Why should armour and weapons vanish but not clothing? If clothing is to vanish then what's special about underpants?

If depicting the nude form is thought to be more offensive or less acceptable than graphic dismemberment (which seems utterly insane to me, but that's the twisted world we live in) then perhaps a nude character could take on a hunched and vulnerable stance attempting to hide their body with their hands. Something like Rampage did back in 1986.

Perhaps while unclothed a character would refuse to equip items in both hands, constantly preoccupying one hand to cover that which offends so easily. The other hand would of course remain free to dismember anyone who resists when you try to take their pants.

Or perhaps we should just respawn wearing any clothes we had, but not armour. Then permanent undies would make a little more sense.

Were did they state that you lost all your gear when you die? Mind link/quote if it's not a to big of a hassle.

Now I've already said a similar thing in another thread, but anyway.

Imo there is not any need for or logic in to have nude characters in this game (Maybe they come up with a reason, but I dunno yet)

And for me, it ain't worth bringing up the rating to 18+ just so people can be nude when they die.

Instead if you now loose all your gear when you die, but you'll still be in your underwear, and this would keep the rating at 16+, they would probably sell quite a few more copies.

 

[Infidel]

Were did they state that you lost all your gear when you die?

There's been no announcement regarding this but it was suggested in some of the sample writing in Kickstarter update #12. The following is copied from an insider thread, the quote is from the sample writing mentioned:

I awoke in bright sunlight on a smooth circular stone, coughing and spewing a foul white liquid. I could barely lift my head, and my hands shook uncontrollably. I was poisoned. What of the things I’d seen? The poison had apparently induced a terrible nightmare. The man in the marketplace must have done this. My possessions were gone... he must’ve robbed me, that rotten bastard

Kinda makes me think it would be silly to wake up with everything gone except my undies. Are they magic undies? Or an extension of my junk like Ken's? If so how do I use the toilet? But I digress...

Perhaps there's merit to full nudity. You die then respawn into the world similar to the way time travellers arrive in the Terminator movies, with nothing but your body. Your first priority is to get clothing so you don't freeze or draw attention. Perhaps you steal clothes left out to dry, or from the first easy target you encounter.

What if the first clothes you find are for the opposite sex? Can you put them on? Will that cause NPC's to react? I wonder.

 

[Infidel]

And for me, it ain't worth bringing up the rating to 18+ just so people can be nude when they die.

If we're going to be chopping arms, legs and heads off, it's going to have an 18+ rating. If we're going to respawn without our gear there's no logical reason why we'd respawn with clothes, therefore there is a reason for nudity in the game. Permanent underpants really only make sense if there's no reason for the player to be naked.

That said, a naked character doesn't immediately mean on-screen genitalia and most certainly doesn't mean a higher rating in a game that allows dismemberment. If a pantless character were to be physically hindered by having one or both hands preoccupied with hiding their wedding tackle, then you'd not only have a sensible, mature and realistic (depends on personality) depiction of nudity without visible genitalia but also a simple and effective game mechanic encouraging players to wear pants.

Personally I do see a need for nudity IF we respawn without our gear, and I think it would be a vast improvement on any other game with immovable underpants if it were implemented as an extremely vulnerable and impeded character state as I've described. You wouldn't even have to make the character models anatomically correct since the relevant areas would always be hidden from view. The existing models already previewed would be fine as they are.

(Spawning naked and defenceless could even be fun for PvP.)

 

[Oona]

I'm not sure that undergarments are actually the mature approach. If we are to respawn after death without our equipment then it would make more sense to be fully nude. Why should armour and weapons vanish but not clothing? If clothing is to vanish then what's special about underpants?

If depicting the nude form is thought to be more offensive or less acceptable than graphic dismemberment (which seems utterly insane to me, but that's the twisted world we live in) then perhaps a nude character could take on a hunched and vulnerable stance attempting to hide their body with their hands.

Perhaps while unclothed a character would refuse to equip items in both hands, constantly preoccupying one hand to cover that which offends so easily. The other hand would of course remain free to dismember anyone who resists when you try to take their pants.

I love this idea! I think in a life or death situation though they shouldn't refuse using both hands.