[QUOTE=Cyborgt;42789037]As amusing as I find this argument, even I know he was specifically referring to violence vs nudity of a virtual nature. Bringing the real world consequences of actually performing these acts into it doesn't really help support the argument against treating nudity as worse than violence in this case...[/QUOTE]
I realize it may not help the argument in favor of keeping nudity in Rust, but it does answer his question. He wanted one single culture which considers violence more taboo than nudity. There it is.
Actually, wait, I've got a better one.
Do a Google image search for "nyangatom tribe". Do the images of half-naked women make you uncomfortable? Because in that tribe, it's perfectly acceptable.
Also the Hamar tribe, and the Daasanach.
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42788565]I disagree. It isn't a gameplay purpose, but it's still a purpose. It's a psychological one, and I'm sure it's the entire reason Garry decided we should be nude.
Starting out buck-naked in the middle of nowhere with just a rock for protection is the [B]ultimate feeling of vulnerability[/B]. Contrast it to when we all looked like fully equipped soldiers - feels decidedly different, doesn't it?
Unity doesn't have a default model... o.O[/QUOTE]
Unity has free generic assets, which are what Rust is using in most of the game.
Lots of people exaggerating this out to be a planned deliberate decision. The only decision is to not add a loin cloth, and no matter what he says, if you believe it is anything more than "it would require extra work better spent on something else", then you are fooling yourself.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42789180]I realize it may not help the argument in favor of keeping nudity in Rust, but it does answer his question. He wanted one single culture which considers violence more taboo than nudity. [/QUOTE]
I said no such thing.
Well, one point that will have to be addressed are the problems surrounding Rust gameplay and YouTube's terms of service. [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/1q0xra/youtube_and_the_nudity_in_rust/cd8p4wv"]At least one Youtuber already had his Rust video banned due to the nudity[/URL]. I am sure other content producers will be facing similar issues.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789212]Unity has free generic assets, which are what Rust is using in most of the game.
Lots of people exaggerating this out to be a planned deliberate decision. The only decision is to not add a loin cloth, and no matter what he says, if you believe it is anything more than "it would require extra work better spent on something else", then you are fooling yourself.[/QUOTE]
The character model was made by their artists, INTENTIONALLY. Before it was a soldier from a game demo that shiped with Unity.
Actually, to cure your ignorance, how about I show you this blog post, from back when we were all still soldiers running around:
"One of the things I want to do is make it so you start naked, like a caveman. This should reduce PVP – because who wouldn’t run from a naked guy with an axe."
[url]http://garry.tv/page/16/[/url]
The real questions is.... where are the female models and they better be nude too.
Any other discussion takes away from the flavor of the game; the reality of life and how it would be to start off with nothing in the wild. The loin cloth is a good idea regardless if people want to waste 1-2 cloth so that their friends cant see their actual e-peen thats fine with me.
[QUOTE]I said no such thing.[/QUOTE]
Oh really? Then what was this?
[QUOTE]Please name one culture where Rust is played that considers violence to be more taboo than nudity.[/QUOTE]
Granted I showed several examples of cultures that DON'T play Rust - but it still proves a point that nudity being wrong isn't universal by any means.
[QUOTE=Cyborgt;42788731]There actually is a term for simulated nudity though it's actually used in relation to things like skin tone bodysuits which are used to provide the illusion of nudity where one isn't actually nude. That being said, the nudity is no more real (or important) than the violence. You just choose to place greater importance upon it because it makes you uncomfortable.
That's hardly a fair request to make considering I don't have access to information on every person to ever purchase and play Rust.
You seem to love dismissing an argument entirely simply because you don't agree with it. If you really just want to break it down to mechanics, you are nude because you aren't wearing anything in the game. End of story. Nudity justified by mechanics. I could have made that argument but I felt it was a little too blunt and simplistic to make the argument stick in your mind but since you want to focus on mechanics so much, there it is. The fact of the matter is that the underwear typically seen in games is what isn't justified by mechanics because they have clothing in the game but when you choose to take it all off, you're still wearing clothing.
As for your attempts to dismiss the nudity as "being the default model," you clearly haven't seen videos of the early alpha. The default model was a guy in full military issue Kevlar body armor. Adding nudity to the game along with the new individual armor models was clearly a choice which is reinforced by the fact that Gary is completely uninterested in discussing the issue.[/QUOTE]
I will stand partially corrected there. I would guess though that the best and/or only freely available "non fully clothed" model was the naked one, as opposed to one with a loin cloth.
I am not dismissing an argument. You are not making a good one. You believe that being naked adds something to the game. That is not the same as it being a game mechanic. Remove the nudity by adding a loin cloth. Do the game mechanics change? No. Remove the violence from Rust. Do the game mechanics change? Umm, yes.
As for the taboo in cultures thing, you are being intentionally pedantic. Europe and North America. These are where the servers are hosted, not in some random culture where simulated violence is considered more taboo than nudity, whether cartoon or otherwise.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42789270]Oh really? Then what was this?[/QUOTE]
"Where rust is played"
The context changes a wee bit when you eliminate the qualification, allowing you to go google some random culture that fits your straw man argument.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789291]I will stand partially corrected there. I would guess though that the best and/or only freely available "non fully clothed" model was the naked one, as opposed to one with a loin cloth.
I am not dismissing an argument. You are not making a good one. You believe that being naked adds something to the game. That is not the same as it being a game mechanic. Remove the nudity by adding a loin cloth. Do the game mechanics change? No. Remove the violence from Rust. Do the game mechanics change? Umm, yes.
As for the taboo in cultures thing, you are being intentionally pedantic. Europe and North America. These are where the servers are hosted, not in some random culture where simulated violence is considered more taboo than nudity, whether cartoon or otherwise.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
"Where rust is played"
The context changes a wee bit when you eliminate the qualification, allowing you to go google some random culture that fits your straw man argument.[/QUOTE]
I realize that I listed several cultures that don't play Rust (as edited above).
But why does that even matter? So they don't play Rust, big whoop. It still proves that nudity being wrong isn't even close to universal. Oh but they don't have computers to play Rust, so I guess they magically don't count.
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42789253]
"One of the things I want to do is make it so you start naked, like a caveman. This should reduce PVP – because who wouldn’t run from a naked guy with an axe."
[url]http://garry.tv/page/16/[/url][/QUOTE]
Wow. You don't see the facetiousness in that statement?
"This should reduce PVP – because who wouldn’t run from a naked guy with an axe."
Ok, you got me, the real reason is that being naked reduces PvP. You win. And I thought it was some deep meaning about facing the harsh realities of being cold. It was so much simpler.
Does the video say that the model was made by their artists? I can't watch it.
If that is the case, I apologize. I really thought that they had a good excuse for the model being naked, like it was cheap and easy.
The fact that there are people on here saying that murder > nudity shows that it is relevant just as you feel your arguement is. I believe this discussion is trying to pull something into the world of rust that has no place here. I don't see any moral standards here; I see hopeless people grasping at the resources around them to slaughter anyone that happens to give them a wrong feeling. This is rust; the land of the damned were everyone came from nothing and struggles through starvation for the first 12 hours.
Rust- A world that is immersive, and if you were truly in this world; you would come to from an unattainable past - naked - hungry - ready to survive.
I do believe the ability to select sex should be implemented because I am a feminist and believe that a woman could survive just as well in our world as we can.
Edit: If anything make the model sexless, like a ken-like doll. or barbie(minus breasts).
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42789270]Oh really? Then what was this?
Granted I showed several examples of cultures that DON'T play Rust - but it still proves a point that nudity being wrong isn't universal by any means.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and if I were arguing that nudity is universally wrong, you would have a really good point.
As it stands, I wasn't, so you weren't.
In Western culture, simulated violence is more acceptable than nudity, i.e., in movies and video games, violence is more widely accepted than nudity. The maturity requirement for experiencing both tends to be higher for nudity. This can be seen in the ratings systems for both.
I wonder, would this discussion have happen'd when the characters would've been female instead of male.
Also what's the reason people don't want to be confronted with in-game nudity(dicks in this case)...
If you're naked you shouldnt have any inventory space besides your hands. Where is he keeping this shit, his asshole?
[QUOTE=Eric^^;42789413]The fact that there are people on here saying that murder > nudity shows that it is relevant just as you feel your arguement is.[QUOTE]
No, it just shows that they are arguing a straw man, because I am not arguing that nudity > murder.
CyborgT at least understands that part of the argument. I just disagree with his opinion about that particular point.
I think the fact that this topic is even up for discussion is hilarious.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789438]Yeah, and if I were arguing that nudity is universally wrong, you would have a really good point.
As it stands, I wasn't, so you weren't.
In Western culture, simulated violence is more acceptable than nudity, i.e., in movies and video games, violence is more widely accepted than nudity. The maturity requirement for experiencing both tends to be higher for nudity. This can be seen in the ratings systems for both.[/QUOTE]
My response was partially to the earlier comment that (paraphrasing here) "nudity is inherently wrong". Clearly it's not.
As to whether *game* violence is more acceptable than *game* nudity, you're right. For whatever reason, society has deemed simulated harmful acts more acceptable than simulated completely harmless acts.
If you were to make an argument that a loin cloth should be added so that videos aren't taken down from Youtube, I would perfectly agree with you. As it is, your argument so far has been nothing but "society says I should hate this", so I just cannot agree.
Don't get me wrong, when they first added nudity I was a bit uncomfortable (and so was my friend, also a Rust player). Kinda gotten used to it now, though.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789291]I will stand partially corrected there. I would guess though that the best and/or only freely available "non fully clothed" model was the naked one, as opposed to one with a loin cloth.[/QUOTE]
Are you really trying to suggest that Unity provides a free nude character model but not a single one wearing any kind of underwear? Is that really what you're trying to say here? I mean, I don't actually know whether that would be a factual statement (and I doubt you do either) but that would seem like an extremely odd thing to do if it's true.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789291]
I am not dismissing an argument. You are not making a good one. You believe that being naked adds something to the game. That is not the same as it being a game mechanic. Remove the nudity by adding a loin cloth. Do the game mechanics change? No. Remove the violence from Rust. Do the game mechanics change? Umm, yes. [/QUOTE]
The game mechanics may not change by adding a loin cloth but it does make Rust just as mechanically illogical as every other game (for no other reason than that a lot of people are uncomfortable with nudity.) As I already stated, you aren't wearing anything so logically you should be nude.
[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42789291]
As for the taboo in cultures thing, you are being intentionally pedantic. Europe and North America. These are where the servers are hosted, not in some random culture where simulated violence is considered more taboo than nudity, whether cartoon or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
You asked me about cultures where Rust is played, not where the servers are hosted. There is a difference. I'm sure there are plenty of people outside of Europe/US that have purchased/played Rust. They're just not numerous enough to justify their own dedicated server.
[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42789502]
As to whether *game* violence is more acceptable than *game* nudity, you're right. For whatever reason, society has deemed simulated harmful acts more acceptable than simulated completely harmless acts.[/QUOTE]
That was my point, well, except for 'completely harmless acts' part. You will notice in my arguments, I was not commenting on whether it was good or not, just that it IS.
[QUOTE]
If you were to make an argument that a loin cloth should be added so that videos aren't taken down from Youtube, I would perfectly agree with you. As it is, your argument so far has been nothing but "society says I should hate this", so I just cannot agree.[/QUOTE]
No, I was simply trying to set the context for the argument and to debate the point Garry made that it was silly for people to be more upset by the nudity than the violence. It may his opinion that it is silly, and everyone on this forum could agree, but it doesn't change how society in general (in Western cultures, who are the primary players of this game) see it.
If you didn't accept my premise, which it didn't seem like most folks were, any conclusions drawn (Youtube videos, for example) wouldn't have been easy to make.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cyborgt;42789665]Are you really trying to suggest that Unity provides a free nude character model but not a single one wearing any kind of underwear? Is that really what you're trying to say here? I mean, I don't actually know whether that would be a factual statement (and I doubt you do either) but that would seem like an extremely odd thing to do if it's true.[/QUOTE]
Ha, well, you make a fabulous point there. And without admitting guilt, I will say that it was a possible conclusion I came too because 1) so many other assets were Unity freebies, and 2) I would have found it hard to believe that you would choose the naked one. I have long since realized it is pointless for me to try to guess at Garry's motives because he has a creative gene that I do not have.
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;42781495]Society deems you wrong, sorry, [B]don't argue with me[/B]. Argue with the morals that [B]society established about 200 years ago[/B], war is okay however nudity isn't.
Not much of a ground for you to stand on here.[/QUOTE]
"You can't argue with this because society 200 years ago was totally the epitome of human morals!" :downs:
I found the tweet where the model was previewed. I apologize for the parts of my argument where I suggested that it was probably a default model and/or not a deliberate design decision. I was 100% wrong and it was lazy research on my part.
[QUOTE=Daniel Munoz;42789452] Where is he keeping this shit, his asshole?[/QUOTE]
That is, indeed, the typical storage location for shit in the human body. Well, properly speaking, it's the organs connected to the asshole, the asshole is the point of exit, but close enough.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42791024]That is, indeed, the typical storage location for shit in the human body. Well, properly speaking, it's the organs connected to the asshole, the asshole is the point of exit, but close enough.[/QUOTE]
Just pointing out that there are valid arguments against it besides "ew its a penis"
[QUOTE=Daniel Munoz;42791029]Just pointing out that there are valid arguments against it besides "ew its a penis"[/QUOTE]
Inventory space not being reflected on your NPC is something that's existed with video games since the beginning. Why does eating a mushroom make Mario double in height and then shrink back down the moment something hostile touches him? Why are Doomguy and Quakeguy and basically every other FPS character ever able to run and jump while carrying about 8 weapons and a few thousands of rounds of ammo? And why are they able to effortlessly switch between weapons as if they were carrying them in each hand, even when they switch from a two-handed rocket launcher to a two-handed shotgun?
At some point you have to draw a line at expecting realism to trump gameplay. If you try to explain and justify every single thing in-world, you're going to have a very complex or very boring game.
So, that's one weakly justifiable argument against nudity other than "eww dick". I don't think you're going to win garry over with "it doesn't make sense to be able to store a pistol and 6 clips of ammo with no pockets unless you carry it in your ass".
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42791232]Inventory space not being reflected on your NPC is something that's existed with video games since the beginning. Why does eating a mushroom make Mario double in height and then shrink back down the moment something hostile touches him? Why are Doomguy and Quakeguy and basically every other FPS character ever able to run and jump while carrying about 8 weapons and a few thousands of rounds of ammo? And why are they able to effortlessly switch between weapons as if they were carrying them in each hand, even when they switch from a two-handed rocket launcher to a two-handed shotgun?
At some point you have to draw a line at expecting realism to trump gameplay. If you try to explain and justify every single thing in-world, you're going to have a very complex or very boring game.
So, that's one weakly justifiable argument against nudity other than "eww dick". I don't think you're going to win garry over with "it doesn't make sense to be able to store a pistol and 6 clips of ammo with no pockets unless you carry it in your ass".[/QUOTE]
I don't want the game to be realistic, i want it to be consistent. It should be based on reality. It is a survival game and giving the player the ability to abuse systems like that is not good. A player being able to have a full arsenal but just because they are naked they arent viewed as a threat. In a survival game you should be able to formalize a plan based of a players appearance. If you see a rifle maybe you should run away. If they have a big backpack they might be worth hunting down. What is in-game prevents this. I do see your point though that it is still a video game, but i feel like it is a feature that just doesnt make sense. You can get naked if you really want to, but it shouldn't be a feature that you can abuse.
Making the argument for displayable inventory (e.g. a backpack that becomes larger according to how much you have, out of three possible models/sizes, or whatever) is not the same argument as "get rid of nudity".
The two [I]can[/I] be, but are not automatically, solved in the same step by making everyone start clothed, but there are other solutions. A backpack, as you suggested, or perhaps a weapon slung over the back.
But that's not an argument against nudity, that's an argument for conveying the threat potential of a player to other players around him. I'm not arguing against that, and I feel it could be a good addition to the game, since you [I]do[/I] have naked guys suddenly pulling shotguns out of hammerspace without warning.
But that is, again, not an argument against nudity in the game, unless you [I]want it to be[/I], and then it's a weak argument since it's wholly unnecessary to cover up nudity while still accomplishing the gameplay change.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42791438]Making the argument for displayable inventory (e.g. a backpack that becomes larger according to how much you have, out of three possible models/sizes, or whatever) is not the same argument as "get rid of nudity".
The two [I]can[/I], but do not automatically so, be solved in the same step by making everyone start clothed, but there are other solutions. A backpack, as you suggested, or perhaps a weapon slung over the back.
But that's not an argument against nudity, that's an argument for conveying the threat potential of a player to other players around him. I'm not arguing against that, and I feel it could be a good addition to the game, since you [I]do[/I] have naked guys suddenly pulling shotguns out of hammerspace without warning.
But that is, again, not an argument against nudity in the game, unless you [I]want it to be[/I], and then it's a weak argument since it's wholly unnecessary to cover up nudity while still accomplishing the gameplay change.[/QUOTE]
It's an argument against how nudity works and how it should be tied to your inventory. I think you should start with tattered cloths so you can have a small inventory then upgrade from there. I just don't like the fact that it doesn't make sense in many ways, it doesn't work with the inventory system, it doesn't make sense logically. You can take off your clothes if you want. I don't want to necessarily want to get rid of nudity even though it does have its benefits, i just want it implemented in a way that makes sense.
No, it sounds like you want to get rid of nudity. If it isn't the default, it's essentially being gotten rid of except as a way for immature boys to prank their friends by suddenly taking their pants off/toddling the nudity.
Where are the threads calling for a replacement for the rock that's a knife, or some other tool, or requiring a tool to harvest wood, metal, or animal goods? It's hard to skin an animal or get fat off it with a blunt rock that you used to cave its head in. That's not very realistic. Where are the constant threads about that?
Nope, nudity is the one that gets a new thread every 3-4 days because people just can't handle penis pixels. No other "realism" argument gets so much coverage or passion from newer Rust players.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42791554]No, it sounds like you want to get rid of nudity. If it isn't the default, it's essentially being gotten rid of except as a way for immature boys to prank their friends by suddenly taking their pants off/toddling the nudity.
Where are the threads calling for a replacement for the rock that's a knife, or some other tool, or requiring a tool to harvest wood, metal, or animal goods? It's hard to skin an animal or get fat off it with a blunt rock that you used to cave its head in. That's not very realistic. Where are the threads about that?
Nope, nudity is the one that gets a new thread every 3-4 days because people just can't handle penis pixels. No other "realism" argument gets so much coverage or passion from newer Rust players.[/QUOTE]
I do have a thread committed to suggestions to the game at the moment although i dont have one dedicated to getting rid of nudity. I do see your point though, there are bigger issues but i just don't like how people dismiss it so quickly. If changes i think would improve the game gets rid of nudity thats nothing but a side effect.
You, personally, may have learned the ways of the forum (and postal) enough to not make a nudity thread, and that is why you're still posting :v: but you and I both know that nudity is far more a frequent topic than basically anything else except hacks/keys/DDOS/clans/whining.
I think that if garry and Pat and Helk and co found themselves at a point in development where they had to choose between keeping nudity in the game, or implementing this really awesome gameplay mechanic that was incompatible with nudity but would make the game tremendously better, the nudity would go out the window with little argument.
But what you're arguing does not force that ultimatum. There is nothing in your argument that requires getting rid of nudity. You are, instead, trying to argue for a change that goes above and beyond what is required and also kicks nudity out, because you have a history of being opposed to the penis for whatever reason. I remember your posting history, Munoz.
I want to make it clear that, at a fundamentally personal level, I respect that some people do not want to look at naked human penis. Don't want to see it, don't look at it. But that doesn't mean that changes have to be made to suit the desires of these people. The devs have made a decision. The only argument with any support that's been made so far (to my knowledge) is "I don't like it", and right now that isn't swaying the devs.
I think if a vast majority of Rust players called for the removal of nudity, it might happen, but it would need to be overwhelming numbers, and those numbers aren't there at this point.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42791758]You, personally, may have learned the ways of the forum (and postal) enough to not make a nudity thread, and that is why you're still posting :v: but you and I both know that nudity is far more a frequent topic than basically anything else except hacks/keys/DDOS/clans/whining.
I think that if garry and Pat and Helk and co found themselves at a point in development where they had to choose between keeping nudity in the game, or implementing this really awesome gameplay mechanic that was incompatible with nudity but would make the game tremendously better, the nudity would go out the window with little argument.
But what you're arguing does not force that ultimatum. There is nothing in your argument that requires getting rid of nudity. You are, instead, trying to argue for a change that goes above and beyond what is required and also kicks nudity out, because you have a history of being opposed to the penis for whatever reason. I remember your posting history, Munoz.
I want to make it clear that, at a fundamentally personal level, I respect that some people do not want to look at naked human penis. Don't want to see it, don't look at it. But that doesn't mean that changes have to be made to suit the desires of these people. The devs have made a decision. The only argument with any support that's been made so far (to my knowledge) is "I don't like it", and right now that isn't swaying the devs.
I think if a vast majority of Rust players called for the removal of nudity, it might happen, but it would need to be overwhelming numbers, and those numbers aren't there at this point.[/QUOTE]
With that type of attitude nothing would get done in the game. If every change to the game was the result of some ultimatum there would be more progress. Just because the improvement isn't game-changing doesn't mean it is meaningless. I don't care anymore whether it is in the game or not. Although removing would have good effects and no negative effects i don't believe removing it completely is a reasonable request anymore from the community. I just want a game mechanic that would work better than the current one to be considered. I am not some anti-nudity psycho boycotting the game, i am trying to help improve it, and that it all. If you want it in the game the way it is, i respect your opinion. But there are issues with it that aren't deniable.
Also, i would appreciate it if you checked out my Community Speaks Thread, you are someone who brings up good arguments and i would like to hear your opinion on it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
