Shirtless Survivors.

TheBean

How come you don't put shirtless women survivor characters in the game?

You have a David who is shirtless? So if it is an issue with seeing nipples... then you've already got that.

You have a Hag that is shirtless... So it can't be that you are afraid of putting in a topless female character.

You've based this game on old horror movies? Which during those movies, there were scenes of a female and/or male being topless.

So how come Kate can't have a topless outfit?

The game is rated for 18+... and with already nudity in the game, I don't see what a valid reason is. Could you please offer me an idea as to why?

To be honest, you should now include a nudity flag in your store, since the hag shows breasts and is considered a female killer and because David is topless. We can't be sexist and say David's nipples would not be considered nudity if a woman breasts and nipples would be classified as that.

Also in many areas in the world, a woman has a legal right to walk around topless in public spaces.

Jack11803

Because the same feminists who fought for the ability walk around topless, would have their extremist counterparts slam this game for being misogynistic. If that doesn’t make sense... well who cares, they sure don’t.

TheBean

@Jack11803 said:
Because the same feminists who fought for the ability walk around topless, would have their extremist counterparts slam this game for being misogynistic. If that doesn’t make sense... well who cares, they sure don’t.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander... There should be no difference.

Jack11803

@TheBean said:

@Jack11803 said:
Because the same feminists who fought for the ability walk around topless, would have their extremist counterparts slam this game for being misogynistic. If that doesn’t make sense... well who cares, they sure don’t.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander... There should be no difference.

Well yeah, that’s just logic. But logic is something some people aren’t especially fans of...

Symbiotic

One the Hag is considered to be a "Wendigo" based monster in which the person is transformed into a creature, and while her gender is a female she has no muscle town or fat it's quite liter just skin and bones, and her skin is decayed and disfigured. So I wouldn't consider her being "breast hanging out"

Sarief

If you need a reason, that is not to break "immersion"
Designers did a pretty good job with their references and keeping it in very atmospheric way.
This would just break immersion of the game from you. You know that

TG_Cid_Orlandu

Dude, if you want to see boobs, you are on the wrong game.

TheBean

@Symbiotic said:
One the Hag is considered to be a "Wendigo" based monster in which the person is transformed into a creature, and while her gender is a female she has no muscle town or fat it's quite liter just skin and bones, and her skin is decayed and disfigured. So I wouldn't consider her being "breast hanging out"

I know, that is how design can get around calling it nudity. It is a creature, however based on a female character, can have breasts showing but not be considered nudity. Then have a shirtless David showing his nipples but not consider that nudity. Doesn't Facebook consider showing nipples against their TOS?... There are some who would consider seeing David's nipples nudity.

@Sarief said:
If you need a reason, that is not to break "immersion"
Designers did a pretty good job with their references and keeping it in very atmospheric way.
This would just break immersion of the game from you. You know that

What they could do is have some form of parental control on it, even though the game is rated 18+. Have placeholder skins for those who might find it offensive or not interested. "Immersion" is just a term interpreted by the player on how they view the game. I could be just as immersed in the game hiding with a shirtless Kate as I could using a black outfit Claudette. Some of the current design outfits could be seen as breaking that "immersion" factor that was created in the earlier days of Dbd.

This is about making more money on skins. I would bet the shirtless David is one of their top sellers. Now don't you think a shirtless or more revealing top for Kate would sell just as much? I think so, and I would bet it would sell even more then a shirtless David. If people could opt out from seeing the nudity then that closes the gap for those who might find it offensive.

@TG_Cid_Orlandu said:
Dude, if you want to see boobs, you are on the wrong game.

It isn't just about seeing boobs. It isn't about sexualizing the game. They are already "sexualized" the game with some of the current outfits. Why not get more revealing? If I have to be subjected to a topless David shoving his nipples in my screen as he heals me, why can't I opt out from seeing that? Why can't I get a shirtless Meg or Kate shoving their nipples on my screen while they heal me?

Jack11803

@TheBean

Shirtless David was added because they know it’d make a mint. Adding topless women, equality maybe, but it would increase the horny teenager part of the player base to the point where all the mature adults would leave.

hMM

@TheBean said:

@Symbiotic said:
One the Hag is considered to be a "Wendigo" based monster in which the person is transformed into a creature, and while her gender is a female she has no muscle town or fat it's quite liter just skin and bones, and her skin is decayed and disfigured. So I wouldn't consider her being "breast hanging out"

I know, that is how design can get around calling it nudity. It is a creature, however based on a female character, can have breasts showing but not be considered nudity. Then have a shirtless David showing his nipples but not consider that nudity. Doesn't Facebook consider showing nipples against their TOS?... There are some who would consider seeing David's nipples nudity.

@Sarief said:
If you need a reason, that is not to break "immersion"
Designers did a pretty good job with their references and keeping it in very atmospheric way.
This would just break immersion of the game from you. You know that

What they could do is have some form of parental control on it, even though the game is rated 18+. Have placeholder skins for those who might find it offensive or not interested. "Immersion" is just a term interpreted by the player on how they view the game. I could be just as immersed in the game hiding with a shirtless Kate as I could using a black outfit Claudette. Some of the current design outfits could be seen as breaking that "immersion" factor that was created in the earlier days of Dbd.

This is about making more money on skins. I would bet the shirtless David is one of their top sellers. Now don't you think a shirtless or more revealing top for Kate would sell just as much? I think so, and I would bet it would sell even more then a shirtless David. If people could opt out from seeing the nudity then that closes the gap for those who might find it offensive.

@TG_Cid_Orlandu said:
Dude, if you want to see boobs, you are on the wrong game.

It isn't just about seeing boobs. It isn't about sexualizing the game. They are already "sexualized" the game with some of the current outfits. Why not get more revealing? If I have to be subjected to a topless David shoving his nipples in my screen as he heals me, why can't I opt out from seeing that? Why can't I get a shirtless Meg or Kate shoving their nipples on my screen while they heal me?

Woah you are really fighting for this to happen

Shadoureon

10/10 would facecamp for sure!