kingdeath Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 O.K. one final kick at the cat..... All answers here are moot!!!! none of us can say for sure why they did not add nudity, I do not work for Beth and I'm pretty no one here does, so no one can give a definite answer !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saratje Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Because Bethesda knows their games are mod-able enough for players to make such content. That way Bethesda can save face in front of investors and other companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Boy that was a long read.Way back when Oblivion released there were nipples on the textures of the women, before release the ESRB said they wouldn't allow it, so they added in the perma-underwear. The original idea was to release the game with nudity. When someone in the modding community figured out they could remove the permagarments the ESRB shut it down pretty quickly, making Bethesda remove the textures altogether.I think, keep in mind this is 6 years ago now, that it was due to the fact that you can strip a body and manipulate it, move it or position it. Something you can't do in God of War, Duke Nukem or Dante's Inferno. They did not want to create any sexual deviants in the way of necrophiliacs. Don't quote me on that though, as it has be quite a long time. The articles on it may still be in archives available somewhere. I think Pete Hines talked on it after the ESRB cracked down on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyiul Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Because Bethesda knows their games are mod-able enough for players to make such content. That way Bethesda can save face in front of investors and other companies. However this argument fails if modders try to create new female monsters from scratch like the Lamia/Medusas as stated in this thread. Nudity shouldn't always be for PC characters you know. I think, keep in mind this is 6 years ago now, that it was due to the fact that you can strip a body and manipulate it, move it or position it. Something you can't do in God of War, Duke Nukem or Dante's Inferno. They did not want to create any sexual deviants in the way of necrophiliacs. Don't quote me on that though, as it has be quite a long time. The articles on it may still be in archives available somewhere. I think Pete Hines talked on it after the ESRB cracked down on it. I think the developers failed on that one because it apparently didn't stop sickos anyway as shown below.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvx0l_tVEw I guess their argument is irrelevant anyway when they added beheadings in the game that made this possible which is rather hypocritical in some way. Edited June 18, 2012 by Gyiul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyiul Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) double post sorry Edited June 18, 2012 by Gyiul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InuyashaFE Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Because Bethesda knows their games are mod-able enough for players to make such content. That way Bethesda can save face in front of investors and other companies. However this argument fails if modders try to create new female monsters from scratch like the Lamia/Medusas as stated in this thread. Nudity shouldn't always be for PC characters you know. What does not having the proper skeleton for a vaguely related creature have to do with nudity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyiul Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) What does not having the proper skeleton for a vaguely related creature have to do with nudity? Because Medusas are topless hence 'nude' in Daggerfall. If modders can't create new enemies by scratch only Bethesda can because they have the source code then this exactly my point why Bethesda needs some courage to add nudity in the games again like in Daggerfall because Medusas, Nymphs, etc are perfect examples of nudity done right. It's also serves my other main point that the "Let modders handle it" argument is invalid when situations like this comes up like what if somone is doing a Daggerfall style mod? Edited June 18, 2012 by Gyiul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlRocks Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Well, I don't see why preliminary nudity is required to make a Daggerfall style mod. Nudity is a mesh and texture edit. All Bethesda needs to do is modify the engine to be more open in that aspect. I agree it sucks we can't truly add new enemies, but whether Bethesda makes them nude or not doesn't matter. Open up the engine to allow for new enemies and animations in a similar way to how items/statics are handled, and you can add whatever you want. And if they didn't do that and let's say they only added Medusas, just for example, and they weren't nude, there is nothing stopping anyone from modifying that to begin with. You can go modify Spriggans right now and give them wooden nipples if you wanted. Yes, this means it's up to the modders to do it, as has been said, but if it weren't up to the modders to do it to some extent, then basically that means Bethesda needs to add every single thing we want, as we want it, to begin with. You can't please everyone, which is why opening up the engine and letting modders pick and choose is the best way for this to work for everyone. But in the end, these are two issues which don't have anything to do with each other. The only way to relate them is by assuming everyone gets nude enemies (and believe it or not, a lot of people don't care or flat out do not want that), and Beth opens a gigantic can of worms, so that the ones who truly do want them can be pleased and not have to work for it. Edited June 18, 2012 by AxlRocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts