Using loinclothes??

[duncan.gill]

Does anyone actually use loincloths on the naked units? Always struck me as being a bit odd - you are playing a game where you regularly enslave civilian populations and cut down fleeing enemies but they you would be a bit concerned about a bit of nudity??

[Hax]

I don't.

However, I believe there are legal things tied to this. However, I do agree on the point that the ESRB ratings and such are very hypocritical. Of course you can have the right to mercilessly slaughter entire populations, but tiny bits of nudity are immediately banned. That's why Oblivion got 16+ instead of 13+.

[Foot]

Some people don't like to play with male genitalia waving about in their face. Enslavement and mass slaughter are common concepts in a game and people are aware that this is so. Non-sexual nudity, however, can be a cause of revulsion in some or just not a welcome addition to a game to another. We add the option because we realise that there are a variety of people out there and we wish to cater to as many as possible.

Also mums might be a bit put-off if they find their young son or daughter ordering fully naked men around a battlefield. Interactive porn or something, right?

Foot

[satalexton]

world's full of hypocrites and soccer-moms, funny how life can make people so stupid...=/

[duncan.gill]

I can understand (and also think that it is a good idea) that the EB team put in the option given the way that some people think - however I also think that it is somewhat odd/sad that there are people out there who think that way.

Why should nudity be more off putting than mass murder? (and yet it is)

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

It's because you are removed from the slaughter. You click a button and thousands of women and children are taken of the population tally. Naked men however, you see showing off their full glory and tangling it in front of your face.

If you saw thousands of people being killed, it might change things, but those keen to shield themselves or their children from 'obscene' things that 1/2 the world has would never accept it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Male genitalia does not seem as bad as massacring entire populations. Having less violence and more sexuality in today's movies would probably be better than having the 300-style senseless, unhistorical gore for 117 minutes straight (watched it while flying on the KLM and quit on about the 30th minute). The movie was just horrible. Nothing but slashing, stabbing and blood for almost entire duration of the flick. Then again, sexual perversion is definitely a useless and negative trait, albeit being less perilous, while violence is vital for variety of professions, soldier being among the most notable ones.

Anyway, I have actually turned on the censoring for one time, just to see how Gaesatae and other nudist/naturist units look with the "culture norms" imposed upon them. The loincloths looked quite fake and unnatural on them - and its not just because I was used to seeing Gaesatae with their nature's gifts flaunted in all their glory . The loincloths looked just as if they were drawn by some government censor. Historical accuracy is what I value the most in EB, being a nerd and a history buff that I am (with graphics and the awesome campaign map in the second place). Sticking loincloths to the naked soldiers is just not historically precise and that corrupts the original EB purpose.

[phonicsmonkey]

....tangling it in front of your face.

Ouch!

[Aemilius Paulus]

Also mums might be a bit put-off if they find their young son or daughter ordering fully naked men around a battlefield. Interactive porn or something, right?

Foot

[Crazed Rabbit]

The whole 'but we slaughter vast populations' comparison is not apt. None of that is shown; the violence shown in game is very subdue compared to real war. Only if people were objecting to the text on the unit card saying "these men don't wear trousers" or whatever would the comparison be appropriate.

Who would want to see their soldiers in game slaughtering and cutting down the pixelated peasants as they ran in terror? No, we don't see that, the game shields us from it, and I don't see people clamoring for being able to see peasants being slaughtered for historical realism.

I don't like films like Saw with gratuitous gore and I'm not keen on having a bunch of naked men running around my monitor either. There's a lot of historically realistic stuff not depicted in the game; it's not like having a loincloth patch is the last bastion of ahistorical content in the game. We're playing a game, there's no need to subject one's self to something you don't want to for the sake of "realism".

CR

[Bellum]

Who would want to see their soldiers in game slaughtering and cutting down the pixelated peasants as they ran in terror? No, we don't see that, the game shields us from it, and I don't see people clamoring for being able to see peasants being slaughtered for historical realism.

It's quite fun in Mount&Blade.

No matter how gratuitous the violence, no matter how real the graphics, no matter how sinister the content, these are not real people who are getting hurt. As long as you understand that, it's all good fun.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh certainly. And good point about M&B...

But even when I know it's not real, like in movies, I cringe when I see a very gory scene.

CR

[TWFanatic]

Oh they are much better than that...

I mean that purely in an artistical sense of course.