Web Char Creator Discussion

that needs to go into my signature i think

 

Snails aren't an asexual race. An asexual race reproduces, wait or it, asexually.

There is an entire species of lizard that does this, several insects are known to do it as well. Asexual races tend to be entirely female, there are no males, otherwise they would produce sexually.

Your example of the snail is irrelevant when mentioning asexual species. You should instead mention Hydras which typically reproduce via budding that requires no sexual partner, or even binary fission in bacteria.

 

i'm sorry, i meant hermaphrodites. i'm pretty tired. my point still stands, if i interpreted "unisex" the right way (what is an "unisex-gender" anyway?)

 

Unisex species tend to all be female. The more complex species, such as the lizard example I gave use parthenogenesis that turns an unfertilized egg into a zygote using only the DNA of the individual.

 

I miss my biology classes.

 

False, they produce milk after childbirth.

 

Exactly, I'd say nourishing our young in their early years is a pretty damn practical purpose.

 

He meant that the SIZE of the breasts serves no practical purpose, other than to attract males. Small breasts are perfectly functional and don't cause back pain.

 

Oh then he should specify as such, because the way he phrased it, it sounded a lot like he believed breasts didn't do anything whatsoever. Also, even if he believed breasts only attracted males, he'd still be incorrect in saying they have no practical purpose. Clearly the practical purpose is that they attract males, allowing the female to pass on her genes. Many of which are probably beneficial for the species seeing as her breasts are amazing.

 

that's why i said "their size", as in "female apes breasts produce milk too, but they are barely bigger than than their male counterpart"

i did, look at the brackets.

 

Oh, then see the rest of my post as it explains why size still has a practical use.

 

hey i like the creator, seems simple enough, but lots of customization.



i just want to be sure that my brother and i can play as apex and avian as a Mordecai and Rigby thing

 

you get me wrong there. one gets accused of beeing this ofthen when you say "gay" i dont want my character to look gay. thats the point. Even if hes asexual, i dislike playing effeminate characters. Gay is the best way of discribing it.
Yess it is a rather defensive way of putting it, but dont blame that on me.
Male bodies are more practical for an asexual species, the female body is not too different from the male one besides the reporductive organs, the fact of the matter is that the male body has less reproductive organs that are impractical for survival as an asexual.
My own opinion is by no menas wrong and i doubt i implied that. I just explained why i think that way. That doesnt mean i think its wrong.
To me, an androgynous character looks gay. And i dont want my character to look gay. I simply put out why that is. As an explanation.

 

My suggestions on character creator.

1. Show somewhere (like in between <> arrows, or between part name and arrows) a number corresponding to your choice, if there are a number of presets. So, by default human male "shirt" with grayish jacket and red (if no colors were changed) should be accounted as #1, and one with black jacket and cyan shirt as #2, et cetera.

2. There are many clothing choices with two colored elements, but only one of them can be changed now. This is suboptimal. So, "shirt color 1" could change the color of shirt, while "shirt color 2" could change the color of jacket. Similar thing with pants and boots, or other races' clothing elements.

3. Make it possible to lock certain choices for selective randomization. For example, I may like some specific combination of hair style and color and skin color, but I want to randomize my clothing completely.

4. Please, please, please, pretty please consider to include either (large) pallete to select colors from or (much better) a way to place RGB values / select from full RGB/HSB pallete. And yes, if players want to play their humans with cyan or bright magenta skin, they probably should be able to. Or, if you don't want it to go this way, you may include partial palletes for skin, hair, fins and whatever else, but make it possible to select color for clothing without any restrictions.

It is pretty obvious, but still, my suggestion on layout design of pallette. Instead of "hair color <>" there should be "hair color [ ]", where "[ ]" is a square in selected color, probably with contrast (white) border to make dark tones visible. When player clicks on this square, pallete opens underneath all current selections, above "create character" button.

 

Umm, ok? I was trying to let you know that it's not really cool to go around conflating identities like asexual, androgynous and feminine and lumping them all together as "gay". Don't blame you? You are the one saying these things; take responsibility for your own words. Society messes everyone up, no exceptions. But looking at that, and just throwing your hands up in the air in defeat is no way to deal with that. That's my two cents, but let's just not talk about this anymore, and stop derailing this thread.

 

Its quite nice and it feels pretty smooth tho i would love more options when it comes to clothing and such.
My fish fella looks pretty nice tho
<-----

 

I'm not going to accuse of homophobia because personally I don't like playing effeminate characters, (although not for the same reason) but rather than use the word "Gay" you could instead just say feminine. Moving on.

Having male reproductive organs would be pretty detrimental to an asexual species as well, seeing as asexual reproduction for complex organisms requires female reproductive organs. In terms of practicality and the human form, an asexual species would have the male form and female reproductive organs.

 

I have no intentions of playing a floran but I can understand why some people feel that the males are too feminine. (with the options that are currently available) Personally, when I create a character I prefer to create a character that is the same gender as myself so even if said character is technically asexual or genderless I'm still going to want them to have a feminine appearance. If any of the female races did not have a feminine appearance I would be very turned off from that race/species and it's reasonable for someone to feel the same way about the masculinity of a race as well.

 

I would like to see more shirts for humans and maybe some more hairstyles, I would like to see more pants for avians, maybe a color wheel as suggested before, numbering the styles as suggested before, of course naming and "personality" as confirmed before. And I also think that the female humans look unnaturally skinny. but as long as I can put a name on my character, starbound will still be an awesome game.

 

Well they are inherently feminine in appearance as an asexual race so lacking masculinity doesn't sound wrong for me.
The reason they gave the planties 'genders' is because it would essentially mess up the fact that each race has a "male" and "female". But still, that doesn't change the fact that they are still asexual and dominant in femininity in appearance.
In contrast, however, the fact that they gave it a 'masculine' body as a choice is enough of a reason to add masculine features as well. I get that.

But I do agree, more hair diversity is always better. Robots have a ton of head modifications. The other races should, as well.

In fact, I'm hoping for more androgynous head modifications for the florans rather than male or female, considering they are in fact, androgynous.
Of course, this is simply my opinion as a concept artist. I'm more concerned about the outcome of the race itself in terms of how the consumer views them as, rather than the consumer's preferences on what they would want to play as.