Noble Savage

Btw, that was a really long initial post. Please do we a favor and snip out as much as possible when you reply. Take pity on my old, tired eyes.

Hey, folks. So there's been a lot of talk about how we should or should not handle gender-specific designs in COH costume sets. Let me add a little perspective to start things off, and then let's have some fun with this...


So to begin, a little history: When I first came to work at Paragon a little over 3 years ago, the Magic pack was in production, and it featured a distinct difference between the male (baron/warlock/vampire vibe) and female (sexy witch/sorceress) costumes. The pack's always been a great seller, so artistically, it set a precedent for 2 gender-specific looks in a set. Modern sets like Barbarian and Gunslinger are essentially a continuation.

Why do artists want to approach a costume set this way?
A) When we receive an assignment, the natural instinct is to represent our given theme as fully and broadly as possible. And with historical-tinged sets, that implies a visual difference between males and females.
B) When we receive an assignment, a million ideas occur to us at once, and our inclination is to include as much of that in each set as possible. So for us, it feels like we're giving you more when there's a difference between male and female costumes.

Sometimes I also think that there's a desire on our part to FULLY cover each theme in just one set, and obviously that's impossible when the set carries a super-broad name like 'Magic' or 'Mutant,' for example.


Where we stand now: So over time, it appears that the controversy over this approach has grown. To summarize the entire debate very quickly, players seem to want more gender neutrality/ female applications of traditionally male parts in addition to the female-specific parts. However, from a dev production standpoint, this is time and cost-prohibitive; time spent on males and females must be close to 50-50. So given this reality, the path of least resistance is to drop female-specific treatments and go with gender-neutral applications across the board (and try to sneak in a few female-specific parts here and there).

Personally, I think that's fine, and we can certainly make it work. Is it artistically limiting? Yes, but y'know what? We'll still come up with designs that are equally cool, and if anything, the constraints will simply force us to become more creative. This is a paradigm shift straight up, but if that's what the fans want, then that's what we'll do. Now let's move on...


...to the fun part. At the recent Player Summit, we held a player-driven Costume Set Workshop. The most popular theme from the audience was '50's Retro Sci-Fi,' so we spent the session doodling up some ideas for what might be in such a set, driven 100% by players' suggestions. Here's a pic of what we came up with:



Interestingly, players drew a clear distinction between a spacesuit/Adam Strange kind of look for men and a space go-go dancer/Jetsons/Space Channel 5 sort of thing for women. It's also worth noting that the female-specific look was requested and designed by women.

Because of the historical tinge, the set split naturally into different looks for men and women, even with players 100% behind the wheel.

So you see the dilemma. Say we wanted to make this set for real. Under the new process, both male and female characters would get the spacesuit. Maybe we could work optional rings into the spacesuit and/or make a separate skirt, but something would have to give on the female side, and my guess is that we'd lose the top, haircut, some belts, and boots.


Now I throw it open to you! Let's continue the workshop now here on the forums. In light of the controversy, how would you guys approach this hypothetical set?

--Do we cut out most or all of the female specific design and focus on the spacesuit +accessories?

--Is this an exception to the new rule somehow, and we go with both male and female options as shown in the sketch?

--Is the compromise I proposed (80% spacesuit w/ some female details worked in) acceptable to everyone?

--Or should we stay the course and create separate gender-specific visuals for male and female?

--What other ideas do you have?

As with the Player Summit Costume Workshop, we have no preconceived notions about what should be in this set. So it's all up to you guys. Take the opportunity now to help us define a good rule of thumb for future sets. I'm here to help guide the conversation and tell you when something's technically impossible, but you guys are in the driver's seat for this discussion.

Let's see what we can come up with together.

Some things work better as one-offs, like the Pilgrim's Hat. But some visual themes, like chunky tech, are really rich and full of possibility, to the point where we'd want to devote a whole set to it.

On a related note, some day I hope we do a whole set of say, just guns, or just backpacks. I think those would sell quite well and fill in some gaps in our costume options in one fell swoop. Or maybe a whole themed set of weapons where you get one of each weapon, so that things like claws don't fall by the wayside.

I definitely like the look, but it'd have to fit a theme, y'know? Like the "Colonial Marines costume set" for example. Or perhaps a general scifi set. But like I said, I haven't really had a lot of tech assignments yet, and none for players, so hopefully we can rectify that soon.

Relax, guys. There's every intention to make these fully tintable, with exactly 2 colors that you choose and that's it. But the concept's barely done, and 3D hasn't started yet. Kinda premature to be discussing details of an asset that doesn't exist.

I'm sure the goal is to make them fully tintable. It's really early days on these though, so stay tuned.