selecting which 3d assets to use in game

Ok this is another one from your most praised forum member... But this time, I'm serious right.

Let us say, if someone was to submit artwork which I didn't enjoy or didn't agree with, how would we deal with this as end users with quite a low privilege level? For example should a player be able to select a blanket option to use default artwork or crowd-sourced artwork by him/herself?

I understand the great benefit to you(Devs) which crowd-sourcing provides. However I think that you should also understand that as individuals with many differing opinions, not everyone here is going to see user submitted art under the same light.

Food for thought... Can anyone else understand the above concern at all?

EDIT:

Ok, I was kind of going in a different direction actually.

Lets look at it from this point of view. In the future, someone let us say with green skin and red eyes starts to annoy you. That small annoyance turns into a torrent of rage, you hate that member with every fiber of your being. Let us say that he is a member of the Fellowship(U7 reference look it up kids), and you don't subscribe to the Fellowship you follow the path of the Virutes. Things get worse, the member eventually gets banned from the SotA community, but still has your facebook, twitter, real name, e-mail address and beings to harass you outside of the confines of the game.

Other than being wrong and illegal, I get it, but would you still enjoy a game who's artwork came from such a dweeb like the above, 100% fiction of course... What if the above description included but was not limited to being an animal abuser, or perhpas a massive bigot and homophonic, racist, sexist, or worse?

This issue usually doesn't arise because it is hard to get information on the specific people adding content into a game. However a problem arises with crowd sourcing when you are actually able to determine for a fact that someone like the 100% hypothetical example above is one, two, or more of those things.​

​

Again, not saying that the art itself is objectionable. Just the person who submitted it, and it isn't just art I'm speaking about either.​

​

It could be the best art / music / whatever in the world, but if the theoretical person we're talking about is bad enough then perhaps you wouldn't want to view any content from that user.​

​

Just wondering if the game can provide a basic set of assets and let a player use them.​

​

I don't judge the product, I judge the producer.​

 

I understand the concern. However, from what I gather, they are going to be utilizing crowd sourcing artwork so that they as a dev team can focus on the more major parts of the game. So, while yes, I'm sure they will have some default beds / barrels / sacks to choose from. However, on some smaller assets, e.g., 20 different kinds of plates/bowls/flatware/cup/tankard/pitcher sets... all taken from crowd sourcing, where Portalarium might not have made any of said asset. So, you have 20 choices, all from crowd sourcing, all of which have to be accepted by Portalarium, so I'm confident you won't get blocky triangular plates with a solid color for texture.

 

This is where I'm still at, which is why I haven't submitted anything. Personally, and I expect everyone who submits feels this way, I'm not going to even waste the devs time looking at my crowd sourced artwork unless I feel it's worth being in the game. That's in regard to quality, as for enjoyment you may not enjoy all of the art work the devs do and there is no way to turn that off.

 

The assets the Devs choose to use are not something that need (or should) be decided by popular vote. No offense but that would be ridiculous. There's no guarantee that you're going to like every asset created by the dev team either! Should they post every little model and texture for backer approval? Of course not!

If they like an asset enough to use it in the game then that should be enough for everyone. There may be some exceptions if we can make a solid argument against poor taste but the dev's should have a pretty good handle on that too.

 

I'm going to assume that they will have some quality control in place to ensure that the assets they use are of a consistent quality and aesthetic. Otherwise it'll look a mess.

That would mean that some submissions won't make the cut, but it will also mean that others that may look super awesome taken alone, won't be used either because the style doesn't mesh with the rest of the game world.

 

There will also be some models for example that have too high of a poly count.. like one I plan to submit will probably be too much but we can't decide that.. only the devs can.

 

Do you mean with a toggle like in UO where you can (or could, I haven't played in a few years) switch from 2d to 2.5d? As in switching from a standard setting to a "custom" setting?

 

I'm not worried about this. If the model isn't of the quality that would have been built in-house, I expect it won't be used. And if the artists like it, then I expect it will be used. That's my assumption, of course. But I cannot see it work any other way.

There are some talented artists in this community, I expect this experiment will be quite successful.

 

Ok, I was kind of going in a different direction actually.

Lets look at it from this point of view. In the future, someone let us say with green skin and red eyes starts to annoy you. That small annoyance turns into a torrent of rage, you hate that member with every fiber of your being. Let us say that he is a member of the Fellowship(U7 reference look it up kids), and you don't subscribe to the Fellowship you follow the path of the Virutes. Things get worse, the member eventually gets banned from the SotA community, but still has your facebook, twitter, real name, e-mail address and beings to harass you outside of the confines of the game.

Other than being wrong and illegal, I get it, but would you still enjoy a game who's artwork came from such a dweeb like the above, 100% fiction of course... What if the above description included but was not limited to being an animal abuser, or perhpas a massive bigot and homophonic, racist, sexist, or worse?

This issue usually doesn't arise because it is hard to get information on the specific people adding content into a game. However a problem arises with crowd sourcing when you are actually able to determine for a fact that someone like the 100% hypothetical example above is one, two, or more of those things.

 

I'm not sure how I would know that the artwork came from this individual. And if it made it into the game, then I'm assuming that it met Portalarium's quality standards. So, no. I would not have a problem enjoying the game with this artwork. I really don't think about who makes the art (sorry artists!), but rather I either like the art or I don't.

 

I can sum up that entire scenario with one word. Irrelevant. If someone gets offended by looking at an asset just because they know it was made by someone they don't like.. they've got issues.

 

Again, not saying that the art itself is objectionable. Just the person who submitted it, and it isn't just art I'm speaking about either.

It could be the best art / music / whatever in the world, but if the theoretical person we're talking about is bad enough then perhaps you wouldn't want to view any content from that user.

Just wondering if the game can provide a basic set of assets and let a player use them.

I don't judge the product, I judge the producer.

 

This thread is pointless . I'm subtracting 10 likes from insane. I expect better from u

 

Again. Irrelevant. If the dev's choose to use the art.. that's it. Period. You can judge the creator all you want it just doesn't matter. That's no reason for you or anyone else to give a rip that their art is being used. I understood what you were saying from the beginning.. it doesn't change my response.

 

Well in that case I suppose it is up to the Devs whether to accept art submissions from Hitler or Stalin or Arnauld Amalric or whoever.

 

Hmm. Wasn't Hitler an art student?

 

Do you know what privilege is? I suspect that you do and it seems to me that while you may not necessarily object to a particular offensive person for one reason certainly doesn't take into account... Brace yourself for this one... Just because you have the privilege not to object to a particular offensive person or theme doesn't mean that someone else doesn't. I have blown your mind, I can tell

In the end Richard Garriott is responsible for the product of Shroud of the Avatar at all levels. Considering that, and the obviously decent person that he is, the Devs should hold both themselves and the work that they do to an equally high standard. This includes selecting artwork from unsavory individuals, such as honestly; myself.

 

I shall consider my mind blown.. but not for the reason you think.

 

When I replied to this thread I thought it was mostly on the basis of the virtue of the art submitted, rather than that of the person. When it comes down to the attitudes of the submitters, the discussion takes on a different dynamic. I think the topic needs to be more clear on that point because that leads in to a lot of other things.

 

So what are they supposed to do? Run background checks on everyone who submits assets for the game? Run personality profiles? What if someone's vitriol towards another player who's art is being used is unjustified? And who gets to decide that? What if the asset happens to be a popular player home? How are you going to filter THAT out with a default replacement of some kind? (Which would need to have the exact same floor plan)

Where do you draw the line between what is personally objectionable between two people with no standard of comparison? So a player objects to the use of a griefer's art assets being used. What if the griefer objects? The only way to have a filter is create a default replacement for every crowd sourced asset.. which defeats the purpose of crowd sourcing in the first place. It's either that or you end up with stuff like large glowing boxes that say "missing object/texture" every time you run into assets created by supposedly offensive persons you don't like.

The only way to safe guard against this scenario is simply NOT to crowd source.. anything.