Dev Diary #96: Maybe I *should* diet…

[Tsar Monarchist]

I'll just say about this "new" feature... What took you so long?!
I remember this being mentioned when CK2 was about to release, you know, "realistic portraits".

I hope this will work well in game, so not all rulers suddenly go "round" because of this trait

 

[Dragatus]

It was discussed, but unfortunately that is something much harder to represent on CK2 portraits. Aside from the issue of subjective beauty and different beauty standards, there is just a practical problem when trying to "make" an existing portrait pretty or ugly. If the layer is too thick, all pretty characters would look the same (and so the ugly ones), if it's too thin, it might result in giving the opposite effect (making a naturally pretty portrait ugly and viceversa, or causing visual oddities).

Have you considered the possibility of not having a trait to represent physical beauty? The Attractive trait could be renamed into something like Charismatic or Charming, which might give +10 general opinion and +10 attraction opinion instead of +30 attraction opinion.

That way you'd avoid having a clash between what a trait is telling you and the player's subjective perception of beauty while preserving it as useful genetic trait.

And you could then either give a similair treatment to Ugly or it could affect the portrait. You might be able to play with the eyes and nose for that.

 

[Orphalesion]

This is an awesome addition ^-^

I mean it's not somethign that's terribly needed, but a nice option to have and something that ties you more to your character, I am all for more character management.

Though a bit disappointed that the Anglo-Saxons still have the ugly basegame portraits :-(

 

[Cuban]

Are. You. Kidding. Me.

It wasn't enough that this update/DLC includes YUGE changes to the map that everyone's wanted for years, it wasn't enough that you refined and improved crusades, it wasn't enough that we can now customize pagan religions, it wasn't enough that you revolutionized lower Africa, but we ALSO get a solution to the eternally obese family tree!

Bruh. This is shaping up to be the best DLC you've released for CK2. Y'all should be proud of the work, and know that it isn't going unappreciated.

 

[thevmag]

Have you considered the possibility of not having a trait to represent physical beauty? The Attractive trait could be renamed into something like Charismatic or Charming, which might give +10 general opinion and +10 attraction opinion instead of +30 attraction opinion.

That way you'd avoid having a clash between what a trait is telling you and the player's subjective perception of beauty while preserving it as useful genetic trait.

Doesn't it already do that? Consider that you can have Attractive even if you're a potato-faced gluttonous blonde sloth with scars. Whatever your portrait, the people in that place and time consider you to be Attractive, even if you personally don't. So the subjectivity is already accounted for, since it's more arbitrary than tied to any given physical markers.

And you could then either give a similair treatment to Ugly or it could affect the portrait. You might be able to play with the eyes and nose for that.

This, however, would be very much in opposition to subjective attractiveness, and would be enforcing an absolute standard of beauty across all times and peoples

 

[Zayd]

Terrifying face trait:

Funny face trait:

 

[Dragatus]

Doesn't it already do that?

No, it does not.

The key word in the last part of my post that you quoted there is "clash". The game is telling me that a character is Attractive (or Ugly) whether or not I agree. That bothers me. I want characters who are treated as being beautiful or ugly to also look that way to me. And if that isn't possible I want the game to stop telling me whether or not a character is beautiful.

That's why I suggested that the Attractive trait be turned into Charismatic, as charisma often has very little to do with physical beauty. That would get rid of the clash between what the trait is saying and my perception.

 

[thevmag]

No, it does not.

The key word in the last part of my post that you quoted there is "clash". The game is telling me that a character is Attractive (or Ugly) whether or not I agree. That bothers me.

Again, it only clashes because of your standard of beauty. It's not absolute across time, place or peoples. It's not attractive to YOU, but then you're not a courtier in the court of Duchess Potato IV.

By divorcing attractiveness from stats and portraits, any given range of "holy shit this ruler's got bishie sparkles" is allowed. By locking it to your standard of beauty, you're locking it out of mine.

 

[Dragatus]

It clashes because portraits and the Attractive trait have no correlation, not because of my specific standards of beauty. No matter what my standards of beauty are, there are going to be some portraits that I find attractive and some that I find unattractive and which of those are treated as beautiful by the game depends on a trait that is entirely unrelated to the portraits.

If I think duchess Potato IV is ugly I will be bothered if she has the Attractive trait. But if I think duchess Potato IV is beautiful I will be bothered if she doesn't have the Attractive trait. So no matter what my standards are, there are going to be situations where I disagree with what the game is telling me about a character's beauty.

That's why I'm saying there should be no Attractive trait. If there is no trait that describes a character's physical beauty to begin with, I can't be bothered about character having or not having it. I'm certainly not locking anything to my standards of beauty. I honestly don't see how you even got that idea.

 

[thevmag]

It clashes because portraits and the Attractive trait have no correlation, not because of my specific standards of beauty.

But no correlation between portrait and attractive trait is the point. People in different times and places find different things beautiful. An overweight woman could be far more glamorous than a skinny twig that we would take for model-quality. Moles can be the height of sexiness or a hideous blemish. Big lips? Eyebrows? Deathly pallor or swarthy tan? We'll never agree, because attractiveness is nebulous. It can only be true in its contemporary context.

No matter what my standards of beauty are, there are going to be some portraits that I find attractive and some that I find unattractive and which of those are treated as beautiful by the game depends on a trait that is entirely unrelated to the portraits.

Exactly I'm glad you understand.

If I think duchess Potato IV is ugly I will be bothered if she has the Attractive trait. But if I think duchess Potato IV is beautiful I will be bothered if she doesn't have the Attractive trait. So no matter what my standards are, there are going to be situations where I disagree with what the game is telling me about a character's beauty.

Yes yes, you're getting it All about that subjective beauty. The Duchess's court thinks she's more banging than a drum, even if you disagree.

That's why I'm saying there should be no Attractive trait. If there is no trait that describes a character's physical beauty to begin with, I can't be bothered about character having or not having it.

And we're back to it clashing with your definitions of beauty

 

[LeSingeAffame]

The key word in the last part of my post that you quoted there is "clash". The game is telling me that a character is Attractive (or Ugly) whether or not I agree. That bothers me. I want characters who are treated as being beautiful or ugly to also look that way to me. And if that isn't possible I want the game to stop telling me whether or not a character is beautiful.

The game is not centered around you, but fictional characters set in the Middle Ages

 

[Dragatus]

But no correlation between portrait and attractive trait is the point. People in different times and places find different things beautiful. An overweight woman could be far more glamorous than a skinny twig that we would take for model-quality. Moles can be the height of sexiness or a hideous blemish. Big lips? Eyebrows? Deathly pallor or swarthy tan? We'll never agree, because attractiveness is nebulous. It can only be true in its contemporary context.

[...]All about that subjective beauty. The Duchess's court thinks she's more banging than a drum, even if you disagree.

If your point all along was that the lack of correlation between trait and portrait models the subjectivity of beauty standard you should've said so several posts ago instead of going on and on about how beauty standards are subjective.

Because I do get that beauty standards are subjective. I even mentioned it in my first post. But I also disagree that the lack of correlation models that subjectivity. Or at the very least I think it does a shit job of it.

You can have two characters in the same court with the exact same portrait, but one has the Attractive trait and the other doesn't. If one is considered attractive and thus that character's portrait is indicative of what the court considers beautiful, why is the other character that looks exactly the same not considered beautiful too?

Alternatively, if an Attractive character born in Ireland in the year 800 somehow became immortal and traveled the world, that character would still be considered just as attractive by the game in a Mongolian court in the year 1400.

So the lack of correlation leads to people who should be judged the same being judged differently and a character who should be judged differently in two times and places to be judged exactly the same in both. There is no logic and no consistency here.

And we're back to it clashing with your definitions of beauty

Yes. Obviously. Because that's what I care about. I thought I made that clear in my first post. You're free to disagree that there should be any link between trait and portrait, but that's my personal preference.

 

[CorpusCorax]

Indeed, it's not about our subjective notions of beauty but the character we play as. Or more likely court fads. I.e. in Renaissance high forehead was considered attractive (perceived as a sign of intelligence) so ladies often remove hair from it. In Asia was also custom of dyeing teeth black - Ohaguro which would be considered utterly repulsive today. And who knows, maybe future generations would look at some of our customs (i.e. dyeing nails) as repulsive...

EDIT: And should I mention foot binding. That thing was not only gross but horribly harmful too.

 

[Orphalesion]

Indeed, it's not about our subjective notions of beauty but the character we play as. Or more likely court fads. I.e. in Renaissance high forehead was considered attractive (perceived as a sign of intelligence) so ladies often remove hair from it. In Asia was also custom of dyeing teeth black - Ohaguro which would be considered utterly repulsive today. And who knows, maybe future generations would look at some of our customs (i.e. dyeing nails) as repulsive...

EDIT: And should I mention foot binding. That thing was not only gross but horribly harmful too.

And the Ancient Greeks, at least at some point, really liked women with bushy unibrows, to the point that women who didn't have them glued fur between their eyes to simulate them.

 

[Rockphed]

And the Ancient Greeks, at least at some point, really liked women with bushy unibrows, to the point that women who didn't have them glued fur between their eyes to simulate them.

That is too bizarre. Care to provide a source?

 

[Orphalesion]

That is too bizarre. Care to provide a source?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xGFE53T5yd8C&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=Anacreon+eyebrows&source=bl&ots=_VSH3afXpw&sig=FsDzgwF6T8I_rHsfuYF_O--W-Wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj_pO4i6nJAhXDQhQKHY12CwEQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=Anacreon eyebrows&f=false

Well apparently it's a bit more complicated than just "unibrows" they appear to have liked eyebrows where you can't tell whether they are unibrows or not, or that are "almost unibrows".

In any case it probably wasn't universal across the various Greek cultures or time period, since I definitely have seen vase paintings of goddesses with separate eyebrows and the Greeks tended to mostly draw idealized figures, especially when it came to most gods and goddess.

Edit: Here's some paintings of ancient Greek ladies sporting those "almost unibrows"

https://makeupbybarbz.wordpress.com/tag/brows/

 

[Rockphed]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xGFE53T5yd8C&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=Anacreon+eyebrows&source=bl&ots=_VSH3afXpw&sig=FsDzgwF6T8I_rHsfuYF_O--W-Wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj_pO4i6nJAhXDQhQKHY12CwEQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=Anacreon eyebrows&f=false

Well apparently it's a bit more complicated than just "unibrows" they appear to have liked eyebrows where you can't tell whether they are unibrows or not, or that are "almost unibrows".

In any case it probably wasn't universal across the various Greek cultures or time period, since I definitely have seen vase paintings of goddesses with separate eyebrows and the Greeks tended to mostly draw idealized figures, especially when it came to most gods and goddess.

Edit: Here's some paintings of ancient Greek ladies sporting those "almost unibrows"

https://makeupbybarbz.wordpress.com/tag/brows/

Thank you kindly.

 

[Metz]

What about having different levels:

Malnourished
Scrawny
Thin
-average has no trait-
Athletic
Fat
Obese

Also, wealthy counties should have a higher risk of a character over indulging in food. Poor counties can reflect a more austere and harsher lifestyle therefore more of a chance of being either athletic or thin (based on other trait and events), and in times of conflict or famine, being scrawny or malnourished. Warrior-based societies (tribal) should also look down on characters who are either thin or scrawny to lead them. Same for fat and obese characters which shows lethargy and complacency to having raided or taken too much for themselves.

Malnourished pregnant women should also give birth to children with deficiencies and negative traits. It is scientifically backed knowledge that pregnant women who are malnourished can have children who's brains develop less. Children's brains will also not develop fully if they are malnourished. While we are at it, pregnant women with the drunkard trait should have a high percentage of having children with fetal alcohol syndrome. The game is also missing miscarriages and abortion. This will add more options and dynamics to gameplay.

Spoiler

 

[Gurkhal]

Cool feature which will add to the game.

 

[ForgingC]

Nice! Can't wait to see this in game!