Controversial opinion: I don't like "cosmetic armor" being an option in games
In some games like Terraria or Horizon Forbidden West, you can have a "fake" set of armor on top of your "real" set of armor. The "fake" set defines how your character looks, while the "real" set determines your stats. This isn't a common thing in a lot of games, but in basically any game with different outfits with stats, I hear this being a requested feature. Whenever someone mentions this feature in a comment, people will chime in that it's cool and they wish [insert game here] would add it. The Horizon devs being one example of a studio who heard about this from the community of their first game, Zero Dawn, and added it to the sequel.
I really don't like this, even having it available as an option for single player games. Let me explain...
I think it really ruins the whole point of stat changing equipment in games. A big part of video games with customizable equipment and builds is designing a build and a character appearance that you like. Do you want to be slow with powerful attacks? Do you want to be fast with weak attacks? Do you want balance?
I'd argue that making a set that looks good while balancing the stats is another one of these things that adds to meaningful character creation decisions. Do you take the insane armor, or the really decent armor with worse stats that looks cool? Find a cool hat the character you're roleplaying as totally would wear? Oh, it has worse stats than the helmet you were using... But it weighs less! Maybe you can use a heavier chest plate to compensate for the stats you lost?
This also makes armor that both looks cool and has great stats into very valuable items that players want to get.
Of course for PvP games, having the type of armor that a player has on instantly give away their power level is important. On a Minecraft server, if you see two hostile players, one has leather armor, and the other has full netherite, you know the netherite guy is going to have better gear.
You might think this only matters for PvP games, but not allowing this mechanic in mostly single player games also adds a lot to the game, since you'll likely either see friends play the game or watch videos of other people playing the game. Each armor being intrinsically linked to certain stats creates a link between what you know that armor does and what kind of player would use that armor. In Elden Ring (which also has PvP, but bear with me), if you see someone wearing Bull Goat (the heaviest armor with the best stats), or wearing nothing but a jar on their head (to get worse defense but faster dodge rolls and some buffs to consumable throwing items), that tells you a lot about their play style just looking at their character's appearance. If both of these people could wear whatever armor they wanted and make the functional armor invisible, I would have no idea what build they had.
Using armor that looks good but has bad stats can be a fun flex to show you're good at the game, and choosing to have terrible fashion in exchange for stats is hilarious, as per this ProZD skit. That concept is a fun part of gaming culture I wouldn't want to see destroyed.
why do you care how other people enjoy single player games?????
Please read the whole post, including the second to last paragraph.
yeah sorry this is like saying "I'm so mad Shakespeare gets translated into French, how dare people read him out of the original"
There’s nothing in that question that suggests they haven’t read the whole post. It’s clear why you don’t want to use transmog features. But you can set that limit on yourself. Why should games not allow others to do it in single player games? To me it’s like saying, games should stop offering ranged classes, I only like melee classes.
Your argument against single player games seems to be that it might confuse observers. Why should someone playing their single player run have to change how they enjoy the game just because you don't like it?
So after reading people's responses, I think I'd like to clarify a few things.
I struggle to understand the concern regarding what players do in single player beyond perhaps that money spent creating transmog means money not spent elsewhere. But if the companies are choosing to make transmog, then that implies the audience (demand) for it is large enough to justify that focus.
The focus on profit above all else is why I donate to patreon game devs who, while of course they want to make money, they don't have shareholders' interests in the mix.
Regarding watching a YouTube video of a player fighting a hard boss -- in my experience they will just say what works, e.g., "This boss is easiest when capping out Str and using a 2H sword instead of a 1H/Shield combo with xyz trinket for abc effect".
Regarding community -- is it not possible to find a subset of a community that doesn't include a focus on transmog?
I think I have difficulty understanding as it seems like you want have your preferences but don't want others to have theirs?
Now if you were talking non-single-player games, then I could perhaps understand a bit for example with this video: When your friend ruins the immersion (Viva La Dirt League). But I like transmog, so perhaps not.
Weirdly, I don't think I can even think of a major single-player title that has transmog. The closest thing I can think of that I've played is Baldur's gate, but even that just lets you choose to hide helmets and/or to display a character as wearing their stat-less "camp clothes" all the time instead of their armor.
I think most of the advantages of transmog are actuallg in multiplayer contexts, which is why the feature is more common there. Every single-player game I've played does indeed choose one of OP's two preferred options.
I also don't like the option to turn down the volume in games, because in real life I can't do that either. I also never save and if I die, I never touch the game again. Respawning just completely ruins the balance of a game.
I kid, but level with me here. You don't have to use this system, in fact, no one forces you to. You can play Horizon without using the transmog system (which is what this is called in games generally), just like you can play Skyrim without using fast travel if you feel like it. It's completely up to you. I don't much care about looks when I play a game personally, so I don't use it either, but I'd never campaign for removal just because it's not for me. If we went like that, I'd also have to remove... hm, let's see... Alchemy from Skyrim, the Ice Monkey from Bloons, Freighters from No Man's Sky, Windblash from Dishonored, Fishing from Stardew Valley and about half of Persona 5. I'm glad that's there regardless, even if I don't much interact with any of those systems.
I play OSRS and used to play mainline Runescape. I liked the way they implemented cosmetic overrides in the mainline game. You can override your appearance with any wearable item you actually own, and thats what will show up on your normal appearance. But if you go into a PvP game, the overrides disappear so other players can see your actual equipment.
I think one benefit of overrides is that due to meta, a lot of players tend to use the same equipment because thats just understood to be the best setup you can use at that level. Having people be able to override lets different characters be more easily distinguishable regardless of what build or playstyle you are going with.
Yeah, honestly this seems like a sensible balance to strike to me. But given that OP is against cosmetic armor even in single-player games, I think it's unlikely they'd approve of such a system.
Damn, I never thought of this. I guess it is kinda nice to see some variety and not just everyone running around in fighter torso + fang
I really like the leagues overrides we get.
I don't think that it's true to say a player's ability to choose not to engage with a game system is just as good as not having the system there.
Having to form and choose to impose the rule, and then playing through a 60 hour game while constantly having the option to break one's self-imposed rule only a click away, is going to be a very different experience than not having the system implemented in the first place. It takes self-control that someone might find draining, or at least not particularly fun, in the same way that spending hours deliberately not purchasing digital goods from a game that wants to sell them to you can be not fun. At some points you might even be fighting the UI's recommendations in the same way.
And if the developers didn't design the gear mechanic to actually have interesting trade-offs between looks and effects, because they expected the player to be able to mix and match, then whether imposing the rule or not actually results in a fun mechanic is going to be fairly random.
If someone wants to have an experience of trading off looking cool against other gameplay aspects, the best way to enjoy that experience is going to be in a game that is designed and playtested to be played like that, and where the software enforces the rule for you.
Maybe to please the most people you could have cosmetic armor be part of the difficulty settings?
Honestly, though, this is one of the strongest arguments against OP's assertion that every single game should not allow cosmetic armor. Unless a game is designed to have actual interesting tradeoffs there, it's not adding anything to the game to limit characters in this way. "You need to decide between aesthetics and mechanics when it comes to your character's appearance" is not a good design fit for every game, and even in games where it is a good fit, it needs to be implemented sufficiently well.
Off topic, but I'm curious about your take on the ice monkeys. I haven't done Bloons in a while, but I do recall them being pretty useless.
tbh I think I may have seen this video first from tildes but just in case not & you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkaUMpM4ZII
Ha! That is hard core programming. Thanks for the link!
Hey, you keep your grubby hands off my freighter! 😂
This is one of those things that you are welcome to opt out of participating in, but it really makes a huge difference for many people. I think it's important to remember that everyone has different expectations when they play videogames, including how their characters look. Some enjoy a more realistic connection between the visual armor/build and play style, and pick sensible combos alone the lines of heavy armor and swords. Others enjoy the contrast of a scantily clad waif wielding a massive hammer. And some of us just want to be able to dress up our characters in the most goofy outfit possible without having to hamstring the build and our effectiveness at the game. Ultimately, people are playing for their own enjoyment.
Being able to visually identify opponent builds in competitive games is a fair argument. I know Monster Hunter (admittedly pve instead of pvp) lets you look at other player's sets and see the actual armor pieces being worn under the layered armor. That seems like a decent balance between in-game fashion and identifiable information
The thing is though, stat changing equipment comes from tabletop role-playing games, which don’t have graphics. And these tabletop games would go onto inspire lots of different video games which would incorporate stat changing equipment as a pretty central design feature. And even in the early days, it was pretty uncommon for these games to change character appearance based on equipment. And even once technology reached a point where this sort of thing became more practical, sub genres had already formed where such a thing would be undesirable like in classic formula JRPGs which heavily rely on detailed narratives and well-designed characters. Maybe things have changed in the past few years but in my experience even in the modern day you rarely see equipment modifying character appearance in JRPGs except for maybe the weapons or maybe a secret item set or something.
I guess all this is to say that there have always been lots and lots of games that have had this mechanic that lacked this supposed “big part”.
I guess the deeper analogy here is that you no longer act in the world with its rules, but rather, you facilitate what the player of a character wants in that world. I dislike that too. It essentially turns the world into one big amusement park for players to roam around in instead of understanding what the world is like.
From a capitalistic point of view, there is money to be made by catering to the players. To an artist there is a message, feeling, expression or experience to be shared.
That's a very hyperbolic statement. There are a million other steps between transmogs and turning a world into a blob without any rules whatsoever. It's also very arbitrary. No game ever made is a one-to-one copy of reality. No game will ever be. There are a lot of "rules" devs bend or simply ignore. By the same logic, you could argue that since combat in games isn't one-to-one replica of how physics works, then this turns the world into an amusement park. After all, "rules" are bent to allow people to have more fun here, too. Why not apply the same logic? It's a completely arbitrary line that only seems more profound than it is because of history of games, where transmogs appeared later.
In addition, if we're going to make an ideological critique, I could argue that mandating the artist's vision as the sole source of meaning in art, without consideration for player agency, is anti-democratic. I could add that it is a relic of the modernist era that sees art and culture as a top-down creation of the elite that the less-than-enlightened masses should absorb without any input from themselves, rather than a process where the meaning is a co-creation of both the artist and the audience.
For clarification, I'm comfortable with some games choosing not to implement transmogs, such as From Software games. But for the vast majority of RPG games (the main genre I play), I very much prefer their existence, because I like creating and dressing characters without worrying about stats. And despite the criticisms, games are a co-creation of both the devs and the audience. It's actually arguably the art form where audience input matters the most. I can't think of any other art form that is so dependent on the opinions of the audience, or any other art form where audience has so much agency.
solid arguments! Hadn't thought of it that way. But yes, I do fall into a somewhat black and white thinking lately. Thank you for enlightening me.
Thanks for your feedback! And I just shared my two cents, certainly not an expert on the topic.
For further clarification, I can see the merit in designing a game around the no-transmog system, like From Software does, and there's an argument to be had about the pros and cons of each approach. I focused on the negatives in my comment, because I thought your comment was -in your words- a bit too black-and-white (and the exemplary status piqued my interest in a criticism). But I definitely do not think one approach is better than the other in all contexts.
For example, I play a lot of MMORPGs with good customization options, and I'd hate to be restricted to best-in-slot gear visuals. I spend a great deal of time with my characters--I get attached to them, I write stories about them, I collect transmogs, I think about how to modify their appearance. Simply put, I put a lot of effort into their appearance. In this case, a transmog system is so much better, because it allows me to have so many more options to choose from.
On the other hand, in Dark Souls games, in PvP, the visuals of the other player gives a lot of info about their build, which you then use to decide on a strategy. I think for DS games no-transmog is better, because they have fewer players going around, you spend less time with a single character, and the game is slower paced. These and probably others factors would make a transmog system the worse option.
So I think the pros and cons of this system depends on the genre of the game and the individual game design choices.
I don't really care, except to remove helmet in dialogue and cut scenes. I always cringe when Kingdom Come Henry talks to other people with his visor down.
I think I do agree with you to some extent, but I also see the other perspective, especially for more casual games.
In Elden Ring, I actually really like the fact that I can’t have a cosmetic armor set - it made me choose whether I wanted my armor for looks or mechanics (which is itself a mechanic/gameplay element). Even though it’s a single player game, I think the lack of a separate cosmetic slot does add a gameplay element that is interesting for me.
For more casual games, like Terraria, I think having a purely cosmetic armor set is nice, since it doesn’t have as much of an effect on gameplay and most armors are just strict upgrades.
Same thing in an MMO like Guild Wars 2, where there are so many armor items, most are strict upgrades, and the gameplay has a lot going on, even in PvP, that I don’t think you’d really be able to make out an opponents armor set by looks anyway. So I don’t mind the transmutation allowing for a different cosmetic/armor combo.
Alternative angle to view this from:
In the "real" world (one, where you can afford armor and need it), you can have your sets tailored, colored, designed, and reformed to be how you want to it to look and feel.
In games, this isn't possible unless you are an insane dev, so trasmog is a nice in-between. Think of it as just taking your equipment to the tailor. Everyone has a style they prefer, colors, how it looks against your form, feels in combat, this is just one way to ensure your armor sticks to your aesthetic and needs. Sure, you could dye it yourself, but that's easy, tailoring is a whole other thing that requires a careful hand.
As a player, in the real world, I just like to see a character that looks sick af. If I were reading this as a book I wouldn't imagine myself in some found-on-the-ground mismatch of armor, I would think of myself as a benevolent god of style everywhere I went.
I'm with you, but purely from a world building perspective. Fancy cosmetic armour just brings me out of the experience.
Personally, it began with the styles of Square games around the time of Finally Fantasy X when what characters were wearing couldn't possibly protect them from the kind of attacks they were sustaining. Aside from the visual style, having a super high number of choices makes everything you find just that much more unimportant and only a reflection of its stats rather than its actual material and or its importance as a tool that you aspire to get, work for and wear for a long period.
As creators, I do wonder how they justify a thousand different types of armour and weapon into the worlds they create without it feeling more like a neverending game of dress-up at a costume store than some serious story in a grounded fictional world.
I think it is ideal in some games and a lesser evil in other games.
I play a lot of ARPGs. A well designed one will allow for a variety in builds, which will lead to a lot of random gear. Allowing you to change the appearance of an item allows you to have the best gear possible, that you already spent a lot of time grinding and a "cool look" if that's important to you. If I had to grind gear that was both BiS and cool looking together it would just drive me crazy and take more grinding. I don't think it adds any fun and probably adds complexity for devs.
For games with cosmetics, I'll take visual only skins over Pay to Win mechanics or paying to remove grinding. I won't buy them, but other people will. I'm happy to let whales help fund games I enjoy.
I feel that appearance items are a necessary evil. Many games gravitate toward a "best in slot" armor, and if it's a multiplayer game, that means that the majority of people are running around with a limited number of armor options. The lack of variety is maddening without cosmetic items, and the vast, vast majority of players aren't going to be 1% less effective just to look better.
I used have the same opinion (to a certain extent).
I love monster hunter a lot, and to me its endgame is building crazy sets with all the skills you want for a particular weapon. And to do that, you'd probably have to make an armor set with parts from different monsters, meaning you'd look UGLY.
In the earlier games I enjoyed loading into the mutiplayer hubs and just looking at other people's armor - if I saw a crazy mishmash of disjointed-looking armor I knew that you're just as enthusiastic about this game as I was. So I really liked that sense of (weird) community.
But in the newer games, they added layered armor (essentially transmog). And I refused to use it until the next game. I succumbed, but now I can have my fun armor sets AND look amazing at the same time. While I do miss some aspects of having no transmog, I ultimately am converted.
I like the idea of layered armour more than actually using it. I don't normally layer in monster hunter.
Usually the only exception is some kind of layer on the head piece, spectacles, or something to remove the stupid helmet and let me see my hunter.
Can't comment on the single player aspect but I will say that things like WoW has taken it way too far. I mostly don't mind transmog, and maybe I am old and bitter, but you used to be able to judge someone's ability from the way they looked. Did they have the latest tier set? Well that's how you knew that they were a badass! Though it does feel bad when your BiS items has off-set pieces which make you look awful, which can be seen on some of the classic variant servers.
Nowadays it's become so unrestricted that you'll see someone running around in silly pink gear with hearts on it from a valentine's day event. Some will run around in their underwear because you can make all your armor invisible. There are even people that bought the €20 murloc pajama costume... They can do what they want to do, but it really ruins my immersion of the game when people run around looking like such clowns.
And don't even get me started on the 1000+ mounts that look bigger and bigger and badder and badder...
As a long time WoW player I can understand where you’re coming from, but with how minmaxy and obsessed with wearing the absolute best gear possible that community has become I feel that no transmog would be detrimental to the game.
If things were like how they were back in Vanilla where only the top 2% that formed cutting edge raiding guilds cared about that and more “normal” players had more slack, I might agree. Unfortunately that mentality dominates all but solo play in WoW now, and it would really suck to be forced to spend most of your time playing wearing gear you hate the appearance of simply because doing otherwise is a massive faux pas.
Tangentially, in the long term I think MMOs as a category need to get away from the hyperoptimization craze if they’re to survive as anything more than a tiny niche. That kind of restriction on gameplay gets to be stifling.
Like I said, I mostly don't mind it. I just think it's been taken way too far and become too silly. There needs to be restrictions in some ways, but no, you certainly should not be forced to wear stuff you hate the look of. And yes I also think that the min-maxing optimization is a really annoying aspect of the community but I wouldn't know how to fix it.
What about Lies Of P then? How do you feel about that?
Your defensive capabilities are denoted by parts which are essentially replacement or upgraded parts of your puppet frame, and your exterior looks are the clothes you wear over them.
Essentially there is no armour as such.
I hear what you're saying, but what if there were just a setting "[ ] Show cosmetics"?
I'll have controversial opinion on this controversial opinion.
Why wpuld I care about cosmetics? I just won't use them myself.
The thing is they took somebody's time to make. That somebody could have made something other or make something that is already made a bit better or make quality checks or some other useful stuff instead of these cosmetics. The thing is - I pay for it even though I don't use it.
Maybe make it a DLC? You want to dress your character over the standard armor? Then pay for it.
Or You can do what was already done and what I see and use in this game I play now called Morrowind (I play via OpenMW, to be exact) and the thing is - you can wear cosmetic stuf over your armor and this cosmetic stuff can be enchanted making it useful cosmetic stuff!
I personally found it disappointing that Dark Souls spent all their money on the action RPG elements, and that they focused on the bits that are hard, and they didn't spend it on monster collection elements and a Pokemon license...
I'm stretching, there's some nuance, to some extent I don't think the line of questioning is necessarily useless. But I find it's really delicate arguing media should have, or even could have, done something it didn't. The media is the media, the art is it. Whether you like Sonic Adventure 2 or not, it's a game with five different gameplay loops - that's what it's always was, and is going to be, y'know? They could've taken out kart racing and made it so you can't skip the flame ring by homing attacking the wall in Cannon's Core? I guess? Or they could've added Big the Cat back in, and a character creator, and a support system where you marry Sonic and Tails and get an abomination child out of it. And since I'm starting to accidentally describe Sonic Dreams Collection, there's the game to play instead if you were, uh, looking for that.
We can all play hypothetical game dev with our magic keyboards and magic wallets, but I don't think it really does much of anything to talk about. (Where the "too much" line is, I'm not sure. Save-corrupting bugs, maybe let's regroup?)
https://x.com/DOOM/status/1187480003635744768
Sparing anyone else going to the hellsite
"You control the buttons you press" tweeted by Doom (the game)