Talk:Breast physics

Two things that might be worth researching

• One of the 12 basic principles of animation is exaggeration, and another is follow through and overlapping action - have any RSs written about VG breast physics in relation to these?
• Is there any information about VG breast physics in 2D animation? Fatal Fury 2 is called the first game where it is a "notable feature", and there are some 2D games listed under "Games with exaggerated breast physics", but the article only goes into specifics on 3D animation.

--IDV^talk 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor article:

Generally poor article, and may be non-notable. It relies HEAVILY on trash sources like Kotaku (group blog at best). Complex looks pretty low quality as well. Article might be better off as a few lines in other articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree for the most part. The article is pretty well put together right now, with its layout and prose working well (I'm not sure about the list of games at the bottom, though...) The sources are indeed a bit weak (though strong enough, as they all fall in WP:VG/R). Doing a Google News search on the topic brings up a lot of mentions, though. It's clearly something that needs to be defined. Plenty of sources aren't in use, though, like this Wired article or this... Fox News article?? There's definitely some good reason to expand this article, but I don't see why we would need to remove information. Unless you want to say that the information is inaccurate? ~Mable (chat) 08:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Maple. The article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Constant use of the word "exaggerated" and implications that this is intentional and not just a result of hardware constraints and budgeted resources. the entire "exaggerated breast physics" section could be removed at no detriment to the article itself, especially since its only linked source is an opinion piece from a blog. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides the point that a character design doesn't accidentally get overly large and bouncy breasts (I mean, that technically happened to Lara Croft, but even there the designers looked at it and thought "let's do this". It was not a hardware constraint). Large or bouncy breasts are often part of a more cartoony artstyle, and are generally more difficult to implement. Surely you're not suggesting that these breasts aren't exaggerated? I believe that is a perfectly neutral word to use here. As for that specific section... I'm not entirely sure either. I think distinguishing from breast physics in general and the exaggerated breast physics in games like Dead or Alive is key and important. I think the list of games may be the biggest issue myself, as it's a fairly arbitrary selection mostly based on a single listicle. I do like to note that Kotaku has been discussed plenty of times over at WP:VG/S and is considered a reliable source. ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware that opinion blogs are now regarded as reliable sources for videogames when they're not acceptable anywhere else on Wikipedia. My mistake. In that case, since reliable sources all violate WP:NPOV, I'm going to have to say this article shouldn't really be considered notable. There's no empirical data in any of the sources presented here, just opinions that are accepted as fact because a subcommunity has decided they're okay as long as they push their agenda. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As for what is and isn't constituted as a reliable source, I recommend going to WP:VG/S and bringing any issues you find up there. It's useful to keep all such discussions in one place, for easy future reference. As for your "empirical data" comment, I think it's useful to keep in mind that most encyclopedic topics are not founded by "raw data", but rather cultural findings. I am not sure what aspect of this violates the neutral point of view. The opinion of developer Tim Dawson has been properly attributed, and the first paragraph of this section seems fairly non-controversial to me. Are you claiming that the breast physics such as seen in the top image of this article are not exaggerated (and thus close to realism)? If so, I would love to see sources backing your stance up. ~Mable (chat) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure any complaints I filed over there will be drowned out by people who prioritize their feelings over keeping Wikipedia impartial and accurate. I never thought I'd see Wikipedia editors of all people defend blogs as a reliable source, but here we are. Regardless, the use of "exaggerated" to describe the Street Fighter V gif is not inaccurate, nor did I ever make that claim as this discussion has been about the section at the bottom of the article, where other games are called out for "exaggerated" physics. When describing SFV, the word is not inaccurate as the developers themselves clearly stated the physics were functioning incorrectly - thus "exaggerated" compared to what the "normal" physics were supposed to be. As others have pointed out, using this to describe games where the breast physics are presumably functioning as intended is opinionated and an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. It implies that the developers are intentionally making the breast physics exaggerated versus, rather than what is actually the case (that technology has not developed far enough to have "realistic" breast physics in real-time action games). There is technology available for realistic breast physics, but it requires intensive processing power and thus is rarely used in videogames (much like realistic liquid physics or realistic lighting effects). In fact, 3D animations utilizing these effects often end up with more "jiggling" than current standard breast physics in games do - which is why the use of the word "exaggerated" takes on a non-neutral connotation especially when the hilariously irrelevant video of a flat-chested ballet dancer - who lacks breasts almost entirely - as a real life example of breast jiggling keeps being re-added to this article. I have nothing against Kotaku as a source as long as a researched news article is being used and not an opinion-based blog piece, which is against Wikipedia's rules and spirit regardless of consensus of a splinter group. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We're in an awkward position here, because I don't believe the word "exaggerated" has the non-neutral connotations you are describing. It just makes me think of something moving more than it usually would. The section actually points out that this effect is sometimes/often unintentional and describes why it may happen. Looking at the section again, I think "unnatural breast physics" may actually be a better title for the section, in order to also capture the "jiggling" effect you described. I still believe that the word "exaggerated" is neutral and should remain in the prose. ~Mable (chat) 15:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Exaggerated" implies that they're intentionally or erroneously. "Unnatural" is an apt, neutral descriptor and should replace it in any instance where it's used in this article outside of describing the Street Fighter V beta images. In addition, the list of games is wholly unnecessary and just comes off as an admonishment to me. The entire section still seems a bit impartial and I believe it should be left off the article until sources can be found that more neutrally discuss the topic, preferably with quotes from reliable sources such as programmers who can explain the inner workings of the code and why they're that way - be it because they're intentionally made to look unnatural, or if it arises as a result of compromises/spaghetti code/etc. As it stands, we're just parroting opinions from a Hernandez article that doesn't elucidate upon the topic at all beyond their subjective opinions as a journalist. What's especially baffling here is that the Kotaku source actualy does contain quotes from researchers explaining these sorts of things - yet none of it is used in the Wikipedia article. If you're going to insist on using this article as a source, all the information in it should be presented, and not just a few random opinions. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are at an impasse regarding the neutralness of the word "exaggerated", and we'd need some outside opinions on that. I am getting a bit confused here, though: you believe parts of the Kotaku article are reliable and other parts aren't? That's generally not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. When it comes to interviews and such material, the interviewer and editor (Hernandez in this case) has an enormous impact. The reliable source-status of Kotaku also "proves" that the quotes aren't made up. Either this article is reliable, or it isn't. You don't believe Hernandez' research into this topic is accurate, yet you are alright at quoting the people she is quoting? I personally think that the section currently gets to the core of the Kotaku article, but if you believe that more detail should be added, then I can't tell you anything else than "go ahead". ~Mable (chat) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What are the parts of the Kotaku article that we could use but aren't? What text exactly is lacking in our article? - "Exaggerated" seems to fit better than unnatural because "unnatural" is less descriptive; it could mean that the bouncing is inverted in direction or some such thing, while "exaggerated" conveys that the breasts generally bounce as expected, just much more strongly.  Sandstein  16:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, the section detailing the way animators often use real-life examples of movement to create animations, and how it's difficult to pinpoint the exact way a breast should jiggle, so instead cheaper solutions such as the spring method (which is mentioned in the article) are used instead as female animators are quite uncommon in the industry (according to the article itself) this is all entirely absent, giving this article a feeling that it's just focusing on animators that choose to use exaggerated physics purely to titillate the audience rather than those that throw in acceptable physics for slight realism that won't seem unnatural unless scrutinized closely, which is what most games use. Again, many games, even some of the ones listed in this article, have breasts that "jiggle" less than actual breasts of equivalent size and restraint would in reality, yet these are lumped in as being "exaggerated" when the opposite is true. This is why "unnatural" fits better and is more of a neutral term. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If there are reliable sources stating that there are no or few cases in which breast wobbling is intentional or exaggerated, then by all means let's cite them. But as it is we only have reliable sources stating the opposite.  Sandstein  09:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now integrated content from the Wired and Fox news articles, thanks, Mable!  Sandstein  09:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.

Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.

In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content. Sweetpizza (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A flat-chested ballerina does not make a good counterpoint

Instead of the completely irrelevant video of the ballerina, is there not a video of a big-breasted woman in action to show the actual difference between breast physics and reality? I'm scratching my head over the inclusion of that video, honestly.

Well, is there a freely licensed video of a big-breasted woman in action? If there is, we can certainly discuss its inclusion.  Sandstein  11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because there's no freely licensed alternative to the current video does not mean the current video should remain. It would be helpful to include a freely licensed video similar to https://giphy.com/gifs/jumping-rope-dazzling-MiEhS8S20SQUg if one can be found. 2605:A000:CA01:E300:4014:A88E:52D8:5C71 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. the current image is entirely irrelevant to the article. You wouldn't use a video of a man peeling an orange on an article about bananas simply because you lack a video of a banana being peeled, so why do the same here? The video should be removed until a relevant one is found. 98.238.64.92 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the video isn't really useful, and removed it until something pops up that works better as an example of actual breasts in action. ~Mable (chat) 14:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

In reality (as in this ballet dance), the breasts of women in motion do not bounce as much as they often do in video games. It is important to note, however, that the woman in this video has significantly smaller breasts than many popular video game characters

209.133.79.5 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

get rid of that video with the ballet dancer. she has no breasts so it shows nothing. 98.5.2.58 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: To both: A change must be proposed and consensus for it sought before an edit is requested. Feel free to suggest a better freely licensed video. Also, image captions are not for editorializing or commenting on themselves.  Sandstein  13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the article...

It should be noted that the section regarding "exaggerated" physics only uses the Kotaku source. additional sources regarding the subject would be preferable, as opposed to citing the same source several times. On the same topic, as mentioned above the example list is for the most part an abridged presentation of a single source, with only two other sources. Consider removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games that have been criticised for their breast physics, with the three sources as citations.

Another thing of note is the inclusion of phrases within the "exaggerated..." section such as 'particularly female observers' and '(mostly male)', well as the entirety of the sentence beginning "Not only breasts, but also..." despite these statements and ideas not being presented the sources. Unless I am incorrect or until unbiased sources indicating as such is added, these statements presented as purely editor opinion and as such a violation of WP:NPOV; even if it is not the editor's opinion, there are no relevant sources cited and so the statements violate WP:V. That is to avoid the connotations of using "exaggerated," an intrinsically subjective term, .It is also reasonable to comment that footage of a seemingly small-chested woman in a tight-fitting bodice being directly used as evidence that video game breast physics is a false comparison, as complaints of exaggeration usually adress large-chested characters in looser clothing. Putting the issue of logical fallacies aside, the footage caption has no sources and so is presented as editor interpretation; unless a citation is provided that is produced by a third party and uses the footage to draw the same conclusion, this is a violation of WP:NOR.

In conclusion this article in its' current state violates Wikipedia's three core content policies, one of which is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and explicitly "non-negotiable." Such an article could be said to defy the very spirit of Wikipedia, and would require major revisions in order to restore compliance with the core rules governing Wikipedia articles and content.

(The above text was originally posted as a reply to the discussion entitled "Poor article:" but is now being posted as a discrete discussion for the purpose of visibility. Please reply to this post if possible.) Sweetpizza (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweetpizza, can we take this one issue at a time? You're new here, it seems, and let me assure you, grandiose claims like "defy the very spirit of Wikipedia" aren't going to help your arguments being taken very seriously.

With respect to the Kotaku source, yes, multiple sources are preferable, but if we have one reliable source (as Kotaku is per consensus at WP:VG/S) there's no reason not to use it, rather than writing nothing at all. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "removing the examples and using the sources as citations; for example, ending the segment with an addressal of the variety of games", can you be more specific?  Sandstein  15:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

but if we have one reliable source (as Kotaku is per consensus at WP:VG/S) there's no reason not to use it,

For the record, there are many other sources, including far more reliable sources such as The Guardian. I introduced some new, much better sources in a very intensive improvement effort to this article earlier today that addressed many of these issues. They were all reverted by User:Sandstein together with a wonderful bullying message left in the revert. There are tons of excellent sources, and even the Kotaku article is more nuanced and neutral than what Sandstein is allowing on this page through his bullying administration. MarcelB612 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Kotaku, and the entire Gawker media is uttery trash. Low quality, click-bait blogging masquerading as journalism. They have no journalistic standards. They publish anything they think will get hits. It's a complete embarrassment that Wikipedia uses such sources. Wikipedia should be a source of serious scholarship. More books, studies, journal articles, magazines. Less blogs, and sensationalistic trash internet "journalism".

You allow trash sources, you get trash articles like this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a peculiar opinion. To me, Kotaku looks like many other gaming news websites: not better, but also not worse than many others. They're no New York Times, but they have the whole setup needed to be accepted by us as a reliable sources: professional editorial structures and all that. If the concerns about this article are really about Kotaku, then we are in the wrong place here. You'd need to convince fellow editors at WP:VG/S that we shouldn't use them as a source any more. Until then, complaining about Kotaku on a random article talk page is pretty pointless: they're a reliable source and we're routinely using them; if there are other relevant sources, we'll use these as well.  Sandstein  08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

To me, Kotaku looks like many other gaming news websites: not better, but also not worse than many others.

Hardhitting Kotaku Journalism. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what you are trying to say with this.  Sandstein  12:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Kotaku has been discussed over at WP:VG/S many times, and every time consensus is reached that it is a reliable source. If you want to see this changed, I recommend you bring it up for discussion over there, though I would note that it is unlikely to be changed, as many have tried before. ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The 2D games mentioned use hand-drawn animation, not physical simulation

Pretty sure Fatal Fury didn't have a spring constraint in its engine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.197.166 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I addressed this issue in a couple edits earlier today by fixing some awkward language in several of the passages, without changing the meaning or content. Unfortunately all my edits were reverted by administrative bully User:Sandstein (he full reverted back to his latest edit of the page) who is holding back this article for politically motivated reasons.MarcelB612 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased viewpoint

There is an unecessary focus on the exageratedness and presumed unnaturalness of breast physics without any proper citation. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_physics#Unnatural_breast_physics section in particular but also the gif on the top of the page. Video games are first and foremost a form of expression and artform thus they don't have to strife to be natural or perfectly follow the laws of real world physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ectoplazl (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't argue that they should. But it reflects the cited reliable sources that have described the unrealistic portrayal of breasts in games. We follow reliable sources, per WP:V. If there are other reliable sources reflecting other perspectives, we can add content based on them as well. Sandstein 19:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Realistic body physics aren't regularly covered by reliable sources. The unnatural breast physics is what garnered media attention over the years and is the most notable aspect of this topic. That being said, if you want to expand this article's coverage of how breasts can be presented realistically in video games, then of course I approve of that. Just make sure you can find a source for it ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 19:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the cited articles do not contain such a biased viewpoint. They do contain the author's opinions and voice, but they also present some other nuances. This article, however, throws away all the nuance and only presents one viewpoint. There are also reliable sources from much better sources such as The Guardian, which also reasonably and neutrally present the various nuances and viewpoints on this issue. I included these sources and an excellent and sensitive write-up in a series of very extensive improvements to this article earlier today. They were all reverted by User:Sandstein, who left a nasty bullying message. It appears that this article is being subjected to administrator bullying for political reasons related to GamerGate.MarcelB612 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Outrageous bullying by Wikipedia administrator Sandstein affecting this article.

I spent a good deal of time dramatically improving this article earlier today. It was in an almost unreadable state, and failed to note any sort of subtleties regarding this topic that were noted even in the sources cited.

All of my edits were very sensitive, retained all of the content that was already present while fixing a lot of language errors and making things more readable, most of my edits had nothing to do with introducing other viewpoints and were only made to improve the presentation of the viewpoint already represented in this article. In addition, a couple of my edits presented, in a tasteful and neutral way, the contrasting viewpoints that were already contained in the sources cited in this article but weren't presented in this article. This was not at all a viewpoint that I hold or agree with, but it was a viewpoint which nevertheless was given a fair presentation in all the sources cited in this article, but which is not present in this article.

The sources cited for this article, despite containing the author's voice, are actually fairly good and nuanced articles, noting many of the subtleties and contrasting opinions related to this topic. But for some reason none of the nuance or detail present in these sources is being allowed onto this article.

Now I know why that is the case: a bullying editor, Sandstein, believes this article is critical to the politically sensitive "GamerGate" controversy, and is maliciously reverting any edits by people seeking to improve the article. He left a bullying and nasty comment on his revert, accusing me of "attempting to make a case" for this contrasting viewpoint (that, again I don't even hold, but clearly deserves to be presented as fairly as it is in ALL of the sources for this article). I know how Wikipedia works and I have no recourse against administrator-bullying like this, but if anyone else is wondering why this article is in such a poor state and has the idea of spending time trying to improve it, don't waste your time: it is being held back by a politically motivated bully, and your time will be wasted. MarcelB612 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MarcelB612, disagreement with or reverting your edits is not "bullying", but it is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Now that we have identified our disagreement through the revert, as per WP:BRD, it is time to discuss it. However, given the confrontative approach above, I think this might be difficult. See, generally, WP:AGF: as Wikipedians, we should assume that our colleagues are acting in good faith, as I am sure you did when attempting to improve the article. Sandstein 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your violation of WP:AGF is precisely what makes you a bullying editor. My edits were clearly made in good faith: you deliberately accused me of making bad-faith edits in the outrageous message you left on your revert. There's clearly no hope for a constructive WP:BRD process when you begin bullying me and libeling me as in bad-faith in your revert message. MarcelB612 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MarcelB612, not in bad faith, just severely mistaken, in that your edits contravened our core content policies WP:NOR (do not draw inferences not supported by sources) and WP:NPOV (adopt a neutral point of view with respect to any controversies, which in this case are not even reflected in reliable sources). Sandstein 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

These are blatantly false accusations at their face. All of my sixteen edits, which touched on numerous aspects of this article and only a tiny portion of which were even remotely in any way reminiscent of the outrageous and false accusations you made in the commit message of your total revert back you YOUR latest edit, every single one was meticulously crafted within the scope and spirit of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and every other core policy. MarcelB612 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MarcelB612, I regret to say that I think this overly excited attitude is not conducive to further discussion. I will hovever invite another Wikipedian at WP:3O to express their view here about whether your additions are neutral and reflect reliable sources. Sandstein 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: Thankyou for the request for a Third Opinion. As I understand it, the issue is whether the 16 edits made by MarcelB612 on 1 December 2020 are neutral and whether they reflect the coverage of reliable sources. In summary, I am of the opinion that whilst there are some minor changes to prose which both accurately reflect the source material and improve the article; the vast majority of the changes to the article are not reflective of the references to which they are attributed (that is, they consist of original research), nor do they portray the subject from a neutral point of view. Therefore, I recommend that the edits should not be restored to the article, and nor should similar edits be made to the article without the provision of appropriate references which support each assertion. I hope that this has been helpful. Jack Frost (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Smash Ultimate mod

I don't know if you included this, but apparently, there is a controversial mod for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate that gives Pyra and Mythra (the most recent DLC characters) exaggerated jiggle physics. Can you include this mod in the article?--24.44.76.88 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Any WP:RS for that? Sandstein 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a website, but I have a video about this mod. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuL5xoU0hXo&t=217s --24.44.76.88 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Article title

I stumbled upon the article at AFD (though it closed before I could even comment) and I was going to make the comment: Is there a better title for this article? The current title really doesn't indicate that it's about the fictional/gaming context. (Something as vague as "Breasts physics" could just as easily apply reality/real life outside of games - it doesn't really indicate it's about video game depiction.)

Anyways, I'm not trying to make a stink about it or something, I dont feel that strongly on it. Just thought I'd share my thoughts on it - I was initially confused why such a title was tagged to "video games". Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Jiggle Physics seems more inline. Kardashian butts could be part of the game engine not just breasts. dmode (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not so much that, it just that it's not about "reality" or real life physics. It should be something more like "breast physics in video games" or something (on the assumption that this article needs to exist at all.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)