Gamers Are Mad That Thor is Fat in God of War Ragnarok. Well... He Was, According to Actual Myth.

[m76]

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

 

I'm not trying to provoke him or anyone else, I'm just trying to show how this is not a problem indigenous to this one situation with Thor in GOW: Ragnarok. This is everywhere, and just because the subject of the conversation changes, the nonsense remains the same.

You mention me Because you don't want to provoke me. That totally makes sense. About as much as there being no agenda behind making characters less appealing sexually. It just happens randomly for no reason across the board, Right.

If the subject changes and the conversation remains the same that should indicate to you that there is a huge disconnect between supply and demand.

The entertainment industry instead of giving us what we want decided to try and "re-educate" their audience to conform to their newfound prudish ways.

 

3 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

I'm really tired of this kind of "It's not hot by the unrealistic standard set by Hollywood therefore bad" idiocy.  The same thing happened with Aloy when the Horizon Forbidden West debuted.  Does anyone know what a human being looks like anymore?

Unrealistic does not equal uncommon. I don't understand this need for fiction to reflect drab, dreary reality and all its mediocrity.

 

2 hours ago, Shagger said:

Right on.

 

I believe it was Edgar Allan Poe who said, 

 

“There is no exquisite beauty… without some strangeness in the proportion.”

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but there is a huge difference between making characters that are designed by a committe, vs designing characters without creative restrictions.

It's curious how you chose to mention this case, over the other case where the prudes demand the character design of the koran game Project Eve to change. And the most sad thing is that anyone who doesn't outright condemn the design gets banned over at resetera. Talk about toxicity.

[Heatman]

29 minutes ago, m76 said:

You mention me Because you don't want to provoke me. That totally makes sense. About as much as there being no agenda behind making characters less appealing sexually. It just happens randomly for no reason across the board, Right.

If the subject changes and the conversation remains the same that should indicate to you that there is a huge disconnect between supply and demand.

The entertainment industry instead of giving us what we want decided to try and "re-educate" their audience to conform to their newfound prudish ways.

 

Unrealistic does not equal uncommon. I don't understand this need for fiction to reflect drab, dreary reality and all its mediocrity.

 

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but there is a huge difference between making characters that are designed by a committe, vs designing characters without creative restrictions.

It's curious how you chose to mention this case, over the other case where the prudes demand the character design of the koran game Project Eve to change. And the most sad thing is that anyone who doesn't outright condemn the design gets banned over at resetera. Talk about toxicity.

The simple cold truth is that most of these  companies don't really want to get into the stress of making exactly what's demanded of them. It's easier for them to copy what they did initially or previously with a little tweaks to make it appear different and have it out for us and it's rushed like no one knew what happened. 

[Withywarlock]

A frequent flyer in r/fatlogic, it is with guilty pleasure I must admit that I love the portrayal of Thor in the upcoming God of War. On the one hand my admiration of this artistic choice runs contrary to whenever I see spiteful obese people saying that in another time they'd be worshiped as goddesses, but on the other hand I'm not clamouring that my own obesity should be treated as if I am the God of Thunder. It's so hard to pick a side on this one, and neither side really exists outside of my own headspace.

In the meantime, until people start excusing poor lifestyles by pointing to the game insisting it's making them do it, I'll enjoy Thor's gut, but he'd look a lot more comfortable if his belly was hanging over his chainmail underdungers. #SlayAndSway

Edited September 16, 2021 by Withywarlock

[m76]

2 hours ago, Heatman said:

The simple cold truth is that most of these  companies don't really want to get into the stress of making exactly what's demanded of them. It's easier for them to copy what they did initially or previously with a little tweaks to make it appear different and have it out for us and it's rushed like no one knew what happened. 

But that is exactly what they are not doing. They are actively changing designs to reduce their appeal to their established core audience. Which raises the question of what is their goal with it? Because it certainly seems it's not making money. And I can't see any other explanation, but politics.

[Heatman]

3 minutes ago, m76 said:

But that is exactly what they are not doing. They are actively changing designs to reduce their appeal to their established core audience. Which raises the question of what is their goal with it? Because it certainly seems it's not making money. And I can't see any other explanation, but politics.

Maybe they believe that they already have the loyalty of their core audience, so they feel like it's more important to break into another audience territory to capture their loyalty. 

[Shagger]

4 hours ago, m76 said:

You mention me Because you don't want to provoke me. That totally makes sense.

 

First off, I mentioned you with the mention function because I think it's rude to discuss another member openly on the forum without at least importing them to the conversation, that's only fair.

 

This isn't the first time I've said this to you, but if you can't take having you views challenged, don't express them. I have officially run out patience with your hissy fits when people disagree with you or call you out for saying something coming from a from a bias, that's controversial or just plain stupid. We, on VGR, do not exist to inflate your already narcissistic ego, and if that's all you want us to do for you, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

 

4 hours ago, m76 said:

 About as much as there being no agenda behind making characters less appealing sexually. It just happens randomly for no reason across the board, Right.

If the subject changes and the conversation remains the same that should indicate to you that there is a huge disconnect between supply and demand.

The entertainment industry instead of giving us what we want decided to try and "re-educate" their audience to conform to their newfound prudish ways.

 

Well, I do believe that "agenda" only exists in the minds of self-centred, immature, misogynistic, randy man-children. Even if it were real, it doesn't make games any less fun to play or characters any better nor worse. It's pure aesthetics and nothing more nor less.  More to the point though, I address this issue more specifically and in far greater detail in this thread, but you choose to respond here instead. Why is that? It's as if you wanted to call me wrong, but didn't want to address the points I made directly. Like they made too much sense to call out and/or hit too close to home. If you want to debate it, fine, but do so with some integrity and on the appropriate thread.

 

Still, I'll finish what I'm saying with this post, then if you insist, we'll take it elsewhere, be it DM's or on a more applicable thread.  That is an instruction from me as a mod. And if you actually want to address the topic at hand on this thread, please do. I think we would be interested to see your thoughts on what Santa Monica Studios has done with Thor.

 

4 hours ago, m76 said:

Unrealistic does not equal uncommon. I don't understand this need for fiction to reflect drab, dreary reality and all its mediocrity.

 

For somebody who claims to enjoy realism in games...

 

 

 

... you seem strangely selective about when that does and dose not apply.  You also completely failed to understand what the quote from Edgar Allen Poe meant...

 

4 hours ago, m76 said:

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but there is a huge difference between making characters that are designed by a committe, vs designing characters without creative restrictions.

 

It's not about different people finding different things attractive. What he is trying to say in that beauty is not achieved with perfection, it's achieved through being unique. That's what human beings in the real world are like. Even amongst the most beautiful people in the world there's flaws in thier features. Nobody has a "perfect" face nor body. What you describe as game developers attempts to make people look uglier is not an attempt to make them look uglier at all, it's about making them look more human, more realistic. And obviously, that doesn't mean they cant still be attractive. That's the point I think @Crazycrab was trying to make, using Aloy from HZD as the example. She's gorgeous, despite the imperfections in her face. Let's actually look at the image he posted again.

 

 

 

The, quote on quote, "perfect" face on the right clearly wouldn't have worked. I'm temped to even call it terrifying. Anyone who knows anything about animation and/or digital design of faces will tell you imperfections are key. The "perfect" face wouldn't have worked is because it would never convey what a character is feeling anywhere near as effectively as a more natural looking face would. Imperfections in a face also make it more distinctive and easier to remember and are crucial to visual identify. These are essential elements of character design. So you see, there's a massive conflict of interest between wanting realism out of a character and focusing solely on making the character as attractive as possible. Any game developer with even a modicum of common sense would go for a more natural, expressive design rather than obsess over beauty. If you want characters to be as beautiful as possible, you can't make them be realistic. You just can't have it both ways. Some games, especially JRPG's I find, can kind of achieve both by having a more stylised approach, but the design still has to be expressive, that's still the priority.

 

That's not the only way you're being hypocritical, either. You claim that "making characters ugly" is "stifling creativity", but who are you to decide what qualifies as creative liberty and what doesn't? Doesn't Guerrilla have the right to design Aloy in whatever way they want? For example, why would it not be creative choice to give Aloy blemishes, like freckles, but would be a creative choice to give her a killer set of abs?

 

 

Have you even got the slightest idea how entitled, immature and bratty you are? Why is it up to you when something is or isn't a creative liberty when you have absolutely nothing to do with the design department of whatever game in question? I mean, who on earth do you think you are? I am not kidding, I actually want an answer to that. You can decide whether or not you like a design, that's fair, but you have no right to decide what counts as somebody else creative freedom. You hide behind the claim that it's "design by committee" or "social/political pandering" because you don't like to admit that you're a selfish, immature, misogynist that gets upset when games don't cater to you're moronic titillation. Frankly, it's pathetic.

 

That hypocrisy isn't even the only problem with your logic. You said yourself, "Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder", so how can a standard of beauty be set for the game's industry to work to in the first place when no two people share the same concept of what beauty actually is? No matter which way you look at it, this way of doing things that you want to see employed makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

 

4 hours ago, m76 said:

It's curious how you chose to mention this case, over the other case where the prudes demand the character design of the koran game Project Eve to change. And the most sad thing is that anyone who doesn't outright condemn the design gets banned over at resetera. Talk about toxicity

 

I've never been on resetera, so I can't comment.

 

As for the rest, there's a very good reason why I didn't mention that thing from Project Eve, because this literally the first time I've even heard of it. But OK, I'll bite. 

 

(after a few minutes of googling...)

 

Is this seriously the best you could do?

I literally couldn't find what you were on about. I saw no story indicating that dev's were forced to change the design because of a backlash. As far as I can tell, that hasn't even happened.

 

The only reference to any sort of controversy I could find was this thread on NeoGAF (A quite for both yourself and everyone else on VGR, I know from bitter experience that NeoGAF is one of the most hostile and toxic gaming forums on the web and is not a reliable source to gauze a general consensus for gamers at all.)

 

So the grand controversy is Alex from Digital foundry wasn't a fan of the character design.

 

 

 

So... so what? A youtuber best known for performance analysis of video games thought the design was "dated". That's his opinion, he's free to have it, but why does that hurt you? Especially when, at least as for as I can tell, the design hasn't even been changed. 

For context, this is what the character looks like. Actually, I do kind of agree that it's a bit "early 2000's", but not necessarily that it's bad and certainly don't consider it over the top.

 

 

I mean wow, talk about scarping the bottom of the barrel here. Is that seriously enough to get you upset? If anyone is a "snowflake" or "easily offended" in this, it's you! Why would one Youtuber's opinion, who like I said is best known for performance analysis of games and not critique, get you or anyone else this upset?

 

1 hour ago, m76 said:

But that is exactly what they are not doing. They are actively changing designs to reduce their appeal to their established core audience. Which raises the question of what is their goal with it? Because it certainly seems it's not making money. And I can't see any other explanation, but politics.

 

That is nonsense. Like I said, the "politics" excuse is just something you hide behind. Again, I addressed this in the other thread, but TL:DR, game companies don't employ inclusion for people like you. They don't care about you. I explain in further detail in that thread, and as aforementioned that's the more appropriate place to discuss this anyway.

 

I'll end this by simply saying you are is serious need of a reality check.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Shagger
Typo's and fixes

[Heatman]

4 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

First off, I mentioned you with the mention function because I think it's rude to discuss another member openly on the forum without importing them to the conversation, that's only fair.

 

This isn't the first time I've said this to you, but if you can't take having you views challenged, don't express them. I have officially run out patience with your hissy fits when people disagree with you or call you out for saying something coming from a from a bias, that's controversial or just plain stupid. We, on VGR, do not exist to inflate your already narcissistic ego, and if that's all you want us to do for you, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

 

 

Well, I do believe that "agenda" only exists in the minds of self-centred, immature, misogynistic, randy man-children. Even if it were real, it doesn't make games any less fun to play or characters any better nor worse. It's pure aesthetics and nothing more nor less.  More to the point though, I address this issue more specifically and in far greater detail in this thread, but you choose to respond here instead. Why is that? It's as if you wanted to call me wrong, but didn't want to address my point I made directly. Like they made to much sense to call out and/or hit too close to home. If you want to debate it, fine, but do so with some integrity and on the appropriate thread.

 

Still, I'll finish what I'm saying with this post, then if you insist, we'll take it elsewhere, be it DM's on on a more applicable thread.  That is an instruction from me as a mod. And if actually want to address the topic at hand, please do, like you completely failed to do in your post.

 

 

For somebody who claims to enjoy realism in games...

 

 

 

... you seem strangely selective about when that does and dose not apply.  You also completely failed to understand what the quote from Edgar Allen Poe meant...

 

 

It's not about different people finding different things attractive. What he is trying to say in that beauty is not achieved with perfection, it's achieved through being unique. That what human beings in the real world are like. Even amongst the most beautiful people in the world there's flaws in thier features. Nobody has a "perfect" face nor body. What you describe as game developers attempts to make people look uglier is not an attempt to make them look uglier at all, it's about making them look more human, more realistic. And obviously, that doesn't mean they cant still be attractive. That's the point I think @Crazycrab was trying to make, using Aloy from HZD as the example. She's gorgeous, despite the imperfections in her face. Let's actually look at the image he posted again.

 

 

 

The, quote on quote, "perfect" face on the right clearly wouldn't have worked. I'm temped to even call it terrifying. Anyone who knows anything about animation and/or digital design of faces will tell you imperfections are key. The "perfect" wouldn't have worked is because it would never convey what a character is feeling anywhere near as effectively as a more natural looking face would.. Imperfections in a face also make it more distinctive and easier to remember and are crucial to visual identify. These are essential elements of character design. So you see, there's a massive conflict of interest between wanting realism out of a character and focusing solely on making the character as attractive as possible. Any game developer with even a modicum of common sense would go for a more natural, expressive design rather than obsess over beauty. If you want characters to be as beautiful as possible, you can't them be realistic. You just can't have it both ways.

 

That's not the only way you're being hypocritical, either. You claim that "making characters ugly" is "stifling creativity" , but who are you to decide what qualifies as creative liberty and what doesn't? Don't Guerrilla have the right to design Aloy in whatever way they want? For example, why would it not be creative choice to give Alloy blemishes, like freckles, but would be a creative choice to give her a killer set of abs?

 

 

Have you even got the slightest idea how entitled, immature and bratty you are? Why is it up to you when something is or isn't a creative liberty when you have absolutely nothing to do with the design depart of whatever game in question? I mean, who on earth do you think you are? I am not kidding, I actually want an answer to that. You can decide whether or not you like a design, that's fair, but you have no right to decide what counts as somebody else creative freedom. You hide behind the claim that it's "design by committee" or "social/political pandering" because you don't like to admit that you're a selfish, immature, misogynist that gets upset when games don't cater to you're moronic titillation, Frankly, it's pathetic.

 

That hypocrisy isn't even the only problem with your logic. You said yourself, "Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder", so how can a standard of beauty be set for the game's industry to work to in the first place when no two people share the same concept of what beauty actually is? No matter which way you look at it, this way of doing things that you want to see employed makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

 

 

I've never been on resetera, so I can't comment.

 

As for the rest, there's a very good reason why I didn't mention that thing from Project Eve, because this literally the first time I've even heard of it. But OK, I'll bite. 

 

(after a few minutes of googling...)

 

Is this seriously the best you could do?

I literally couldn't find what you were on about. I saw no story indicating that dev's were forced to change the design because of a backlash. As far as I can tell, that hasn't even happened.

 

The only reference to any sort of controversy I could find was this thread on NeoGAF (FWI, I know from bitter experience that NeoGAF is one of the most hostile and toxic gaming forums on the web and is not a reliable source to gauze a general consensus for gamers at all.)

 

So the grand controversy is Alex from Digital foundry wasn't a fan of the character design.

 

 

 

So... so what? A youtuber best knows for performance analysis of video games thought the design was "dated". That's his opinion, he's free to have it, but why does that hurt you? Especially when, at least as for as I can tell, the design haven't even been changed. 

For context, this is what the character looks like. Actully, I do kind of agree that it's a bit "early 2000's", but necessarily it's bad and certainly not over the top.

 

 

I mean wow, talk about scarping the bottom of the barrel here. Is that seriously enough to get upset? If anyone is a "snowflake" or "easily offended in this, it's you! Why would one Youtuber's opinion, who like I said is best known for performance analysis of games and not critique, get you or anyone else this upset?

 

 

That is nonsense. Like I said, the "politics" excuse is just something you hide. Again, I addressed this in the other thread, but TL:DR, game companies don't employ inclusion for people like you. They don't care about you. I explain in further detail in that thread, and as aforementioned that's the more appropriate place to discuss this anyway.

 

I'll end this by simply saying you are is serious need of a reality check.

Easy mate, it haven't gotten to the point of suggesting here isn't meant for it. We are definitely bound to disagree on something as long as discussions are flowing. I'd only feel one should look for other places to belong is when he or she throws insults around without any regards for the rules. 

 

[killamch89]

On 9/15/2021 at 2:04 AM, Shagger said:

I feel you. Don't want be believe that we, as in games, can be this vain and stupid. The unfortunate fact is that this has become an issue for people and it's embarrassing.

Social media has given all kinds of idiots voices and other like minded idiots to validate their views so they argue about stupid stuff like this.

7 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

Actually to honest most depictions of Greek gods seem to have abs...

 

 

...but that's not the point.  The point is as stated by the OP is that the Norse Thor had a belly.

Not just any belly - a godly one filled with booze 🤣 (I'm kidding. Don't take this literally). But Norse Thor does look like he visits the pub every second.

[Heatman]

5 minutes ago, killamch89 said:

Social media has given all kinds of idiots voices and other like minded idiots to validate their views so they argue about stupid stuff like this.

 

The truth of the matter is that the world really be and feel very awkward and even awful without the existence of social media today. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

1 hour ago, m76 said:

But that is exactly what they are not doing. They are actively changing designs to reduce their appeal to their established core audience. Which raises the question of what is their goal with it? Because it certainly seems it's not making money. And I can't see any other explanation, but politics.

Would this Ragnarok Thor be considered political? Is it up to your standard of beauty and heroism? Is it too real like for a game of fiction? And you keep mentioning them prudes for making characters less attractive, but you yourself feels uncomfortable with characters that have less clothing. What you want is fully clothed and attractive. And if it isn’t the attractive standard bearer of the fan base, you call them politically prudent.

To add to your case- sure there are those who have ‘out of touch syndrome’ and add diversity for outside reasons and inadvertently hurt the reputation of that diversity and at the same time pissing off fans like you for changing your idealistic characters. But I think this God of War Thor deserves some praise; would you agree with that? If not, why exactly?

[Heatman]

Seriously - Some of us could all moan over this issue with the character of Thor for as long as they want and it still wouldn't change anything because what's done is already done. We either take it or leave it. 

[m76]

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

First off, I mentioned you with the mention function because I think it's rude to discuss another member openly on the forum without importing them to the conversation, that's only fair.

OK, fair enough.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

This isn't the first time I've said this to you, but if you can't take having you views challenged, don't express them. I have officially run out patience with your hissy fits when people disagree with you or call you out for saying something coming from a from a bias, that's controversial or just plain stupid. We, on VGR, do not exist to inflate your already narcissistic ego, and if that's all you want us to do for you, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

It's not about challenging my views, it's dragging me up as some kind of bad example. That's completely uncalled for. I have no interest in the God of War franchise, and I have no opinion on fat Thor either way. As I don't know if this is a new character they are bringing to the game (in that case I don't see a problem with this depiction) or it is an established character in the franchise.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

Well, I do believe that "agenda" only exists in the minds of self-centred, immature, misogynistic, randy man-children.

Well, you should know by now that throwing insults my way doesn't work, as I've already said it only hurts if it's true.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

Even if it were real, it doesn't make games any less fun to play or characters any better nor worse.

Now it seems that it is you who can't have their views challenged, and unable to even agree to disagree. For me, and it seems millions of others, the aesthetics of characters is a fundamental part of their persona. It is impossible to detach the look from the persona. The two together makes a whole.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

It's pure aesthetics and nothing more nor less. 

Well, not exactly, since many times they don't just change characters' looks but personalities too.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

More to the point though, I address this issue more specifically and in far greater detail in this thread, but you choose to respond here instead.

Because I never even read that topic, I can't be responsible to follow you around everywhere to see where you did a take on some topic I might disagree with.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

Why is that? It's as if you wanted to call me wrong, but didn't want to address my point I made directly. Like they made to much sense to call out and/or hit too close to home. If you want to debate it, fine, but do so with some integrity and on the appropriate thread.

You assume malice immediately where none exists.  I might address that thread at a later date if you wish, but not if you take this attitude.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

Still, I'll finish what I'm saying with this post, then if you insist, we'll take it elsewhere, be it DM's on on a more applicable thread.  That is an instruction from me as a mod. And if you actually want to address the topic at hand on this thread, please do. I think we would be interested to see your thoughts on what Santa Monica Studios has done with Thor.

As I've already stated I have no opinion on this either way, as I'm not familiar with the franchise and I don't like to run my mouth about things I know nothing about.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

For somebody who claims to enjoy realism in games...

 

 

 

... you seem strangely selective about when that does and dose not apply.  You also completely failed to understand what the quote from Edgar Allen Poe meant...

You are taking posts out of context, yeah I'm a stickler for realism of games as far as having realistic phyisics,as in adherence to newtonian physics. Not in the sesne of games need to be a mirror image of the real world in the proportion of ugly people who don't take care of their body and good looking, fit people.  Whether you like it or not beautiful people do exist in reality, it's too bad that I don't see them all the time, hence why I wish to see them at least in fiction more often.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

It's not about different people finding different things attractive. What he is trying to say in that beauty is not achieved with perfection, it's achieved through being unique. That's what human beings in the real world are like. Even amongst the most beautiful people in the world there's flaws in thier features. Nobody has a "perfect" face nor body.

Re-stating the same thing makes no difference. It is exactly the small flaws that make people look beautiful and unique.  I agree 100%. But emphasis on small. There is a far cry between characters having small flaws vs covering them in almost burka like outfits and giving them masculine jaws, square faces, hairstyles that can not be considered feminine and so on.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

What you describe as game developers attempts to make people look uglier is not an attempt to make them look uglier at all, it's about making them look more human, more realistic. And obviously, that doesn't mean they cant still be attractive.

I'm not saying all developers do it. For example I'm fine with the depiction of women in The Last of Us series. I take issue with clear agendas where they even admit to trying to de-sexualize characters and to not feed the "male gaze". TLOU2 can hardly be called asexual.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

That's the point I think @Crazycrab was trying to make, using Aloy from HZD as the example. She's gorgeous, despite the imperfections in her face. Let's actually look at the image he posted again.

 

 

 

The, quote on quote, "perfect" face on the right clearly wouldn't have worked. I'm temped to even call it terrifying. Anyone who knows anything about animation and/or digital design of faces will tell you imperfections are key.

I actually know something about it, and I often add imperfections to the characters I design. That's what makes them more human. As for Forbidden west, I'm not that much bothered about the design, I want to see it for myself in action before I judge it. From what I understand the problem comes from that some people think it doesn't look like Aloy in the first game. I'm more concerned by the narrative of the upcoming game, but that's entirely another topic.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

The "perfect" face wouldn't have worked is because it would never convey what a character is feeling anywhere near as effectively as a more natural looking face would. Imperfections in a face also make it more distinctive and easier to remember and are crucial to visual identify. These are essential elements of character design. So you see, there's a massive conflict of interest between wanting realism out of a character and focusing solely on making the character as attractive as possible. Any game developer with even a modicum of common sense would go for a more natural, expressive design rather than obsess over beauty. If you want characters to be as beautiful as possible, you can't  make them be realistic. You just can't have it both ways. Some games, especially JRPG's I find, get around this by having a more stylised approach, but the design still has to be expressive, that's still the priority.

I think the mistake here is that the so called "perfect" depiction is with makeup, which makes zero sense in the context of the game. And the facial expression makes it impossible to compare anyway. I'd argue the two could be considered the same, the only difference being the expression and makeup effects.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

That's not the only way you're being hypocritical, either. You claim that "making characters ugly" is "stifling creativity" , but who are you to decide what qualifies as creative liberty and what doesn't? Don't Guerrilla have the right to design Aloy in whatever way they want? For example, why would it not be creative choice to give Alloy blemishes, like freckles, but would be a creative choice to give her a killer set of abs?

I'm really not the right person to argue about this, I'm not going to play devils advocate, as I've said I have no immediate complaints about that design, the cheeks look a bit puffy, but that might be due to the expression, as said i want to see the game before judging the character design, and I especially want to see the selection of outfits in the game. That's a much better sign of whether it is being deliberately de-sexualized

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

 

Have you even got the slightest idea how entitled, immature and bratty you are? Why is it up to you when something is or isn't a creative liberty when you have absolutely nothing to do with the design department of whatever game in question? I mean, who on earth do you think you are? I am not kidding, I actually want an answer to that.

I tell you exactly who am I: A potential customer. And if I don't like what I see in a game, I won't be an actual customer. It's that simple. I come from a traditional merchant family, where we used to try to sell things to the customer that they wanted. Instead of trying to belittle them for not wanting what we as sellers thought they should want.

And let me ask you this, how do you know that the design changes implemented by these studios are the creative decisions of the artists, and not a mandate from top down to avoid backlash from those advocating for non-sexualiezed depictions? I mean you know exactly how vile and disgusting some can be, going as far as doxing people for having different opinions or doing something not in line with their views, calling employers demanding the firing of the person etc. Nobody wants that, so what if they are just going in the direction of least resistance? GAmers might complain, but they'd never go to your home to throw rocks in your window, or call your employer because you made a tweet 10 years ago.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

You can decide whether or not you like a design, that's fair, but you have no right to decide what counts as somebody else creative freedom. You hide behind the claim that it's "design by committee" or "social/political pandering" because you don't like to admit that you're a selfish, immature, misogynist that gets upset when games don't cater to you're moronic titillation, Frankly, it's pathetic.

I can understand where do you come with the selfish part, but where does misogynist comes from? How is it misogynist to prefer fictional women who are more attractive?

I freely admit that I'm selfish of course I want to see characters that 100% match my type. Too bad that almost never happens. I can count to two so far in the history of gaming. But who doesn't want to see characters that they like? Don't tell me you prefer to see characters that go counter to your notions of beauty over ones that are a closer match to it.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

That hypocrisy isn't even the only problem with your logic. You said yourself, "Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder", so how can a standard of beauty be set for the game's industry to work to in the first place when no two people share the same concept of what beauty actually is? No matter which way you look at it, this way of doing things that you want to see employed makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

Just because you refuse to accept it, doesn't mean there aren't traits that are associated with feminine beauty, or even male beauty in men's case. If your notion that beauty is completely subjective were true none of the beauty pageants and sports judged by aesthetics could exist.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

As for the rest, there's a very good reason why I didn't mention that thing from Project Eve, because this literally the first time I've even heard of it. But OK, I'll bite. 

 

(after a few minutes of googling...)

 

Is this seriously the best you could do?

I literally couldn't find what you were on about. I saw no story indicating that dev's were forced to change the design because of a backlash. As far as I can tell, that hasn't even happened.

I didn't say they were forced to change it, I said there is outrage about it.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

The only reference to any sort of controversy I could find was this thread on NeoGAF (FWI, I know from bitter experience that NeoGAF is one of the most hostile and toxic gaming forums on the web and is not a reliable source to gauze a general consensus for gamers at all.)

At least we agree on one thing. Now when the admin of neoGAF was ousted as a sexual predator, they went on to form Resetera which is even more toxic and vile. But I've never been there myself either. I just saw snippets where they outright banned people not just for defending Project Eve, but even for being neutral about it.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

So the grand controversy is Alex from Digital foundry wasn't a fan of the character design.

 

 

 

So... so what? A youtuber best knows for performance analysis of video games thought the design was "dated". That's his opinion, he's free to have it, but why does that hurt you? Especially when, at least as for as I can tell, the design haven't even been changed. 

It doesn't hurt me specifically. I was never a fan of that type of design myself.  I'm just pointing out that the same behavior is going on on the other end of the spectrum.

16 minutes ago, Shagger said:

For context, this is what the character looks like. Actully, I do kind of agree that it's a bit "early 2000's", but necessarily it's bad and certainly not over the top.

 

 

I mean wow, talk about scarping the bottom of the barrel here. Is that seriously enough to get upset? If anyone is a "snowflake" or "easily offended in this, it's you! Why would one Youtuber's opinion, who like I said is best known for performance analysis of games and not critique, get you or anyone else this upset?

I haven't even heard about the DF take before, I was just referring to the resetera forums, that are considered the de-facto insider forum these days for game developers after neoGAF's fall from grace.  And REsetera are banning people for not condemninig this design outright. So there is a reality check for you for how hostile some of these people are against dissenting opinions. And I can guerantee you if they could they'd absolutely force the developers to change the design.

[Heatman]

I think that I have had it and read enough already on this between you both. 

I'm unfollowing the thread to have my peace of mind still intact. 

[m76]

49 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

Would this Ragnarok Thor be considered political? Is it up to your standard of beauty and heroism? Is it too real like for a game of fiction? And you keep mentioning them prudes for making characters less attractive, but you yourself feels uncomfortable with characters that have less clothing. What you want is fully clothed and attractive. And if it isn’t the attractive standard bearer of the fan base, you call them politically prudent.

I'm uncomfortable playing characters in their underwear or nude in RPGs, that doesn't mean I want to ban others from doing that if they want to. I'm always for giving people options. Instead of nude I prefer appropriately clothed, for a sex scene obviously nudity makes sense. Having a sex scene where the characters are fully clothed would be about as jarring as running around in ancient Greece in nothing but a loincloth. Or worse in Scandinavia.

49 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

To add to your case- sure there are those who have ‘out of touch syndrome’ and add diversity for outside reasons and inadvertently hurt the reputation of that diversity and at the same time pissing off fans like you for changing your idealistic characters. But I think this God of War Thor deserves some praise; would you agree with that? If not, why exactly?

I was not referring to god of war. I have never played any of the God of War games and don't intend to.

Edited September 16, 2021 by m76

[killamch89]

2 hours ago, Heatman said:

The truth of the matter is that the world really be and feel very awkward and even awful without the existence of social media today. 

We've been perfectly fine as a species long before social media came about. Yes, it does have some uses such as in business but on the other hand, it's become a platform for pettiness and toxicity which nobody is doing anything to combat the issue.