Do realistic and idealized character/attire designs have to be at odds?

[StaceyPowers]

Repeatedly in different threads, I’ve noticed debates come up between whether characters should feature realistic designs or idealized designs (the same can go for their armor).

My question is, do these preferences always have to be at odds? I love realistic character designs, and I think they are incredibly important. But I also sometimes enjoy idealized character designs and ridiculous, “sexy” armor that isn’t functional. It depends on the game/context for me.

[killamch89]

Honestly, it depends on the gaming universe itself. I don't really get drawn into this debate because it all depends on how the other characters look and if the design looks out of place in that game.

[Reality vs Adventure]

A great example to answer your question is the newer AC games. The armor is realistic in its setting, but also available is fantasy type armor to break away from the reality whenever you want. I love that they have beautiful gear options to suit your mood. I mean, you can be some god-like entity, or a tricked-out warrior, or humble civilian garb. As far as character designs, I prefer diversity. It would be ridiculous to customize every character, but at least customize the protagonist would be the best option to suit your needs. Side characters just need diversity. I mean, what is the big deal? Is it a sin? Does every being have to look alike? Hell no is what I say. 

[killamch89]

2 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

A great example to answer your question is the newer AC games. The armor is realistic in its setting, but also available is fantasy type armor to break away from the reality whenever you want. I love that they have beautiful gear options to suit your mood. I mean, you can be some god-like entity, or a tricked-out warrior, or humble civilian garb. As far as character designs, I prefer diversity. It would be ridiculous to customize every character, but at least customize the protagonist would be the best option to suit your needs. Side characters just need diversity. I mean, what is the big deal? Is it a sin? Does every being have to look alike? Hell no is what I say. 

I agree - I also prefer diversity as it gives more life to the environment in general. We don't want character looking like clones of each other like when you see nothing but Agent Smiths all over the world in the Matrix series.

[Reality vs Adventure]

3 hours ago, killamch89 said:

I agree - I also prefer diversity as it gives more life to the environment in general. We don't want character looking like clones of each other like when you see nothing but Agent Smiths all over the world in the Matrix series.

That's a good example. When characters don't have uniqueness then how are we supposed to remember who did what? Villains almost always have a uniqueness so that you remember them. Same should be for any character. I believe that unique doesn't have to look real or be idealized and it could be both. Ideal and real are inseparable if done right. It doesn't have to be either/or. 

[killamch89]

11 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

That's a good example. When characters don't have uniqueness then how are we supposed to remember who did what? Villains almost always have a uniqueness so that you remember them. Same should be for any character. I believe that unique doesn't have to look real or be idealized and it could be both. Ideal and real are inseparable if done right. It doesn't have to be either/or. 

I totally agree - the character's whole persona is what draws people in and if they looked like the average Joe, then we couldn't distinguish them from the rest.

[m76]

A character can be idealized and realistic at the same time. Idealized as in better looking than average.

Who says beauty can't be realistic?

Edited September 27, 2021 by m76

[Shagger]

6 hours ago, m76 said:

A character can be idealized and realistic at the same time. Idealized as in better looking than average.

Who says beauty can't be realistic?

 

Nobody said that a character can't be beautiful and realistic. What is ridiculous is considering a character's value reduced in a game because they don't meet your standards of beauty and claiming that characters becoming less attractive (in your eyes) in an effort to make them look more realistic is some sort of political conspiracy.

 

I'd say @Reality vs Adventure and @killamch89 hit the nail on the head. A world where the people in in are diverse in the way they look feels more real, immersive and interesting. I'm tempted to even call it an essential element of world building.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Shagger

[m76]

38 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

Nobody said that a character can't be beautiful and realistic. What is ridiculous is considering a character's value reduced in a game because they don't meet your standards of beauty and claiming that characters becoming less less attractive (in your eyes) in an effort to make them look more realistic is some sort of political conspiracy..

You always make it out about me, but it's not my standards, it's a generalized notion of what is considered attractive. If they went by my standards the outrage mob would be larger than in the case of TLOU2. Because my standards of attractiveness goes 180 to that of most men, but I know that and I'd be a selfish bastard if I still insisted that they cater to me.

They themselves admit it that they want to reduce the attractiveness of female characters, to defeat that evil male gaze. It's not about realism, that's only the excuse they give. Like for example they said they covered up female characters in MK11 to make it more realistic because "you wouldn't want to show much skin in a fight", but then half of the male characters are topless. They don't just deliberately want to go against fan service, they even lie about it straight into your face.

Or they made the Asari faces quite bad in ME:Andromeda, which is a race that is supposed to be attractive by lore, so much about realism.

And nobody said it was a conspiracy, it is individual bad faith actors working towards the same goal which is to perpetuate their politics by using games as a platform. Just as they ruined western comic books. Just as they are using star trek as a vessel for politics.

Edited September 27, 2021 by m76

[Shagger]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, m76 said:

They themselves admit it that they want to reduce the attractiveness of female characters, to defeat that evil male gaze.

 

First of, who are "they" and it that's true, prove it.

 

On 9/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, m76 said:

Or they made the Asari faces quite bad in ME:Andromeda, which is a race that is supposed to be attractive by lore, so much about realism.

 

As far as I'm aware, the dev's of ME: Andromeda did a piss poor job on the facial design and animations in general, not just on the Asari. So, again, unless you have some proof that that was on purpose, then that is just you wearing your tin foil hat again.

 

On 9/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, m76 said:

And nobody said it was a conspiracy, it is individual bad faith actors working towards the same goal which is to perpetuate their politics by using games as a platform. Just as they ruined western comic books. Just as they are using star trek as a vessel for politics.

 

Let me ask you something. If what your saying is true, give me an instance of something that happened within the design characteristics of a game that you claim to be "political" in it's motivation when you agree with said political bias. Or, in those instances, is that just the "creative liberty" of the people who developed the game? Politics by nature is driven by one's own opinion, and since there is no way that every person who inserts this so called political motivation in a game or movie ect sides exactly with you, there must be an occasion whare that has happened and you agree with it. Otherwise, the only plausible explanation is that you're just not mature enough to accept not everything is made for you and have to lash onto this "politics" excuse to justify how you feel because you don't like to admit that you disapproval is routed through you own, selfish wants and desires.

 

You see, my theory is you, for example, don't like the inclusion of woman you don't deem attractive enough, but don't want to admit that because you know it's misogynistic, so the inclusion of such characters becomes "political". However, you'll deem Ellie being gay in TLOU "creative liberty" because that doesn't bother you, even though, especially in TLOU 2, the writing has a strong social/political bias that the game is not shy about expressing through it's writing. Despite what I said, I would still describe Ellie's sexual orientation in TLOU as creative liberty, but there's no sense in denying the dev's make thier stance on the issue of LGBTQ rights very clear through the game, especially in Part 2.

 

That's why when you say stuff like this;

 

On 9/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, m76 said:

You always make it out about me, but it's not my standards, it's a generalized notion of what is considered attractive. If they went by my standards the outrage mob would be larger than in the case of TLOU2. Because my standards of attractiveness goes 180 to that of most men, but I know that and I'd be a selfish bastard if I still insisted that they cater to me.

 

I don't believe you. Not only is it a contradiction as, like you said, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so you can't have a standard that isn't anything other than you own. Building your hopes and expectations based solely on your own perceptions is not anything to be ashamed of anyway. We all do it, it's human nature.

 

However, it is not an excuse to be closed minded and ignorant. Like I said, I still read Ellie's sexual orientation as a creative liberty, mostly because I always see such things as a creative liberty. Even if, like I described in TLOU, there is at least some social/political purpose buried in creative pipeline, game dev's are 100% within their rights to design that creative pipeline exactly how they want, so even with a social/political message that is still very much creative liberty. So you see, I actually do stand for creative freedom, unlike those hypocrites out there who claim to stand for "creative liberty" when the truth is they're just using that as an excuse to attack inclusion they're not comfortable with and don't like being confronted with thier own prejudices. Sometimes I like the choices that are made, sometimes I don't and I own those opinions and never make stupid excuses for them and try to paint them as a general consensus to make myself feel better. I'd rather be wrong than lie. 

 

Ellie being gay, that's a creative liberty. Abby being more muscular than most men, that's a creative liberty. Thor being fat, that's a creative liberty. A Jotun being a young, black girl, that's a creative liberty. A character having a more natural looking, but arguably less attractive face, that's a creative liberty. The way the face's looked at launch in ME: Andromeda, that's a cock up.

 

The point is you have every right not to like it, that's your role as the customer, but just be honest with yourself why you don't.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Shagger

[Crazycrab]

I generally don't mind either way long as the character designs fit in with the overall asthetic and tone of the game.  In something like a fantasy RPG I don't mind seeing idolised character designs in unrealistic scanty armours or whatever but I would take issue with it in something like Chivalry which is supposed to be more realistic.

 

There is a specific franchise I'm going to call out.  Before I do I just want to state for the record that I am a huge fan of this franchise and have boundless respect for it's creator (the publisher can go to hell though).  I think the worst offender when it comes shamelessly objectified characters in a setting where it's unnecessary or even immersion breaking is the Metal Gear Solid franchise.  As sure as the sun rises in the east your guaranteed there's going to be at least one needlessly sexulised vixen in a Metal Gear Solid.  Sniper Wolf, Naomi, Eva, The Haven Troopers, The Beauty and the Beast Unit, the "Konami Eyes" model who's poster is planted all over the place in MGS2 and even the men aren't immune with characters like Vamp.

 

In the majority of these I can look past it enough to still enjoy it.  There is one however that took the absolute piss, so much that's I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned her in these other treads, and that is Quiet from MGS V:

 

 

Do I really need to say anything?  This was done for cosplay and merchandising. It's such a plain example of senseless and shameless objectification.  Of course there are some that claim otherwise.  Kojima himself insisted that there was an explanation for it, but every explanation/justification that's been given holds water about as well as the holy tights she's wearing.  I probably should call spoiler here but honestly the actual explanation as to why this sniper foregoes any sort of camouflage or protection in favour of two pieces of string is so ridiculous that it doesn't matter.  If you don't already know get ready to laugh your ass off!

 

 

To summarize, her lungs were burned in an earlier scene so her body mutated.  She now breaths through her skin so wearing anything beyond a micro-bikini would cause her to suffocate and die...

 

 

WHERE DO WE EVEN BEGIN ON THIS MOUNTAIN OF NOT MAKING SENSE!

 

First of all the problem could easily be solved by wearing any breathable fabric like cotton.  In fact she could wear just about anything that's not a full leather or latex gimp suit and she'd be fine.

 

Secondly normal people can breathe normally through our nostrils, which a surface area of maybe a couple of square millimetres yet she needs 99% of her skin exposed to air to intake the same amount of oxygen?.... Bullshit!

 

Thirdly and definitely the most ridiculous aspect to this, just take a look at some of the unlockable outfits:

 

 

Uses skin to breathe yet can walk around with her skin covered in tactical gear, covered in blood or even covered in PAINT!  Did Kojima never see Goldfinger, that would kill a normal person let alone somone uses their skin to breathe!

 

Sorry to rant there but this one really grates me, both for the shameless design of the character and even more so the ludicrous excuse.  The reason why it does is because I actually like Quiet.  She's fascinating not mention very useful in game.  She was easily the buddy I would use the most often, her covering me from a distance while I solo infiltrated suited my play style perfectly.   It takes a long time unlock the tactical outfit (below), which I think look WAY more badass.  However, not only does it not garner any advantages, it's costs you resources for her to deploy with it equipped.  So the game actually punishes you for not being a perv!

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Crazycrab

[Shagger]

15 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

I generally don't mind either way long as the character designs fit in with the overall asthetic and tone of the game.  In something like a fantasy RPG I don't mind seeing idolised character designs in unrealistic scanty armours or whatever but I would take issue with it in something like Chivalry which is supposed to be more realistic.

 

There is a specific franchise I'm going to call out.  Before I do I just want to state for the record that I am a huge fan of this franchise and have boundless respect for it's creator (the publisher can go to hell though).  I think the worst offender when it comes shamelessly objectified characters in a setting where it's unnecessary or even immersion breaking is the Metal Gear Solid franchise.  As sure as the sun rises in the east your guaranteed there's going to be at least one needlessly sexulised vixen in a Metal Gear Solid.  Sniper Wolf, Naomi, Eva, The Haven Troopers, The Beauty and the Beast Unit, the "Konami Eyes" model who's poster is planted all over the place in MGS2 and even the men aren't immune with characters like Vamp.

 

In the majority of these I can look past it enough to still enjoy it.  There is one however that took the absolute piss, so much that's I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned her in these other treads, and that is Quiet from MGS V:

 

 

Do I really need to say anything?  This was done for cosplay and merchandising. It's such a plain example of senseless and shameless objectification.  Of course there are some that claim otherwise.  Kojima himself insisted that there was an explanation for it, but every explanation/justification that's been given holds water about as well as the holy tights she's wearing.  I probably should call spoiler here but honestly the actual explanation as to why this sniper foregoes any sort of camouflage or protection in favour of two pieces of string is so ridiculous that it doesn't matter.  If you don't already know get ready to laugh your ass off!

 

 

To summarize, her lungs were burned in an earlier scene so her body mutated.  She now breaths through her skin so wearing anything beyond a micro-bikini would cause her to suffocate and die...

 

 

WHERE DO WE EVEN BEGIN ON THIS MOUNTAIN OF NOT MAKING SENSE!

 

First of all the problem could easily be solved by wearing any breathable fabric like cotton.  In fact she could wear just about anything that's not a full leather or latex gimp suit and she'd be fine.

 

Secondly normal people can breathe normally through our nostrils, which a surface area of maybe a couple of square millimetres yet she needs 99% of her skin exposed to air to intake the same amount of oxygen?.... Bullshit!

 

Thirdly and definitely the most ridiculous aspect to this, just take a look at some of the unlockable outfits:

 

 

Uses skin to breathe yet can walk around with her skin covered in tactical gear, covered in blood or even covered in PAINT!  Did Kojima never see Goldfinger, that would kill a normal person let alone somone uses their skin to breathe!

 

Sorry to rant there but this one really grates me, both for the shameless design of the character and even more so the ludicrous excuse.  The reason why it does is because I actually like Quiet.  She's fascinating not mention very useful in game.  She was easily the buddy I would use the most often, her covering me from a distance while I solo infiltrated suited my play style perfectly.   It takes a long time unlock the tactical outfit (below), which I think look WAY more badass.  However, not only does it not garner any advantages, it's costs you resources for her to deploy with it equipped.  So the game actually punishes you for not being a perv!

 

 

Totally agree with you on Quiet. To me, this is ongoing theme in MGS is something that I don't mind because, rightly or wrongly, it's a staple of the series and it's something to expect. And, like I said above, like it or not it's their creative liberty, so whilst I maintain my right to criticize it, I'd still defend their right to do it. Like you said, though, what really made it embarrassing was the dev's stupid, nonsensical attempts justify the character's design, it was truly ridiculous. If they had just said, "It's fan service. Deal with it" I'd have more respect for the decision.

[Reality vs Adventure]

5 hours ago, Shagger said:

Nobody said that a character can't be beautiful and realistic. What is ridiculous is considering a character's value reduced in a game because they don't meet your standards of beauty and claiming that characters becoming less less attractive (in your eyes) in an effort to make them look more realistic is some sort of political conspiracy.

I couldn't have said that better. People want to cry political foul if the standard bearer of beauty gets a 'reality' makeover which to them may not be the standard of beauty, but could be to other gamers. It must be hard to suit everyone’s needs as a developer. But if someone wants something different, a lot of times they are automatically categorized as political and that in itself demeans and further oppresses whatever they desire. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

6 hours ago, m76 said:

They themselves admit it that they want to reduce the attractiveness of female characters, to defeat that evil male gaze. It's not about realism, that's only the excuse they give. Like for example they said they covered up female characters in MK11 to make it more realistic because "you wouldn't want to show much skin in a fight", but then half of the male characters are topless. They don't just deliberately want to go against fan service, they even lie about it straight into your face.

That's a good point, but not sure who is admitting what--the developers? Advocates? First, I would say that being an advocate to lose the clothes as I read in comments on different sites over the MK11 issue is kind of piggish. The clothing status is something I probably never would have thought of if I were to play the game. Sure, I don’t mind skin at all, but I’m not gonna advocate showing it or not showing it. There are ratings for all that. But I agree that to cover up the ladies and not the men for a ‘reality’ based fight is hypocrisy at full capacity. Almost as if it is a f**k you statement from the developers or directors or whoever if they were criticized of the females showing too much skin over the years. And when they beg them to lose the clothes, the developers will probably be glad to abide. Who knows what happened there. But this is a fault of the developers and not political influence. I mean, even if there were some feminist advocates (political OR religious), then it was still up to the devs to express their stupidity in covering females and not males for reality based fights as their hypocritical reasoning. Nobody held their hand and forced them into stupid.

[m76]

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

That's a good point, but not sure who is admitting what--the developers? Advocates?

Both. On multiple occasions. There were several interviews where they mention "oversexualized" and how they are toning it down. For example here is a quote from Resident Evil 3 remake's art director:

The original design of Jill Valentine was clearly going for sex appeal, that was not the right direction. This is a very strong character, and it is a character that's going through a lot of adversity, so we wanted to home in on that and make sure that there's a certain level of believability in what she's wearing

So this person thinks, that a female character can only believably be strong if her sexual appeal is toned down and her body is fully covered up. The characters never set out to go zombie hunting in sexy skimpy clothes, that would be stupid. They are wearing whatever they happened to wear when the outbreak started, so in that sense any clothing is believable. Again realism is used as an excuse here to cover up the characters, when clearly it is not the real reason.

Or here is the ominous MK11 quote from the art director:

“Our design is just getting more mature and respectful. You’re not going to wear a bikini to a fight. You’re not going to be showing so much skin. I think it’s just what the game is about: You’re going in to fight for your life, and you’re not going to be wearing such scantily clad items. I’m sure that will disappoint some fans. We don’t have bathing suit fighters, and I think that’s fine. If people are disappointed, I don’t regret making that change by any means.”

This is just wrong on so many levels. First off if anyone saw a real MMA fight the fighters wear very little tight fitting clothing both male and female, because baggy clothes restrict movement, and the opponent can grab a hold of the clothing which would be another disadvantage. So the realism argument falls on its face immediately. Even if we disregard that the male fighters have much more revealing costumes in the game. But even worse is the mature and respectful part, which implies that all fans of series up to this point were immature.

Mortal Kombat was actually very progressive as it completely ignores traditional gender roles and put men and women as equals in the ring, but now this guy comes along and says we must cover up the female characters. Which is actual sexism imho, discrimination towards women, and what they are allowed to wear. A page from the book of Islam, demanding women to be fully covered up lest they use their feminine wiles on men.

 

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

First, I would say that being an advocate to lose the clothes as I read in comments on different sites over the MK11 issue is kind of piggish. The clothing status is something I probably never would have thought of if I were to play the game. Sure, I don’t mind skin at all, but I’m not gonna advocate showing it or not showing it.

The reverse is the case. Mortal Kombat had an established visual style and  costume designs, which they changed out of the blue, immediately being passive aggressive to the fans by saying we don't care if you don't like it. It's not about demanding the uncovering of characters, it's about honoring the tradition of the series. Nobody is demanding that for example Kara in Detroit Become human be uncovered, because that would actually be piggish.

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

There are ratings for all that. But I agree that to cover up the ladies and not the men for a ‘reality’ based fight is hypocrisy at full capacity. Almost as if it is a f**k you statement from the developers or directors or whoever if they were criticized of the females showing too much skin over the years.

But I literally never seen anyone complaining about that except maybe a few christian groups and the society of prudish, sorry worried parents. As the quote says they did this on their own knowing it goes against fan expectations.

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

And when they beg them to lose the clothes, the developers will probably be glad to abide. Who knows what happened there. But this is a fault of the developers and not political influence. I mean, even if there were some feminist advocates (political OR religious), then it was still up to the devs to express their stupidity in covering females and not males for reality based fights as their hypocritical reasoning. Nobody held their hand and forced them into stupid.

This is a fault of the developers own political awakening, they become "woke" and now they want to spread the gospel among gamers because they think that covering up women in their games will somehow magically make gamers less sexist. I guarantee it won't, but it sure as hell pisses of a lot of people, and leaves a sour taste in their mouth, loosing them a lot of business. I specifically did not buy MK11 because of this. And I'm not alone in that.  It is a matter of principle, not because I need this game to look at scantily clad women.

Edited September 27, 2021 by m76