Outlaw Star wars. not bad at all now. Edit: Confirmed bad

@R4gn4r0k: Not sure this is the best example. That dude is fugly to begin with.

@Pedro: Ha! Yeah, that Team America looking pic people keep showing is from a scene where the facial animation is crapping out. But in their defense, Ubisoft's marketing probably shouldn't have put buggy scenes like that in the preview of the game.

There is a whole list going around of about 10 (recent) male actors being compared to their in game counter parts, and about 10 (recent) female actors being compared to their in game counter parts.

Safe to say my argument is safe and sound or else I wouldn't be making it.

I think it's actually unbelievable how in game male models look like this:

And in game female models are unrecognizably altered.

@R4gn4r0k: No, your argument is flawed. Making virtual copies (3d scans) of actual actors (they are paying for the likeness and identifiability of the actor) and making new characters are literally two different things. Thus, the bad faith argument.

@Pedro: That's not quite fair Pedro. @R4gn4r0k: is not completely off base here. Developers are making a conscious effort not to sexualise the female characters so much, but the Internet is blowing the whole thing way out of proportion. Some alterations are sometimes made to facial structure, but the biggest differences tend to be in the amount of makeup. Developers are trying to be more realistic with the design, and chicks who live in the forest probably wouldn't wear heavy eye-shadow and lipstick. Actresses however, do. So people see those pictures and throw a big fit. A lot of men don't realize just how much difference a little makeup can make. My wife worked in a bookstore back in the day, and she totally sold more books on days she wore eye-liner.

@Pedro: @R4gn4r0k:

Same girl after spending some time with a stylist:

There seems to be a disconnect. "Isn't it sexist that they only tend to do this with female models and never with male models?" Actors that are selling their image/replication is not the same as a character that is being inspired by or created. The male actors referenced were selling their image and likeness. This is not the same as the female actors that are in question. None of the examples shown of the females are selling the likeness like the male equivalent and that is for obvious reasons, they are not recognizable or renown actors.

I agree that some guys are oblivious to make on vs make up off. But, should they? All of the folks on here are adults. As for developers making a conscious decision not sexualize female characters, I believe it is more to do with making more grounded or believable female characters for the underlying story. A female warrior, outlaw, infiltration agent etc is simply not going to be a cartoonishly sexualize character. Gaming has been made fun of the ludicrous female armor which was so blatantly pandering to horny teenage boys. Now these teenage boys are grown men expecting their juvenile perspective of women to be represented in the same ludicrous manner when they were younger. That does not equate to "you should not have sexualized female characters", but more like "Does the design of this character makes sense to the lore/story?". It is also worth noting that we are talking about faces, which isn't quite the primary method for sexualizing characters.

Neir Automata is a perfect example of the main character's design being absolutely trash for the underlying lore. But, because she is waifu, lore doesn't matter. If only people were more consistent with their complaints. (not targeted at you)

Rant...off.🙃

Totally agree with you there, I don't care if characters look sexual or attractive or not.

But acting like these changes are not happening, that's just lying to yourself.

"Gaming has been made fun of the ludicrous female armor which was so blatantly pandering to horny teenage boys. Now these teenage boys are grown men expecting their juvenile perspective of women to be represented in the same ludicrous manner when they were younger."

Ha! You kinda nailed it here. I won't say "everyone" but a lot of these folks are upset every video game chick isn't a big-titty supermodel anymore. But they don't want to just come out and say that, so they try to look for more reasonable sounding things to be upset about. Then they come off looking stupid anyway because, let's face it, men are not very observant with the details of a woman's face. We have ummm... bigger concerns.

"Neir Automata is a perfect example of the main character's design being absolutely trash for the underlying lore. But, because she is waifu, lore doesn't matter. If only people were more consistent with their complaints".

I've often wondered if there was some piece of lore buried somewhere in Automata that said 2B was a sex-robot that got repurposed when the Apocalypse broke out. Then her design would at least sort of make sense. Otherwise, it's just the kind of pandering that The Internet is okay with. 😆

It doesn’t look bad, but not great either. If you just want to explore some Star Wars enviroments, I’m sur it will be fine. But stealth/combat (especially ship combat) looks pretty awful.

Saw her punching storm troopers out cold and choking them easily. Looked so stupid. They never design the fight and stealth mechanics and animations in a way that makes sense for an average woman. That would take creativity, and all AAA does is safe imitation.

😂 That would have been hilarious and I would retract my objection to her design.

I don't think Pedro has never interacted with any game developers as I tend to do on Twitter and Discord. I cannot name them for the sake of privacy matters. I've discuss with 2 game developers, the changes on sexualizing females is due to the backlash on fake game journalist and not complying with SBI to a degree, developers are scared to get cancelled. If they don't comply, they'll get cancelled by fake journalist. Black Myth: Wukong is an example of this, but I won't say anything further here. This isn't me attacking Pedro's view point, but it would help to get information on game developers who aren't afraid to talk stuff regarding sexualizing female characters. (Social Gaming Media was a mistake and its a sad thing it has become)

I too don't care if a main character is sexy or not. As long as the game itself is fun, I'm down for it. I can say the main character for Star Wars: Outlaws is fine. But she does look like a moppet but that's because of her hair and the angle its being shot at😅

To the contrary. Former students of mine work in the industry and I actively engage in formal discussions with many folks from all across the industry about the state of the industry on a variety of topics and intermittently a speaker in these panels (over a hundred developers over the past 4 years). In addition, part of my job is to connect students with active game developers from Insomniac, Respawn all the way to indie devs like Long House Hat. It would be great if you actually read what I wrote instead of commenting blindly.🤷🏽‍♂️

@Pedro: And yet, I wasn't engaging with you.

You directly mentioned me by name, made false claims about me in your comments and direct engagement is never requirement in a public forum.🤷🏽‍♂️

After watch a simp of latest gameplay. I can see some are concerned and it's valid. I urge gamers here to wait for independent reviews before deciding whether you want to play it or not. I still want to check it out as this game has really got me interest in a sense.

Also, that Thermal grenade effect was indeed bad! How the heck Ubi screwed that up?

Here, i'll give you an independent review without playing the game. It will be a shallow ass 6/10 experience that will only be worth playing if you're a massive Star Wars fan, and want to experience an open world star wars title no matter how good the quality of the actual content is. Its still has the star wars vibe in an open world setting, not something we get from other developers.

Yeah I have some concerns about this game, eventhough I still play Avatar every day, and that game is by the same studio.

I hope that Outlaws is only hand holdy at the start, and then it opens up (previews have at least been positive).

I don't want it to fall into the same trappings as other AAA games, I just want a great Star Wars game :)

@R4gn4r0k: Which is why I'll play it through Ubisoft+ so no need to pay full price😉 Thank you Game Pass oops, I mean Ubisoft+

7 or 6 means game is either decent or fair. bad game is like 4/10.

outlaws looks 7 or 6 at best means not bad.

Nothing wrong with being sexist.

You say this because you want to play it, and trying your hardest to justify your purchase being "not bad". The truth is, the majority of 7/10 are generic copy paste that is not worth playing (right now its your job to quote me back and mention how Robocop got a 7/10 and that you liked the game blah blah blah you do this every time for years), and 6/10 titles are usually a complete disaster. Games that get under a 6/10 are literally rotten and should never be considered, so the 6/10 is literally the bare minimum, so if that's OK with you, well, enjoy your shitty game.

Robocop is 9/10 game that got 7/10 because not enough AAA and not enough mainstream?

Its one of the best game released in years. remind me of early 00s FPS games.

I rate many games I like 7 because they are not well masterpieces?

I'm sure its simple enough to appeal to the TC

As i said, you damage control garbage titles with your shallow Robocop pretty much all the time. And nobody cares about a game being a masterpiece, even Doom Eternal isn't what i would consider as one, but a 7/10 is just a shallow forgettable game, and if you want a perfect example of a 7/10 game, look no furthen than Starfield.

GS considers 7/10 as "Good", and 1/10 as the worst on their scaling. The reality is, 8/10 is what you'd consider as Good, and 6/10 is the bare minimum for a game to be even worth talking about. Anything under a 6/10, be it a 2/10 or a 5/10, its all worthless trash you gotta be drunk to bother with (Redfall says hi).

I think Spiderman is 7/10 game. not masterpiece but enjoyable. its no RE4 or Doom Eternal.

you really think GS going to give Stalker 2 9? they never gave STALKER 1 a 9 and I doubt Stalker 2 will be as good as original. Stalker 2 like original will get 8 or 7 despite it maybe 9 or 10/10 game. mainstream scores does not matter quality does.

otherwise GTA always get 10/10.

Again, you put everything against a "masterpiece" and if its not one, you somehow justify the game being good enough. wtf is that? Who does that? An actual masterpiece is something that comes out once, or maybe just a couple of times per generation. BG3 and Elden Ring+DCL are the only two titles released in the last few years that you could consider as one. And it doesn't matter that YOU don't like them, or don't consider them as a masterpiece... nobody cares about your opinion. These two MIGHT be considered as a masterpiece by many because these titles did things that other developers don't have the ballz or talent to achieve. All of which was achieved with zero bullshit (mtx, etc) and in the case of ER, extremely well poilished (even tho my BG3 playthrough was so smooth that i only remember a single minor bug).

I see stalker getting an 8/10 if there's a decent amount of bugs, and a 9/10 if its polished. It won't get a 7.

my friend you only play games based on payed critics give score. that mean shit.

there's only 2 masterpieces this decade so far. RE4 and Doom Eternal. maybe STALKER 2 will join if it even half as good as originals.

rest range from very good to good to ok.

Deathloop is great but not masterpiece. Atomic heart is good. Robocop is almost masterpiece if it was not for dated graphics and character model since its gameplay is so good. like I said early 00s FPS games.

stuff like spiderman or ghost of tshusima I call decent at best. one and done. no desire to replay again.

The **** you mean i play games based on critics? I play what i like because i know my taste in gaming, duh. But a game that i have enjoyed (like Dragon Age 2), and it having received far inferior scores and players reception, doesn't mean that its all fake and shouldn't be taken into consideration. People aren't negative for no reason, and that was pretty clear during my playthrough. A good game with a good dev team behind it, will most likely get a good score. Its that simple. Is me playing a good game that scored well, and has a good dev behind it means that i only play critically acclaimed titles? No, it means its a univerally praised title, which is often a quality game worth playing by everyone, unless you don't enjoy the genre of said game.

And you keep repeating again and again your stupid "X is good, but is not a masterpiece". You have not played a single game released in the last 10 years that most would consider as a masterpiece, so i ain't too sure why you're throwing the word "masterpiece" at the end of all of your sentences.

I played God of war 2018. one of the worst game I played you consider masterpiece.

for 2 hrs you are only walking and talking. engage is awful combat. nice animation and graphics and that's it.

also name masterpieces in 10 years.

Where did you see me considering the game as a masterpiece? I said that its by far my fav GoW game, i said that i LOVED the story and loved the rebooted Kratos. Gameplay was good, but a bit repetitive, and there wasn't enough variety of enviroment/biomes. Lack of different enemies was also a problem.

You've also played it for 2h, which, in a game that starts as slow as most Sony exclusives, that's literally nothing. So in reality, you haven't played the game for shit.

What i would consider masterpiece in the last 10 years? Sure, and this is not just my opinion, but the vibe i get from the general public.

Breath of the Wild - I personally would never put it there, but as i have mentioned, its not just about my optinion, but the impact of the game back when it launched, and in the case of botw, it was big.

Elden Ring+DLC - That is also my opinion, and opinion of most who have played the game, including the millions of casuals who've never touched a Souls game before ER.

BG3 - Also my opinion. Its the most content packed game that i can even think of, and the current 73k players (which often surpasses 100k) on steam still playing a singleplayer game with no new content ain't random.

RDR2 - Even tho the core gameplay (YES, THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in a game, i know) isn't masterpiece grade, this game is very unique, and there's absolutely nothing that comes close to a western sim like RDR2. Most that have played it, even with its flaws, would consider it as a masterpiece.


And that's it. Unless i am missing something, there is nothing released in the last decade that i would accept as a "Masterpiece". Notice how i am not mentioning gow2018 even tho i loved the game? Notice how i am not mentioning TLOU2, even tho is my favorite third person shooter? Notice how Doom Eternal isn't there, even tho its pretty much the best first person shooter since i don't even know how long? Yea, they might be even 10/10 games, but labeling them as masterpiece is dumb because they ain't one.

Hardwenzen acknowledging Breath of the Wild as a masterpiece?! I don’t even know what this place is anymore. 😳

@warm_gun: "Saw her punching storm troopers out cold and choking them easily. Looked so stupid".

What you described is lore accurate. Storm Troopers can be easily bested by teddy bears in melee combat. That happened in the good trilogy.

RDR2 masterpiece lol. sure it has amazing world and story but gameplay is bad. its super casual and easy. too little freedom in mission design.

Its not a matter of your opinion, but the impact on gaming the game had. Nothing in the whole industry is even close to a western sim that is RDR2. And good luck seeing a title in the same western setting surpassing it in a forseeable future.

because no one making western games?

of course it would be top when no one is making western games. desperados 3 is better western game but its different genre of course.

What is with the excessive quote padding on this thread?

@ghosts4ever: Sure, take another setting. How many open world titles are aiming for a realistic sim-like experience? Nobody because its difficult to pay attention to so many details. RDR2 being a western is just a cherry on top because its a cool and underused setting.

People just being lazy.

Looks like ubishit has began buttering up content creators🤣🤣🤣🤣Hell yea, they're just strengthening the shitstorm. Their PR ain't ready for this.

but playing part man. it suck. story is amazing I gave it to that. like one of the best story told in gaming.

game is more fit for series than gameitself.

based on story, characters, world, graphics. its 10/10 game.

based on playing part. its 1/10.

so overall I still give it 7/10 game. slow, boring and one of the easiest game ever made but having one of the best story and game world.

I can't believe people forget about Cal Kestis did the same by banging two Stormtroopers when they were wearing their helmets. (3:55)

Cal: I can't believe that actually work

Me: No kidding, that's not how helmets work like that.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Gameplay has flaws, but when you play it as a western simulator, its an amazing game.

@hardwenzen said:

Looks like ubishit has began buttering up content creators🤣🤣🤣🤣Hell yea, they're just strengthening the shitstorm. Their PR ain't ready for this.

This is still cheaper than actually making a good game 😏

Yeah I knew something smelled fishy went all the previews went from negative to positive.

Plus Digital Foundry wasn't invited on the rollercoaster, I can see the reason now (they are usually rather objective, don't want any of that now)

@hardwenzen said:

Looks like ubishit has began buttering up content creators🤣🤣🤣🤣Hell yea, they're just strengthening the shitstorm. Their PR ain't ready for this.

Uh huh.