You think we have to be attracted to morbidly obese and ambiguously sexed people in order to be accepting? What kind chronically online take is that? People are allowed to find others unattractive. In your race to be the very virtuest of all, you’ve accidentally looped around to intolerance.
I don’t think you’re trying to engage honestly but I’m going to on the off chance someone is reading this thread on a bad day and thinking “maybe he has a point? Why can’t I be attracted to XYZ?”
You’re trying to twist this into a question of “do I have to be attracted to everyone in order to be accepting”?
The original question that’s being engaged with is why, in your words, does
“morbidly obese”
“gender non-conforming”
Make for “the worst character designs in living memory”? Why can’t gender non-conforming characters have an interesting character design? Why is physical fitness required for an interesting character design?
The subtext I’m reading from this is you think that in order for a character to have an interesting design that they must be attractive. If that’s not what you’re trying to say feel free to claim otherwise, but I don’t know why else you’d bring those factors in if you weren’t…
A counter argument to your claim: I claim deep rock galactic has very interesting character designs. The costumes all have a similar theme but are distinct enough I can tell the difference between the characters. The colors are both grimy to indicate being underground for long periods of time but also each has a bright color palette so you can easily distinguish between characters. I think these designs are great.
I am not attracted to any of these characters. I would never want to fuck any of them. I still think their designs are great. I don’t think attractiveness is a requirement for interesting character design.
I get your point about sexual attraction not being necessary, but you’re still kind of making the other user’s point for them. Deep Rock Galactic works because of a cohesive aesthetic with characters that actually fit the world they’re in. Concord was like a cast of soulless GI Joe toybait characters who went through a corporate intersectional diversity blender.
I mean I wasn’t really arguing that Concord had good character designs. Just that a chunk of his criteria (obesity and gender conformity) aren’t good criteria of it.
You’re the one suggesting that your lack of attraction to these character models is an objective flaw. Which is, of course, semantically silly, if nothing else. Not finding a character (or person) attractive for whatever reason is your business. Taking to the forum and yelling about androgyny being objectively unattractive (in an online space which I’d wager has a disproportionate representation of trans and NB individuals) is an interesting choice.
I called them unattractive. You called that a flaw. Maybe it is. Like it or not, people prefer attractive characters in PvP hero shooters. See the outrageous success of Marvel Rivals which launched just three months after Concord. You seem to be taking this very personally. If you’re more attracted to fat, lumpy, and sexually ambiguous people, more power to you. You just don’t represent the vast majority of people who play these games.
The uno reverse card you’re trying to play is so silly. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. This sort of queerphobic bigotry is hateful, cringe and diametrically opposed to “acceptance”. You can’t be supportive of queer lives when you are also demonizing queer repsentation as ugly.
They’re not, they’re specifically saying Concord’s character design is ugly for a lot of very practical and valid reasons, and also it’s only representing a very specific minority of people who are a spit in the bucket of the total audience numbers necessary to support a paid live service title.
So it’s both doing a disservice to itself by just being incompetently made AND playing into the stereotype that minority rep always ends up ugly (an already very common sentiment due to how often cases of it sucking are spotlit) because it has basically nothing but that.
Ironically had Concord had a more actually diverse cast, and not overwhelmingly represented a handful of pet groups the designers seemed to overwhelmingly favour, it would have not been possible to attack it as “they’re all lame fat and/or gay.”
It still would have tanked, so on balance not much of an issue, but still.
Queer people don’t have to be ugly and fat. What an insane take. It’s not “queerphobic” to be unattracted to people. It is homophobic (and queerphobic) to tell people what they’re allowed to be attracted to.
You think we have to be attracted to morbidly obese and ambiguously sexed people in order to be accepting? What kind chronically online take is that? People are allowed to find others unattractive. In your race to be the very virtuest of all, you’ve accidentally looped around to intolerance.
I don’t think you’re trying to engage honestly but I’m going to on the off chance someone is reading this thread on a bad day and thinking “maybe he has a point? Why can’t I be attracted to XYZ?”
You’re trying to twist this into a question of “do I have to be attracted to everyone in order to be accepting”?
The original question that’s being engaged with is why, in your words, does
Make for “the worst character designs in living memory”? Why can’t gender non-conforming characters have an interesting character design? Why is physical fitness required for an interesting character design?
The subtext I’m reading from this is you think that in order for a character to have an interesting design that they must be attractive. If that’s not what you’re trying to say feel free to claim otherwise, but I don’t know why else you’d bring those factors in if you weren’t…
A counter argument to your claim: I claim deep rock galactic has very interesting character designs. The costumes all have a similar theme but are distinct enough I can tell the difference between the characters. The colors are both grimy to indicate being underground for long periods of time but also each has a bright color palette so you can easily distinguish between characters. I think these designs are great.
I am not attracted to any of these characters. I would never want to fuck any of them. I still think their designs are great. I don’t think attractiveness is a requirement for interesting character design.
I get your point about sexual attraction not being necessary, but you’re still kind of making the other user’s point for them. Deep Rock Galactic works because of a cohesive aesthetic with characters that actually fit the world they’re in. Concord was like a cast of soulless GI Joe toybait characters who went through a corporate intersectional diversity blender.
I mean I wasn’t really arguing that Concord had good character designs. Just that a chunk of his criteria (obesity and gender conformity) aren’t good criteria of it.
You’re the one suggesting that your lack of attraction to these character models is an objective flaw. Which is, of course, semantically silly, if nothing else. Not finding a character (or person) attractive for whatever reason is your business. Taking to the forum and yelling about androgyny being objectively unattractive (in an online space which I’d wager has a disproportionate representation of trans and NB individuals) is an interesting choice.
I called them unattractive. You called that a flaw. Maybe it is. Like it or not, people prefer attractive characters in PvP hero shooters. See the outrageous success of Marvel Rivals which launched just three months after Concord. You seem to be taking this very personally. If you’re more attracted to fat, lumpy, and sexually ambiguous people, more power to you. You just don’t represent the vast majority of people who play these games.
You call the space saturated with sameness then rip on the game for taking a different stylistic choice. You’re contradicting your own arguments.
The uno reverse card you’re trying to play is so silly. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. This sort of queerphobic bigotry is hateful, cringe and diametrically opposed to “acceptance”. You can’t be supportive of queer lives when you are also demonizing queer repsentation as ugly.
They’re not, they’re specifically saying Concord’s character design is ugly for a lot of very practical and valid reasons, and also it’s only representing a very specific minority of people who are a spit in the bucket of the total audience numbers necessary to support a paid live service title.
So it’s both doing a disservice to itself by just being incompetently made AND playing into the stereotype that minority rep always ends up ugly (an already very common sentiment due to how often cases of it sucking are spotlit) because it has basically nothing but that.
Ironically had Concord had a more actually diverse cast, and not overwhelmingly represented a handful of pet groups the designers seemed to overwhelmingly favour, it would have not been possible to attack it as “they’re all lame fat and/or gay.”
It still would have tanked, so on balance not much of an issue, but still.
Queer people don’t have to be ugly and fat. What an insane take. It’s not “queerphobic” to be unattracted to people. It is homophobic (and queerphobic) to tell people what they’re allowed to be attracted to.