Considering how subjective "pretty" is when it comes to women (or men) - your request is entirely useless.

Edit: besides, I'm sure the character creator will come with body sliders, allowing you (or anyone else) to shape the character model into whatever you consider to be "pretty".

...as far as "base" faces go, I would like to see the entire spectrum represented. I will agree that in the superhero genre the individuals tend to be on the attractive side of life, including the badguys/girls. from these "base" faces we could then adjust accordingly...assuming the sliders will be available on the face. this would allow for people to "play" around with the sliders if they so choose...but if not they are not doomed to have to look like quasimodoette...

JayBezz wrote:

I swear I'm not TRYING to be offended but the entire premise of this conversation is ignorant.

I'm in the same boat as you there.

I was going to quote a page from [url=http://grrlpowercomic.com/]GrrlPower[/url] about all supers being naturally more... ideal. Taller, leaner, stronger, with more regular facial features and more prominent... secondary sexual characteristics. Then I realized that this only applied to what CoH would have described as Naturals and need not apply to other Origins... except that the artist just, naturally, Did draw everyone with reasonably attractive features, even the 'normals'. Even the comic-shop guy wasn't ugly.

So, I'm left to conclude that, yes, I would prefer that all of the people in this ideal, super-powered world be, 'better than plain'. Not like CoH, where most of the civilians looked like they were recovering from a week-long drug-binge, or like they had been (not) sleeping in their clothes for a while.

Yes, there is plenty of room for the Deliberately non-ideal face and body. I'd prefer that to be a deliberate choice, while the Default face(s) for everybody in the game was... pleasant and attractive.

Be Well!
Fireheart

I'm not posting the following with any concerns toward CoT's Avatar Creator from the perspective as a dev. Referencing comic books, while they are in part the inspiration of the genre for this type of game do not and should not be used as a mandate for design decisions. Thise two key words are inspiration and mandate.

First we should recognize that for a great majority of its history, and still occurring, is that comic book visuals feed into a predominantly white male mysogonist fantasy. If comic book appearances were to be used as a mandate we would be looking at a lot of restrictive creative avenues that have no reason to exist.

With regards to another term used here as "pretty", it is a subjective term. The old addage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" exists for a reason and it is because even in the face of what media may express as "idealized beauty" not everyone will agree. At best, what sjoukd be expressed within the Avatar Creator are the base psychological factors of attractiveness. These deal with proportions and symmetry. Even then these should not be used to enforce one particular style. After all, not many may find a cyclopian female necessarily attractive. But if someone wants to create a dead-eyed, wrinkle-faced, grimacing face (male or female) with a paunch belly and gaunt limbs because it suits their concept, I would hope that the gsme's AV would allow the possibility instead of "only super-model-esque faces and physiques".

For a very recent fame dealing with the controvery of this subject one need not look any further than the current Metal Gear game and the character of Quiet. Even though there was an attempt to provide a story of her lack of outfit, most realized that it was a thin excuse to provide eye candy where really there was no reason for he design except eye candy. And it is a shame that still happens.

Further more, as a father of a young girl at an impressionable age, I try to instill in her the sense of self worth that will defy the media born narrow minded fantasy of "perfection" and. "beauty". It is bad enough that many her age appropriate toys are designed to impart this unhealthy version of beauty. Where instead I try to help her understand that there is no need to be an idealized size, eye color, hair color, style of dress, skin tone, but however she looks she is beautiful. Her only concern should be taking care of, being comfortable, and secure of herself.

Any game espousing a vast amount of customization should allow players to design whatever appeals to their own senses (within reason to the game's rating) and fulfills their own concept (within reason to the games functional design).

I'm not interested in the argument of relative attractiveness. From what I get from current game technology, we aren't going to have a significantly different experience when designing our character's face than we did in CoH. I expect to get a generic "flesh-covered skull" with perhaps some more polygons and greater slider control than CoH. Maybe there will be some varieties for ethnicity defaults, maybe not and I'll have to make those adjustments myself. ::shrug:: Then, I will have a (hopefully) long list of "skins" to wrap around it. Since I expect most of those "skins" to be relatively symmetrical they will almost all fall into the "relatively" attractive group. Some, like in CoH, may have sultrily hooded eyes, or extra full lips, or horrible scars or age wrinkles. I don't think there will be any "default" in the true sense. Just like in CoH, you'll have to PICK one.

Everybody is getting worked up over someone wanting their character to be attractive (by some presumably western standard) just like in the comics. So what? I resist the idea that super-hero comics are by default misogynistic. Or that their primary audience are misogynists. You wouldn't get characters like Wonder Woman or Black Widow written by a misogynist. Written and drawn for a predominantly male audience? Even an adolescent male audience? Sure. Absolutely. Coincidentally, that is the predominant video game and MMO audience as well. Just putting that out there.

I am not getting involved in that potenial argument at all......

Look as long as we have vast amounts of customization I could care less....

whiteperegrine wrote:

the response could have been worded better than calling out names. if you disagree, that's great, but state why you disagree...we should avoid just throwing out random spew. it doesn't help anything or anyone and just incites the masses not to mention makes you look silly.

I concur with this statement as I felt tossing around ''misogynist'' and mentioning gamergate and all that just made me want to vacate the thread immediately to avoid getting crucified if I said anything to the contrary.

And that's not really helping anyone in regards to such a conversation.....

Yikes, I did not mean to offend through the use of a particular term that I believe to be apt at least in what has largely become an apt understood historical perspective. Which is purely how I intended the use of the particular term, not as to illicit a negative responce, nor to indict any one in particular as to accuse them. For that I do apologize.

Perhaps I am a bit more sensitive as I said I have a young daughter and it is increasingly clear message in multiple forms of media and advertisement that seek to impress a version of ideal location beauty that very few can actually live up to.

And to be perfectly clear, I did not use the term as applied to describe any one person in this thread, nor any one person's actions in this thread. I specifically used it in reference to a historical period of a particular medium. That's it. I did not intend to disparage anyone, nor use the term in an off-handed manner. If it read that way (and I was sure to read it over a couple of times prior to posting and have sense posting to be sure of this otherwise I would have edited the post), it was unintentional for which I already apologized for any unintentional slight on my part.

Nor did I state that the request in the OP was something to not be provided, it. The request certainly should be an option, in as much as the option should exist for multiple people to fulfill their character concepts.

You know, I think I understand why there's such a stigma so as to what idealized beauty should be. Apparently, Hollywood and friends have mathematics on their side...

http://www.goldennumber.net/face/

Nadira wrote:

I agree that misogyny was far too strong a word to use, and that it frequently is used inappropriately (much like the Nazi label). It after all means a hatred or intense dislike of women. Cyclops certainly has not given any impression at all that he dislikes women, or female characters.

While it is a strong term, it now also carries the connotations of being prejudiced against, according to the modern version of the Oxford Dictionary. And again, I did not use it in reference toward the original poster or anyone else in this thread, but to highlight the fallacy of referencing the medium from which has repeatedly throughout history and even currently held such views toward women, from the particular standpoint of prejudiced, which can be used in terms for both how many women were depicted in both action and appearance. With this being said, can we please drop any further discussion on this term? Clearly even if innocently done on my part it touched a few nerves.

Let's just stick to the request that there be plenty of options in the Avatar Creator, with the understanding that many concepts should be possible.

Nadira wrote:

Bleddyn wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Perhaps I am a bit more sensitive as I said I have a young daughter and it is increasingly clear message in multiple forms of media and advertisement that seek to impress a version of ideal location beauty that very few can actually live up to.
And to be perfectly clear, I did not use the term as applied to describe any one person in this thread, nor any one person's actions in this thread. I specifically used it in reference to a historical period of a particular medium. That's it. I did not intend to disparage anyone, nor use the term in an off-handed manner. If it read that way (and I was sure to read it over a couple of times prior to posting and have sense posting to be sure of this otherwise I would have edited the post), it was unintentional for which I already apologized for any unintentional slight on my part.
Nor did I state that the request in the OP was something to not be provided, it. The request certainly should be an option, in as much as the option should exist for multiple people to fulfill their character concepts.

Oh no I didn't think that, your fine Tan. I have nothing against you or anyone in this thread whom brought it up. I was just trying to explain why saying that amongst others got the discussion a wee bit heated (This topic makes a lot of people uncomfortable, it's a minefield).
I have no children and don't ever plan too so I wouldn't understand that perspective. That article Nadir brought up didn't quite help as I don't think I understood what I was suppose to be getting out of a young girl having Starfire as her favorite hero. The one thing I will point out from my own experiences as a young man in this hey day is that the idealized forms of beauty extend both ways. Boys get the tall, tanned, sculpted chest, and handsome face thrown at them a lot as well along with the female idealizations. There is a rise of boys and young men whom try to fit that idealized form of beauty that drive themselves to the same extremes sadly enough. You don't hear many people talk about these boys and men though...
I rather play the mediator here. Cyclops could of put his suggestion in better words but the insults flying his way from the other posters for the suggestion were kind of unwarranted....

I agree that misogyny was far too strong a word to use, and that it frequently is used inappropriately (much like the Nazi label). It after all means a hatred or intense dislike of women. Cyclops certainly has not given any impression at all that he dislikes women, or female characters.
I am not fully accepting the 'he is asking for more diversity' argument though, and I think neither should you. There is no maliciousness in his original post, but it does show a profound lack of sensitivity, and much rather than chase him away with scorn I would try to explain to him why what he said was considered offensive by some.
Throughout most of the original post it is clear that Cyclops is not asking for more diversity in character models, but rather that the developers adhere to a rather narrow standard of aesthetics for female characters. A similar 'like comics' style for male characters is requested. The reason why I brought up the specific links I did is because they in particular speak about the objectification that is likely to happen if female characters in any media are (hyper) sexualised. Superhero comics are particularly guilty of that, though games have a well-earned reputation for being particularly bad in this aspect also.
The key issue is the difference between idealisation and objectification (or sexualisation for the male gaze).
I normally would not have bothered with a reply, if not for the final line where Cyclops pretty much explicitly states that female characters in (superhero) games exist to look pretty. The do not characters in CoH, be they female or male, exist to be heroes. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ideally I hope the developers will see fit to create at least the 'standard human' character based on what is physically possible. The initial shape in the character creator somewhere along a scale of 7 between match stick arms and body builder physiques. And extremes like pretty much any character from games like e.g. Rift or Smite to a second body type.
The first image in this blog posthttp://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/108645564152/our-own-revised-version-of-this-that-chart
does a good job at showing the differences in how the human body an be idealised for different purposes (and with the understanding that the vast majority of games focus exclusively on the middle category for male characters and the final category for female characters).
The original post by Cyclops suggests that he has grown up expecting this dimorphism in game characters, and hopefully we can show him, in polite words, why it is important for any game (as well as the industry as a whole) to look past this and start asking for, and offering, a more nuanced view of the human body, heroic or otherwise.

Hmmm. I understand your points now. Thanks for explaining.

Y'know I find it funny how on many other forums a topic like this would of gone downhill really fast and Cyclops would of been crucified. I have seen it happen and it wasn't pretty. I am glad this is one of the few communities were that shit doesn't happen....

Cyclops wrote:

When I saw that faces on our sister sites gallery, I freaked. Perhaps it is still early in the avatar process, but the faces were listless, unattractive, and the skin texture was yuck! Maybe my experience with the realistic characters we have is limited, but I haven't liked many of them, male of female.

Part of the problem is just endemic to computers and rendering. Even the Pixar people will talk about on the commentary track how much you have to FIGHT the computer's natural inclination to make everything look dead, lifeless and [i]plastic[/i]. It takes an awful lot of work to even approach the appearance/simulation of beauty in 3D moving art, so it's a non-trivial thing to strive for, as opposed to being the "easy" option everyone skips over in favor of making everything fugly.

Moral of the story is, you have to build your way "up" to having a "pretty" appearance in computer art, and it's a tricky thing to do and hold onto. As end users, we think it's effortless and easy simply because we've seen it done before (elsewhere), but that isn't actually true when talking about art and production.