Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and use your eyes and your mind. There are some minor differences, yeah, like the shape of the young Kay's eyebrows, but that's pretty petty. All in all, it's a good match. Her features are similar. They look like they can be the same person years apart. It's good work. I gained an appreciation for the work of the artists who created these models by looking closely at them. Why didn't you? Kay looks like her actress. Just a bit thinner and more tired, and with a marginally longer chin. That's it. It's not a big deal, or a conspiracy.
I don't know why you're still going on, really. And if you want to be taken seriously, why would you pepper your supposedly legitimate constructive criticism with daft jokes about her looking like Palpatine or whatever? And the whole "it's just my humour, it's not my fault if some people are offended" line has worn very thin.
If you find it creepy given the context of the work you are assigned I don't know what to tell you. How exactly do they make child character models in games you've worked on?
I realized I could probably go into a deeper explanation as to why I reacted the way I this way, maybe it would be helpful and a good educational bit.
So yes, I will lay my bias out, I am sensitive to this topic, but not in the way that you might think, in that I'm offended... I'm sensitive in a way that you get when you have decades of lived experience that creates a finally tuned "radar" within yourself and you can instantly grab subtext, it's something I'm sure a lot of women and other femme presenting people can also relate to. My radar got pinged I'll try to explain why.
I have actually created a girl character before, about a decade ago for a horror game, she was about 10-12. I did have to look up child proportions but I did so in a very general way. I did think about what proportions would look appropriate for her, considering her age, and I had a bit of my own lived experience to draw from. I kept a very objective, arms length approach, trying to not pass judgements on what is "cute" or "attractive" but instead what fits her as a character and fits narrative. However at no time did I think specifically about her band or cup size, that is something that feels deeply personal and are facts that a lot of people actually get wrong, even if you need or wear a bra. I also had to look up burn wounds for a creepy burned variant of her and create a pregnant woman for the game as well, so RIP my search history for the time. It being a horror game and some of the subject matter I had to look up to get details right, it was kind of uncomfortable, but sitting with my discomfort and working on this does give me a chance to think about why I do feel uncomfortable and how I can create a bit of distance between myself and my work to stay in a healthy objective mindset.
For what I do now, well in my work history I have worked a TON with modular character sets, and have done refits from one gender to another, and from one playable race to another. I've developed a bit of a passion for it, being a big advocate for making sure the quality looks equally or comparable on all available options. I'm very used to giving feedback on breasts/ chest areas, butts and groins, you kind of have to if you're going to do this job. There is a way to do it with tact though, and I'll give some generic examples of feedback I've given before, scrubbed of specifics:
It looks like the side of the armor have gotten squished, it feels like there isn't adequate room for the chest volume
The straps on the female chest sit in an way that doesn't feel natural compared to the male version, try this paint over idea
Is it possible we could better finesse the chest shape to make this version feel more masculine or feminine?
It looks like the with the re-targeting the groin shape wound up skewed on the male, I think it needs some finesse to feel better
It's stuff like that, using depersonalized language in favor of stuff that is more art centric, like talking about the volume, shape, any skewing really goes a long way for making these conversations feel more professional.
Ok so to get into why this comparatively has a weird vibe for me:
In fact that young version of her doesn't even look like her, so not
sure what puberty did but she had a bigger bust when she was younger. her adult model is very visibly a different band/cup size and the face looks like a different person.
It's already been established that NikhilR doesn't find adult Kay attractive, appealing or well done, this is honestly an ok opinion to have as that sort of thing is also subjective. You're allowed to not like something. It's also ok to think that the younger version of Kay is a better done model that is more attractive an appealing. Both of these things are totally ok and fine opinions to have.
However where it gets sketch and pings my radar is not only is the younger version more attractive, but also her bust is a detail that is worthy of zeroing in on, calling out that her band/cup size is not only different, but bigger... which is a very personal detail and might not even be true because as I mentioned earlier, a lot of people aren't aware of how those work. Why specifically call out her breasts but not other things about her proportions? Especially why call it out first? It gives bad vibes because I know as a preteen/teenage girl, if first thing that someone felt the need to comment on where my breasts, it would be super weird and uncomfortable. Combine the breast comment with the opinion that younger version is more attractive, really sets my radar off and experience has told me that there is a lot of extra subtext being implied that is not being outright said (btw I would hope and like for that subtext to not be true, but you don't get a vigilant radar for no reason)
If I was to talk about comparisons between her younger an adult models and noticed discrepancies, I would be very general about it or find a way to use more depersonalized language. Like idk I would try this (note I have not seen full screenshots of the 2 different versions and how they compare so I'm pulling this completely out of thin air) "Her proportions don't seem like they would belong to the same character from a younger to adult version"
It can be a valid critique, sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.
Its why I called that bit about Kay being trans or having used puberty
blockers rubbish and I hope it doesnt go there when this bit gets out. Not
sure what regular is in Star Wars, I guess anything is possible, and
they are definitely trying to sell the strong feminist woman stereotype
which isn't a problem as long as the characters backstory and plot
affords to her growth, development and redemption.
Not sure why Kay "being trans" would get out when no sane person on the internet has even suggested that. I'm sure there are some parts of the abyssal sludge of the internet that will try to make that case, don't go eagerly diving headfirst down there, it's not worth it.
A ruffian scoundrel trying to make ends meet seems about as regular as you can get in the Star Wars universe, especially for that period in the canon
So yeah, trying to not derail this thread more than it already has been, but I hope this is helpful insight for some.
If the intent was to replicate the appearance of the actress then I don't think they did a great job
but...
Professional character artists with access to scanners tend not to get that sort of thing wrong so my guess is that they decided a more ripley-esque appearance suited the character than the disney princess appearance of the actress.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and use your eyes and your mind. There are some minor differences, yeah, like the shape of the young Kay's eyebrows, but that's pretty petty. All in all, it's a good match. Her features are similar. They look like they can be the same person years apart. It's good work. I gained an appreciation for the work of the artists who created these models by looking closely at them. Why didn't you? Kay looks like her actress. Just a bit thinner and more tired, and with a marginally longer chin. That's it. It's not a big deal, or a conspiracy.
I don't know why you're still going on, really. And if you want to be taken seriously, why would you pepper your supposedly legitimate constructive criticism with daft jokes about her looking like Palpatine or whatever? And the whole "it's just my humour, it's not my fault if some people are offended" line has worn very thin.
Thats (among others) another great post and analysis.
And the Nose? easy! The cartilaginous framework and growth changes + depending how she lives + simply aging means a differently shaped nose can easily happen. Like Fighting for example... and healing a broken nose. (okay that one is easy)
Dorsal humps can also happen due to genetics, where the persons genetics code has a tendency to develop the bump thru-out the years + inner working structure of the nose.
I feel like many Books especially meant for Artists have grossly oversimplified Anatomy knowledge in the pursuit to make it easy enough to understand in a sitting while completely missing out on all the beautiful variations which humanity holds.
Not to be too dismissive but ... to be fair, diagrams like the above end up doing the opposite of what was intended IMHO. Such wireframe redline paintovers are fantastic in order to explain changes to be performed on a design or model ("please make the nose follow a plane more like this") ; but they achieve close to nothing when used to demonstrate a likeness match between a photo and a 3D model. It's a bit like how some people pretend that this or that person looks attractive because of some magical golden ratio diagram ... while in reality said magical diagram is just a crude wireframe mask that can be be retrofitted onto anyone.
Of course Nik is borderline trolling here but it is still true that it takes a strong art director with full faith in themselves and their art team in order to dismiss a "hmmm perhaps we shouldn't make this character too attractive" comment that someone from outside the art team and who's never picked up a pencil in their entire life may eventually make during a meeting. In that regard film (with real actors) and games are really quite different.
Also, I personally believe that working with a specific actress/model and "tweaking her face here and there" (if that's actually what happened) is quite disrespectful, and a sign of a lack of humility towards the incredible subtleties of human anatomy. But hey, who knows what actually went down. Some shots looks fantastic, while others do look somewhat odd. Yet had the cutscenes been "storyboard-style" stills or motion graphics, no one would have noticed anything.
Overall and despite the amazing amount of work that goes into it, this high-fidelity look just looks exhausting to me - probably precisely because of the absurd amount of time and ressources these assets take to develop, and because of how easily things can break - like AO glitching out and not filling up nostrils properly, wasting the work of a talented character team just because someone from tech insisted that "shadows shouldn't be painted in" ; or some animation retargeting affecting the shape of a mouth or jawline just a bit too strongly. Increased processing power is playing a dirty trick on us here, since there is no more room left for interpretation or "filling in the blanks".
All that said, the game looks very impressive - characters and environments alike.
Not to be too dismissive but ... to be fair, diagrams like the above end up doing the opposite of what was intended IMHO. Such wireframe redline paintovers are fantastic in order to explain changes to be performed on a design or model ("please make the nose follow a plane more like this") ; but they achieve close to nothing when used to demonstrate a likeness match between a photo and a 3D model. It's a bit like how some people pretend that this or that person looks attractive because of some magical golden ratio diagram ... while in reality said magical diagram is just a crude wireframe mask that can be be retrofitted onto anyone.
Well, it's not designed to show them alone. After all, if you draw over it you're still hiding a bit of the original thing you're trying to make a point about. It's more like "go back and look at these parts in the original image you posted". I thought using lines that way would highlight them a little better than just a load of arrows alone. Ideally, I'd just have it as a layer you can toggle, but I don't think Polycount has anything like that, so highlighting the marching parts is about as much as can be done, I think.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and use your eyes and your mind. There are some minor differences, yeah, like the shape of the young Kay's eyebrows, but that's pretty petty. All in all, it's a good match. Her features are similar. They look like they can be the same person years apart. It's good work. I gained an appreciation for the work of the artists who created these models by looking closely at them. Why didn't you? Kay looks like her actress. Just a bit thinner and more tired, and with a marginally longer chin. That's it. It's not a big deal, or a conspiracy.
I don't know why you're still going on, really. And if you want to be taken seriously, why would you pepper your supposedly legitimate constructive criticism with daft jokes about her looking like Palpatine or whatever? And the whole "it's just my humour, it's not my fault if some people are offended" line has worn very thin.
Thats (among others) another great post and analysis.
And the Nose? easy! The cartilaginous framework and growth changes + depending how she lives + simply aging means a differently shaped nose can easily happen. Like Fighting for example... and healing a broken nose. (okay that one is easy)
Dorsal humps can also happen due to genetics, where the persons genetics code has a tendency to develop the bump thru-out the years + inner working structure of the nose.
I feel like many Books especially meant for Artists have grossly oversimplified Anatomy knowledge in the pursuit to make it easy enough to understand in a sitting while completely missing out on all the beautiful variations which humanity holds.
Thanks for taking the time for this analysis, your handwriting is a bit difficult to read in places but I did get the gist of what you were meaning to convey.
The reason I made the comparison was more for a overall general look, like if you held the comparison at a distance, where do you see a more ideal progression simply based on this image.
To make a more precise definitive analysis based on paintovers you would need to line the images up, though in this case its not just about whether a round jaw could turn more square ot a cheeks bones can become more pronounced because genetics, is how when the audience looks at the presentation as a first impression are they required to suspend disbelief and more importantly has the game taken care to address a possible oversight/discrepency.
When you point to genetics as a cause and then say that these changes are natural that is still suggesting that she missed out on the genetic lottery. Its like this peculiar incident
This is basically the opposite of what Ubisoft has done, though I don't think that the intent of the studio was to not conform to some disney princess beauty standard but rather they had a backstory that they wanted the character to fit and many in the audience feel that they probably didn't do the best job at it which several thinking its a gamergate conspiracy.
In general it is very difficult to have an audience accept an interpretation on a likeness, the uncanny valley is a very real risk and more so when dealing with facial animation. We see it here on polycount all the time and it does open up a conversation about the artists skill level at being able to do this convincingly.
Of course if the artist is credible because of professional experience and if a studio signs off on their work the criticism is going to veer towards being some kind of conspiracy and more so because of the popularity of the character.
450,000 userse have a problem with Kays face and millions of users had an issue with Sonic's redesign and sure we can say how many of these numbers are genuine people and not bots or right wing trump supporting gamergate trolls?
Maybe this controversy helped market the game, who knows?
“If you engage with bad-faith people, there’s no nuance and no possibility of real dialogue. So all we can do is make the best game possible.” I am hoping that Scott Eaton does a character art study on Kay Vess as part of his Galley Abominate series as a segment on altering likenesses and visual targets. Coming from this statement, it seems unlikely that we will get any details from ubisofts creative team seeing how this whole situation has been highjacked by the broader culture war.
"The amount of licenses we have in this game and doing something like that, even to begin with, to have that many players on a cover, is no easy feat. And the amount of approvals you then need to work through is also highly complex. I don't want to dwell on that, but a big part of it is working through all of those pieces.
"The key thing is, and I think it's really important, is we're doing so much to improve player likeness. Our visuals are going to be amazing. We see the feedback. We also see tremendous positive feedback as well about that cover and what it represents, and also what it means for FC going forward."
The emphasis in both Ubisoft and EA's case is that "make the best game possible" the difference being that ubisoft's seems dismissive of feedback and EA's is more diplomatic. That and EA can afford to be since they release newer iterations of the product every year. I don't know if Ubisoft fully addressed the consequences of their character design not being well received on future sequels.
Like in ubisoft's case, I'm not really sure what Kay will look like in a sequel, or if Ubisoft even cares about genuine feedback about her face to make a change. Will she fix her broken nose? Will she get plastic surgery to infiltrate the crimson dawn? Will palpatine seduce her to the dark side?
The challenge in game dev is that dev's can say precious little about feedback positive or negative because of the risk to their employment, but it is important to address feedback without getting consumed in the broader culture war on beauty standards and stereotypes.
Not to be too dismissive but ... to be fair, diagrams like the above end up doing the opposite of what was intended IMHO. Such wireframe redline paintovers are fantastic in order to explain changes to be performed on a design or model ("please make the nose follow a plane more like this") ; but they achieve close to nothing when used to demonstrate a likeness match between a photo and a 3D model. It's a bit like how some people pretend that this or that person looks attractive because of some magical golden ratio diagram ... while in reality said magical diagram is just a crude wireframe mask that can be be retrofitted onto anyone.
Well, it's not designed to show them alone. After all, if you draw over it you're still hiding a bit of the original thing you're trying to make a point about. It's more like "go back and look at these parts in the original image you posted". I thought using lines that way would highlight them a little better than just a load of arrows alone. Ideally, I'd just have it as a layer you can toggle, but I don't think Polycount has anything like that, so highlighting the marching parts is about as much as can be done, I think.
Going through Kay's backstory, I thought to explain her facial transformation as an adult as a result of a lifestyle. Ubisoft does say that she had a hard life of petty crime and the years were not kind. I though maybe she had an additiction, like gambling alongside dependency on meth or heroin that altered her facial features significantly and also explains her broken nose in street fights. (fighting off drug dealers and debt collecting bounty hunters)
But this perspective doesn't fit because of Nix who she finds as a child and atleast its suggested that they were never apart at any point though if you've seen homeless people with pets, its very evident how well cared for their pets are so maybe that situation applies here (though not all of them has addictions and Kay wasn't homeless, just living in the attic of a seedy bar)
Considering the emphasis on her broken nose, she doesn't take on any visual cosmetic damage in melee fights in the game and is super strong but can't move bodies or carry guns up ladders and Nix is invincible and never targeted by enemies. Maybe all this is just the gameplay design team being out of sync with the character design team, or a conscious design choice that no one on the team can talk about because "they don't want to engage with bad faith gamers and are convinced in their ability to make the best game possible"
Generally when the audience has to fill in these gaps to explain their suspension of disbelief it could indicate a design oversight. Then again Ubisoft isn't Naughty Dog and Star Wars Outlaws isn't Last of Us. And there was considerable controversy on Abby's character design as well and how if backstory, environment and lifestyle provided for a convincing portrayal of her character.
Going through Kay's backstory, I thought to explain her facial transformation as an adult as a result of a lifestyle. Ubisoft does say that she had a hard life of petty crime and the years were not kind. I though maybe she had an additiction, like gambling alongside dependency on meth or heroin that altered her facial features significantly and also explains her broken nose in street fights. (fighting off drug dealers and debt collecting bounty hunters)
But this perspective doesn't fit because of Nix who she finds as a child and atleast its suggested that they were never apart at any point though if you've seen homeless people with pets, its very evident how well cared for their pets are so maybe that situation applies here (though not all of them has addictions and Kay wasn't homeless, just living in the attic of a seedy bar)
Considering the emphasis on her broken nose, she doesn't take on any visual cosmetic damage in melee fights in the game and is super strong but can't move bodies or carry guns up ladders and Nix is invincible and never targeted by enemies. Maybe all this is just the gameplay design team being out of sync with the character design team, or a conscious design choice that no one on the team can talk about because "they don't want to engage with bad faith gamers and are convinced in their ability to make the best game possible"
Generally when the audience has to fill in these gaps to explain their suspension of disbelief it could indicate a design oversight. Then again Ubisoft isn't Naughty Dog and Star Wars Outlaws isn't Last of Us. And there was considerable controversy on Abby's character design as well and how if backstory, environment and lifestyle provided for a convincing portrayal of her character.
It's not a transformation though, is it? She didn't really transform; she just got older and has a broken nose. Most of her facial features are the same as her younger model, just thinner because she's older.
There are multiple good reasons for her not to take cosmetic damage in fights.
It means that's more models and textures you to add. That takes time and money on a game that was already expensive.
For that effort and cost, you get only a small return.
Stuff like visible cuts and bruises isn't all that Star Warsy. The only time you see those in Star Wars films, really, is if it's for a plot reason, like Luke losing his arm, the meta stuff that required him to get beaten up at the start of Empire Strikes Back, etc. You don't really see characters get regular injures like a bloody nose or bruises in regular action in the main films.
It's not comparable to something the TLoU. TLoU, despite its basically-zombie-apocalypse stuff, is basically character drama. They take visible injuries because the setting is more grounded, and showing those gives it weight and a feeling of realism. They need it to matter if the characters mess each other up. Star Wars isn't like that. It's a space fantasy, an action adventure. It's supposed to be heroic and sweeping and cool. Adding lots of injury detail and dragging wounds just wouldn't fit. Isn't this comment just a backdoor to drag in your gripes about Abby again....?
I don't see how your suspension of disbelief should be stretched by "she looks slightly different as an adult to when she was a kid" but the entire setting is fine.
That "she must've been on drugs" thing....Do you watch Mauler or any of his types, by any chance? Gives me the same vibes as those guys insisting Rey's backstory should've been a lot more desperate and rapey because how could a woman possible have been alone and had a rough backstory without being a victim...
Thanks for taking the time for this analysis, your handwriting is a bit difficult to read in places but I did get the gist of what you were meaning to convey.
The reason I made the comparison was more for a overall general look, like if you held the comparison at a distance, where do you see a more ideal progression simply based on this image.
To make a more precise definitive analysis based on paintovers you would need to line the images up, though in this case its not just about whether a round jaw could turn more square ot a cheeks bones can become more pronounced because genetics, is how when the audience looks at the presentation as a first impression are they required to suspend disbelief and more importantly has the game taken care to address a possible oversight/discrepency.
When you point to genetics as a cause and then say that these changes are natural that is still suggesting that she missed out on the genetic lottery.
That sounds more like falling into the Reality is Unrealistic trap. People don't look just like small versions of their adult selves. But people are used to media that basically does make
them look that way, for the sake of being convenient and easier to
recognise. I don't think it's a failing that she looks a bit different
when she's younger. That's just how youth is. Especially with the amount
of fat in the face that disappears as we age. And that aside, the whole
thing is still pretty much a nitpick.
The emphasis in both Ubisoft and EA's case is that "make the best game possible" the difference being that ubisoft's seems dismissive of feedback and EA's is more diplomatic. That and EA can afford to be since they release newer iterations of the product every year. I don't know if Ubisoft fully addressed the consequences of their character design not being well received on future sequels.
Like in ubisoft's case, I'm not really sure what Kay will look like in a sequel, or if Ubisoft even cares about genuine feedback about her face to make a change. Will she fix her broken nose? Will she get plastic surgery to infiltrate the crimson dawn? Will palpatine seduce her to the dark side?
The challenge in game dev is that dev's can say precious little about feedback positive or negative because of the risk to their employment, but it is important to address feedback without getting consumed in the broader culture war on beauty standards and stereotypes.
Why should they engage with that criticism when it's 99% bad faith, gamergate shite? Most of the backlash to Kay Vess' appearance is just from culture war bastards who are using it as a point in their crusade claiming that there's some campaign on behind the scenes to make women in western games "ugly" or "mannish". (Read: realistically rendered and flawed and based on actual women instead of idealised, close-to-sex-doll standards).
There you go again with the troll comments. Do you want to be taken as someone who's commenting in good faith or not?
“If you engage with bad-faith people, there’s no nuance and no
possibility of real dialogue. So all we can do is make the best game
possible.”
So if this is the kind of quote to cause a knee-jerk reaction, pearl-clutching and an instant emotional need to rebuttal, then you're the exact kind of person they are talking about. They are holding up a mirror and showing your reflection, it's not their fault you don't like what you see.
With that, I think it's the perfect quote to sum up this thread. I really do thank people who have been trying to bring in nuanced discussions and points, they are giving a lot to think about and genuinely are insightful. However they seem to be glossed over or ignored by OP, as the same points are being brought up over and over, like a broken record and in bad faith. Even though myself and others have given a ton of explanations as to various possibilities why things could be, but are ultimately unknown without being on the dev team. Attempts to foster positive discussion with them haven't gone anywhere either.
Outlaws delivers old school Star Wars fun that feels more like what we were getting in the eighties than what we’re getting today. You can tell a lot about a game by its subreddit and if you take a look at the one for Outlaws you’ll see it’s overwhelmingly positive. People are taking photos, sharing tips, showing off secrets they found and leaving glowing reviews. If you ask me this is the best single player Star Wars game since KOTOR. I honestly don’t know how it ended up as the latest punching bag for a specific group of “content creators”. These guys are more concerned with traffic to their YouTube videos than they are playing games and it shows. I’ve even seen them claim that any positive reviews of the game are paid for. This is some legitimate tin foil hat bullshit.
We’ve been around almost 30 years at this point. I think everyone knows you cannot pay me to say nice things about your game. I am not here for “likes” and I don’t give a fuck about “views”. I love video games and that’s why I make Penny Arcade and tell you guys my honest thoughts about what I’m playing. I’m telling you, if you are a Star Wars fan you should try Outlaws because it’s great and the people trying to tell you otherwise are full of shit.
This kinda sums up my opinions about "dialogue" around gaming; namely that its (like all social media) mostly manufactured bs to drive traffic. If someone is turned off the game because of Kay's character modelling, that's fine - I'm turned off all sorts of games because of art I don't like. Making it anything more than a personal opinion is where it can get gross. Likewise if someone is turned off a game because of ethical or political reasons, that's fine, but you don't need to make it everyone else's problem (like weird performative stunts where you buy a copy of the game to destroy it on camera). That's a long-winded way of saying that I wish we could all agree to disagree about things that are, at the end of the day, fiction.
“If you engage with bad-faith people, there’s no nuance and no
possibility of real dialogue. So all we can do is make the best game
possible.”
So if this is the kind of quote to cause a knee-jerk reaction, pearl-clutching and an instant emotional need to rebuttal, then you're the exact kind of person they are talking about. They are holding up a mirror and showing your reflection, it's not their fault you don't like what you see.
With that, I think it's the perfect quote to sum up this thread. I really do thank people who have been trying to bring in nuanced discussions and points, they are giving a lot to think about and genuinely are insightful. However they seem to be glossed over or ignored by OP, as the same points are being brought up over and over, like a broken record and in bad faith. Even though myself and others have given a ton of explanations as to various possibilities why things could be, but are ultimately unknown without being on the dev team. Attempts to foster positive discussion with them haven't gone anywhere either.
The reason I mentioned that quote was to illustrate the differences between how Ubisoft approached the situation and how EA approached a similar situation.
Ubisofts creative director immediately highlights bad-faith people and that there is no possibility of real dialog with them. He doesn't list these bad faith people but insists that they will make the best game they want to make. So taking feedback certainly isn't the focus here, just to make the best game possible and hope it sells, and now they aren't as satisfied with the sales.
I do want to understand more about the design decisions around character modeling, mocap and gameplay that are inviting criticism of the game but it does seem that it is impossible to do this without implying that I have some personal interest in bringing down the character Kay is and devaluing her as a woman? I don't get it.
If you find it creepy given the context of the work you are assigned I don't know what to tell you. How exactly do they make child character models in games you've worked on?
For what I do now, well in my work history I have worked a TON with modular character sets, and have done refits from one gender to another, and from one playable race to another. I've developed a bit of a passion for it, being a big advocate for making sure the quality looks equally or comparable on all available options. I'm very used to giving feedback on breasts/ chest areas, butts and groins, you kind of have to if you're going to do this job. There is a way to do it with tact though, and I'll give some generic examples of feedback I've given before, scrubbed of specifics:
It looks like the side of the armor have gotten squished, it feels like there isn't adequate room for the chest volume
The straps on the female chest sit in an way that doesn't feel natural compared to the male version, try this paint over idea
Is it possible we could better finesse the chest shape to make this version feel more masculine or feminine?
It looks like the with the re-targeting the groin shape wound up skewed on the male, I think it needs some finesse to feel better
It's stuff like that, using depersonalized language in favor of stuff that is more art centric, like talking about the volume, shape, any skewing really goes a long way for making these conversations feel more professional.
Isn't discussing Cup size or band size the natural progression of a discussion on proportions on female character models? Atleast at work I've never seen the mention of this to be an issue for any developer and if there was an issue nobody has brought it up.
It isn't the same as saying "can you make this characters breasts match your cup size?" (jeez that felt dirty, I'm sorry I had to say it to make my point)
its seeing cup, band, underbust as measurements and they are all terms used in fashion with associated metrics to design form fitting clothing (and getting accurate simulations) Perhaps that was not a concern for Star Wars Outlaws and any projects you're associated with, but when we work with 100's of female players we want to avoid situations like this,
So yes having more specific values to input into our systems is absolutely essential, these values are even used by other industries like sports wear and player diet and nutrition. Its not like these companies don't care about what a female player felt when she put on her first bra as a child, its that they expect the players to be professional when it comes to discussing these metrics when they have an absolute essential function they have to deliver. And no this information isn't available publicly, but in a professional context it is relevant.
It's already been established that NikhilR doesn't find adult Kay attractive, appealing or well done, this is honestly an ok opinion to have as that sort of thing is also subjective. You're allowed to not like something. It's also ok to think that the younger version of Kay is a better done model that is more attractive an appealing. Both of these things are totally ok and fine opinions to have.
However where it gets sketch and pings my radar is not only is the younger version more attractive, but also her bust is a detail that is worthy of zeroing in on, calling out that her band/cup size is not only different, but bigger... which is a very personal detail and might not even be true because as I mentioned earlier, a lot of people aren't aware of how those work. Why specifically call out her breasts but not other things about her proportions? Especially why call it out first? It gives bad vibes because I know as a preteen/teenage girl, if first thing that someone felt the need to comment on where my breasts, it would be super weird and uncomfortable. Combine the breast comment with the opinion that younger version is more attractive, really sets my radar off and experience has told me that there is a lot of extra subtext being implied that is not being outright said (btw I would hope and like for that subtext to not be true, but you don't get a vigilant radar for no reason)
If I was to talk about comparisons between her younger an adult models and noticed discrepancies, I would be very general about it or find a way to use more depersonalized language. Like idk I would try this (note I have not seen full screenshots of the 2 different versions and how they compare so I'm pulling this completely out of thin air) "Her proportions don't seem like they would belong to the same character from a younger to adult version"
It can be a valid critique, sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.
This is another situation in which I do feel context matters, and the younger Kay having a bigger bust as opposed to older Kay does draw attention and I pointed this out as a modeling oversight that again requires a suspension of disbelief.
It isn't appropriate to suggest that I have some nefarious intent because of disgusting people who fetishise this, at no point did I say that I found younger Kay more attractive, all I said is that her facial and body profile seemed more accurate to the actor in the comparison I posted and that it really does seem that the character designers felt that making modifications to the actors face and body would fit the personality and backstory of Kay better.
I just felt that it these modifications weren't necessary and they don't add anything meaningful to her portrayal or the story.
In fact if you assume that I find younger kay attractive because the actor is attractive, then you've established that Kay isn't as attractive or atleast not conventionally attractive which seems to support the criticism that ubisoft dev's deliberately did this and disregarded the backlash that was to follow.
To clear any confusion, I do find androgynous faces attractive but there is something off about Kay's facial model that just doesn't sit right with me and seeing what she looked like as a child and how it isn't as relatable to her adult character model face (as opposed to the actors face) puts me off even more.
I'm not suggesting that they add jiggle physics or wider hips to turn Kay into something like 2B from Nier Automata or Eve from stellar blade, but simply going with the actors face without devaluing her as a disney princess would have been sensible, they wouldn't even have had to break her nose to make her appear more of a outlaw. Han Solo didn't have to, neither did Sabine Wren or Hera Syndulla. Even Ahsoka Tano was an outlaw for a good part of her life but didn't need drastic facial modifications to put that point across.
Imagine if they want Kay to feature in a live action series, do they plan to cast Humberly González with a broken nose and facial and body conturing bodysuit for a more authentic portrayal, would that be considered making her less disney princess attractive or is it less acceptable now that it has to do with a real person and not a CG model? If this was challenging to do was any of this really necessary and would not having done it affected the reception of Star Wars Outlaws? We certainly would have had 450,000 people in approval, not sure if those numbers matter and there would be a lot less "Kay Vess is ugly" discourse on social media since the devs have an absolute visual target to work off from that they have to match precisely.
So my issue lies with whether these modifications were done right and did the team have the skill to pull it off? Should we just accept it as such because it is Ubisoft approved, because that poster EA produced certainly was as was Sonics first iteration in that trailer that set off fireworks across the world.
I mean we could just say its a gamergate consipiracy and tell tell Sydney Leroux to mellow out or get a boob job so she looks more like her 3d model, but isn't it simpler just to say that the feedback however polarising is relevant and integral to making the "best game possible" rather than screw these bad-actors and hope the studios share price doesn't go into free fall?
Ohhh my godddddd, why do you think that all criticism is created equal?
If I come up to you and say "your work is fuck ugly" that's not on the same level as actually stating, for example, "the proportions are inaccurate" or "you got this muscle insertion wrong", is it?
I don't know why, but you seem to be under the impression that these people bitching about the game are "just criticising" and that they have something valid to say. Well, they don't.
Its not like these companies don't care about what a female player felt
when she put on her first bra as a child, its that they expect the
players to be professional when it comes to discussing these metrics
when they have an absolute essential function they have to deliver.
No, they don't. 90% of played feedback is complete dogshit because they have no training or experience whatsoever to understand what's actually good and what isn't. Why do you think those "hire fans" losers' versions of female characters they've "fixed" are always just making them look more like sex dolls? Companies don't expect players to be like professionals, and the players don't even understand the metrics if they even know they exist, let alone care.
It's just.....Sorry, but it's dumb. Taking any and all criticism as if it has equal value is dumb. There's no way any professional worth their salt is going to take into account the kinds of whining there's been about Kay Vess' model, because they're just trash. There isn't any value in saying she has an "ugly face" or "creepy" or whatever, which is most of the comments from these people.
Honestly, if we listened to the "criticism" from these people, we wouldn't have escaped the era when women were only damsels in distress and usually dressed like strippers because men found them hot. Fuck that.
Maybe you just don't like her face and that's okay. No reason to insist there must be some huge issue.
Ohhh my godddddd, why do you think that all criticism is created equal?
If I come up to you and say "your work is fuck ugly" that's not on the same level as actually stating, for example, "the proportions are inaccurate" or "you got this muscle insertion wrong", is it?
I don't know why, but you seem to be under the impression that these people bitching about the game are "just criticising" and that they have something valid to say. Well, they don't.
Its not like these companies don't care about what a female player felt
when she put on her first bra as a child, its that they expect the
players to be professional when it comes to discussing these metrics
when they have an absolute essential function they have to deliver.
No, they don't. 90% of played feedback is complete dogshit because they have no training or experience whatsoever to understand what's actually good and what isn't. Why do you think those "hire fans" losers' versions of female characters they've "fixed" are always just making them look more like sex dolls? Companies don't expect players to be like professionals, and the players don't even understand the metrics if they even know they exist, let alone care.
It's just.....Sorry, but it's dumb. Taking any and all criticism as if it has equal value is dumb. There's no way any professional worth their salt is going to take into account the kinds of whining there's been about Kay Vess' model, because they're just trash. There isn't any value in saying she has an "ugly face" or "creepy" or whatever, which is most of the comments from these people.
Honestly, if we listened to the "criticism" from these people, we wouldn't have escaped the era when women were only damsels in distress and usually dressed like strippers because men found them hot. Fuck that.
Maybe you just don't like her face and that's okay. No reason to insist there must be some huge issue.
You misunderstood, I meant soccer players, not players of videogames. What I meant is that when these soccer players have to provide statistics to companies they are expected to be professional about it when there is a genuine need. It isn't always a necessity and usually you can get by with a scan, but there are some systems that work better with these values. In this sense the size of a players bust isn't all that different from their shoe size and yes they do have agency on whether to provide this information.
In Kay's case, I appreciate the attempt to modify the actor but honestly it was best just to go with the actor the way she is rather than polarise the audience. It is the main character after all. And yes ubisoft can use that same logic and say that its necessary to modify the character regardless of the risk, or maybe they accounted for the risk and didn't care.
Where it becomes a problem is when the creative director instead of acknowledging feedback highlight's "bad actors" in a culture war and gives the impression that he is disregarding even genuine constructive feedback and that may indicate a culture issue within the company.
Laura Fryer explains this in the situation around Concord's character design that I do feel applies here in Kay's overall design. https://youtu.be/6IM11RtGLJ8?t=307
talking about step 5,000 while step 0 still wasn't satisfied. Polarized suggest two equal, sharply contrasted sides. but it's more like 10% at best. More likely, less than 1%. So the entire argument is moot if the first foundation isn't solid.
Not much point pulling out the microscope to decide if Kays pores are hot or not if only five weirdos think she is not hot. It's like if I extracted a single word from Nik's post and discussed ad nauseam whether or not the sequence of characters in this particular word is pleasing. Who cares? Nobody sane cares.
So to make a proper argument first have to establish a sane foundation.
No, I understood. I was commenting on your overall argument; that is, the one you've been making over and over again throughout this thread, that we should be listening to the alleged 450,000 pissy Gamer manbabies and their "criticism".
Also.....You do realise "polarising the audience" is not some logical outcome of doing X or Y thing, right? You speak as if it was inevitable that they would get their knickers in a twist; like how jumping off a cliff inevitably means you're going to splat when you hit the bottom. It is not so. The only reason they got as worked up about her design as they did was culture war bullshit because of the current social and political climate.
You're doing it again. Why should the creative director listen to "feedback" that amounts to "she's fugly and I don't find her fuckable enough"? Nobody sane would consider that criticism worth a damn. Certainly not the creative director, of all people!
The fact is, if you look around, most of the criticism of Kay Vess' design is just culture war bullshit and should be thrown away. Barely any of it is worth anything. There is no reason to treat "criticism" that's 90% right wing chud disgust as legitimate.
Replies
It's ok to disagree, but before things get out of hand please do remember to keep things civil.
https://polycount.com/discussion/63361/information-about-polycount-new-member-introductions/p1#respect
How exactly do they make child character models in games you've worked on?
her adult model is very visibly a different band/cup size and the face looks like a different person.
Not sure what regular is in Star Wars, I guess anything is possible, and they are definitely trying to sell the strong feminist woman stereotype which isn't a problem as long as the characters backstory and plot affords to her growth, development and redemption.
Not sure why Kay "being trans" would get out when no sane person on the internet has even suggested that. I'm sure there are some parts of the abyssal sludge of the internet that will try to make that case, don't go eagerly diving headfirst down there, it's not worth it.
A ruffian scoundrel trying to make ends meet seems about as regular as you can get in the Star Wars universe, especially for that period in the canon
So yeah, trying to not derail this thread more than it already has been, but I hope this is helpful insight for some.
my tuppence...
If the intent was to replicate the appearance of the actress then I don't think they did a great job
but...
Professional character artists with access to scanners tend not to get that sort of thing wrong so my guess is that they decided a more ripley-esque appearance suited the character than the disney princess appearance of the actress.
Thats (among others) another great post and analysis.
And the Nose? easy!
The cartilaginous framework and growth changes + depending how she lives + simply aging means a differently shaped nose can easily happen. Like Fighting for example... and healing a broken nose. (okay that one is easy)
Dorsal humps can also happen due to genetics, where the persons genetics code has a tendency to develop the bump thru-out the years + inner working structure of the nose.
I feel like many Books especially meant for Artists have grossly oversimplified Anatomy knowledge in the pursuit to make it easy enough to understand in a sitting while completely missing out on all the beautiful variations which humanity holds.
All that said, the game looks very impressive - characters and environments alike.
The reason I made the comparison was more for a overall general look, like if you held the comparison at a distance, where do you see a more ideal progression simply based on this image.
To make a more precise definitive analysis based on paintovers you would need to line the images up, though in this case its not just about whether a round jaw could turn more square ot a cheeks bones can become more pronounced because genetics,
is how when the audience looks at the presentation as a first impression are they required to suspend disbelief and more importantly has the game taken care to address a possible oversight/discrepency.
When you point to genetics as a cause and then say that these changes are natural that is still suggesting that she missed out on the genetic lottery.
Its like this peculiar incident
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/how-a-meme-ruined-a-models-life/Y7M2GPPEPK47KIH4BUKJVCXPUU/
This is basically the opposite of what Ubisoft has done, though I don't think that the intent of the studio was to not conform to some disney princess beauty standard but rather they had a backstory that they wanted the character to fit and many in the audience feel that they probably didn't do the best job at it which several thinking its a gamergate conspiracy.
In general it is very difficult to have an audience accept an interpretation on a likeness, the uncanny valley is a very real risk and more so when dealing with facial animation. We see it here on polycount all the time and it does open up a conversation about the artists skill level at being able to do this convincingly.
Of course if the artist is credible because of professional experience and if a studio signs off on their work the criticism is going to veer towards being some kind of conspiracy and more so because of the popularity of the character.
450,000 userse have a problem with Kays face and millions of users had an issue with Sonic's redesign and sure we can say how many of these numbers are genuine people and not bots or right wing trump supporting gamergate trolls?
Maybe this controversy helped market the game, who knows?
The important thing is how the studio responds to this criticism and if they feel that its worth responding.
This was ubisoft's creative directors response,
https://www.inverse.com/gaming/star-wars-outlaws-kay-vess-creative-director-trolls-assassins-creed
“If you engage with bad-faith people, there’s no nuance and no possibility of real dialogue. So all we can do is make the best game possible.”
I am hoping that Scott Eaton does a character art study on Kay Vess as part of his Galley Abominate series as a segment on altering likenesses and visual targets.
Coming from this statement, it seems unlikely that we will get any details from ubisofts creative team seeing how this whole situation has been highjacked by the broader culture war.
Here's how EA had responded to a criticism of a poster featuring likenesses of several players,
https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a44554017/ea-sports-fc-24-cover-criticism/
"The amount of licenses we have in this game and doing something like that, even to begin with, to have that many players on a cover, is no easy feat. And the amount of approvals you then need to work through is also highly complex. I don't want to dwell on that, but a big part of it is working through all of those pieces.
The emphasis in both Ubisoft and EA's case is that "make the best game possible" the difference being that ubisoft's seems dismissive of feedback and EA's is more diplomatic.
That and EA can afford to be since they release newer iterations of the product every year. I don't know if Ubisoft fully addressed the consequences of their character design not being well received on future sequels.
Like in ubisoft's case, I'm not really sure what Kay will look like in a sequel, or if Ubisoft even cares about genuine feedback about her face to make a change.
Will she fix her broken nose? Will she get plastic surgery to infiltrate the crimson dawn?
Will palpatine seduce her to the dark side?
The challenge in game dev is that dev's can say precious little about feedback positive or negative because of the risk to their employment, but it is important to address feedback without getting consumed in the broader culture war on beauty standards and stereotypes.
Ubisoft does say that she had a hard life of petty crime and the years were not kind.
I though maybe she had an additiction, like gambling alongside dependency on meth or heroin that altered her facial features significantly and also explains her broken nose in street fights. (fighting off drug dealers and debt collecting bounty hunters)
https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/blog/effects-substance-abuse-appearance/
But this perspective doesn't fit because of Nix who she finds as a child and atleast its suggested that they were never apart at any point though if you've seen homeless people with pets, its very evident how well cared for their pets are so maybe that situation applies here (though not all of them has addictions and Kay wasn't homeless, just living in the attic of a seedy bar)
Considering the emphasis on her broken nose, she doesn't take on any visual cosmetic damage in melee fights in the game and is super strong but can't move bodies or carry guns up ladders and Nix is invincible and never targeted by enemies.
Maybe all this is just the gameplay design team being out of sync with the character design team, or a conscious design choice that no one on the team can talk about because "they don't want to engage with bad faith gamers and are convinced in their ability to make the best game possible"
Generally when the audience has to fill in these gaps to explain their suspension of disbelief it could indicate a design oversight.
Then again Ubisoft isn't Naughty Dog and Star Wars Outlaws isn't Last of Us.
And there was considerable controversy on Abby's character design as well and how if backstory, environment and lifestyle provided for a convincing portrayal of her character.
- It means that's more models and textures you to add. That takes time and money on a game that was already expensive.
- For that effort and cost, you get only a small return.
- Stuff like visible cuts and bruises isn't all that Star Warsy. The only time you see those in Star Wars films, really, is if it's for a plot reason, like Luke losing his arm, the meta stuff that required him to get beaten up at the start of Empire Strikes Back, etc. You don't really see characters get regular injures like a bloody nose or bruises in regular action in the main films.
It's not comparable to something the TLoU. TLoU, despite its basically-zombie-apocalypse stuff, is basically character drama. They take visible injuries because the setting is more grounded, and showing those gives it weight and a feeling of realism. They need it to matter if the characters mess each other up. Star Wars isn't like that. It's a space fantasy, an action adventure. It's supposed to be heroic and sweeping and cool. Adding lots of injury detail and dragging wounds just wouldn't fit. Isn't this comment just a backdoor to drag in your gripes about Abby again....?That sounds more like falling into the Reality is Unrealistic trap. People don't look just like small versions of their adult selves. But people are used to media that basically does make them look that way, for the sake of being convenient and easier to recognise. I don't think it's a failing that she looks a bit different when she's younger. That's just how youth is. Especially with the amount of fat in the face that disappears as we age. And that aside, the whole thing is still pretty much a nitpick.
So if this is the kind of quote to cause a knee-jerk reaction, pearl-clutching and an instant emotional need to rebuttal, then you're the exact kind of person they are talking about. They are holding up a mirror and showing your reflection, it's not their fault you don't like what you see.
With that, I think it's the perfect quote to sum up this thread. I really do thank people who have been trying to bring in nuanced discussions and points, they are giving a lot to think about and genuinely are insightful. However they seem to be glossed over or ignored by OP, as the same points are being brought up over and over, like a broken record and in bad faith. Even though myself and others have given a ton of explanations as to various possibilities why things could be, but are ultimately unknown without being on the dev team. Attempts to foster positive discussion with them haven't gone anywhere either.
Outlaws delivers old school Star Wars fun that feels more like what we were getting in the eighties than what we’re getting today. You can tell a lot about a game by its subreddit and if you take a look at the one for Outlaws you’ll see it’s overwhelmingly positive. People are taking photos, sharing tips, showing off secrets they found and leaving glowing reviews. If you ask me this is the best single player Star Wars game since KOTOR. I honestly don’t know how it ended up as the latest punching bag for a specific group of “content creators”. These guys are more concerned with traffic to their YouTube videos than they are playing games and it shows. I’ve even seen them claim that any positive reviews of the game are paid for. This is some legitimate tin foil hat bullshit.
We’ve been around almost 30 years at this point. I think everyone knows you cannot pay me to say nice things about your game. I am not here for “likes” and I don’t give a fuck about “views”. I love video games and that’s why I make Penny Arcade and tell you guys my honest thoughts about what I’m playing. I’m telling you, if you are a Star Wars fan you should try Outlaws because it’s great and the people trying to tell you otherwise are full of shit.
This kinda sums up my opinions about "dialogue" around gaming; namely that its (like all social media) mostly manufactured bs to drive traffic.If someone is turned off the game because of Kay's character modelling, that's fine - I'm turned off all sorts of games because of art I don't like. Making it anything more than a personal opinion is where it can get gross. Likewise if someone is turned off a game because of ethical or political reasons, that's fine, but you don't need to make it everyone else's problem (like weird performative stunts where you buy a copy of the game to destroy it on camera).
That's a long-winded way of saying that I wish we could all agree to disagree about things that are, at the end of the day, fiction.
Ubisofts creative director immediately highlights bad-faith people and that there is no possibility of real dialog with them. He doesn't list these bad faith people but insists that they will make the best game they want to make.
So taking feedback certainly isn't the focus here, just to make the best game possible and hope it sells, and now they aren't as satisfied with the sales.
I do want to understand more about the design decisions around character modeling, mocap and gameplay that are inviting criticism of the game but it does seem that it is impossible to do this without implying that I have some personal interest in bringing down the character Kay is and devaluing her as a woman?
I don't get it.
Isn't discussing Cup size or band size the natural progression of a discussion on proportions on female character models?
Atleast at work I've never seen the mention of this to be an issue for any developer and if there was an issue nobody has brought it up.
It isn't the same as saying
"can you make this characters breasts match your cup size?"
(jeez that felt dirty, I'm sorry I had to say it to make my point)
its seeing cup, band, underbust as measurements and they are all terms used in fashion with associated metrics to design form fitting clothing (and getting accurate simulations)
Perhaps that was not a concern for Star Wars Outlaws and any projects you're associated with, but when we work with 100's of female players we want to avoid situations like this,
https://www.ladbible.com/sport/footballer-sydney-leroux-fifa-deflate-boobs-615659-20230501
So yes having more specific values to input into our systems is absolutely essential, these values are even used by other industries like sports wear and player diet and nutrition.
Its not like these companies don't care about what a female player felt when she put on her first bra as a child, its that they expect the players to be professional when it comes to discussing these metrics when they have an absolute essential function they have to deliver.
And no this information isn't available publicly, but in a professional context it is relevant.
This is another situation in which I do feel context matters, and the younger Kay having a bigger bust as opposed to older Kay does draw attention and I pointed this out as a modeling oversight that again requires a suspension of disbelief.
It isn't appropriate to suggest that I have some nefarious intent because of disgusting people who fetishise this, at no point did I say that I found younger Kay more attractive, all I said is that her facial and body profile seemed more accurate to the actor in the comparison I posted and that it really does seem that the character designers felt that making modifications to the actors face and body would fit the personality and backstory of Kay better.
I just felt that it these modifications weren't necessary and they don't add anything meaningful to her portrayal or the story.
In fact if you assume that I find younger kay attractive because the actor is attractive, then you've established that Kay isn't as attractive or atleast not conventionally attractive which seems to support the criticism that ubisoft dev's deliberately did this and disregarded the backlash that was to follow.
To clear any confusion, I do find androgynous faces attractive but there is something off about Kay's facial model that just doesn't sit right with me and seeing what she looked like as a child and how it isn't as relatable to her adult character model face (as opposed to the actors face) puts me off even more.
Here's a really interesting article on the subject of atttraction and biases to adnfrogynous faces that might provide more context,
https://www.psypost.org/new-study-reveals-positive-bias-towards-androgynous-faces/
I'm not suggesting that they add jiggle physics or wider hips to turn Kay into something like 2B from Nier Automata or Eve from stellar blade, but simply going with the actors face without devaluing her as a disney princess would have been sensible, they wouldn't even have had to break her nose to make her appear more of a outlaw.
Han Solo didn't have to, neither did Sabine Wren or Hera Syndulla. Even Ahsoka Tano was an outlaw for a good part of her life but didn't need drastic facial modifications to put that point across.
Imagine if they want Kay to feature in a live action series, do they plan to cast Humberly González with a broken nose and facial and body conturing bodysuit for a more authentic portrayal, would that be considered making her less disney princess attractive or is it less acceptable now that it has to do with a real person and not a CG model?
If this was challenging to do was any of this really necessary and would not having done it affected the reception of Star Wars Outlaws?
We certainly would have had 450,000 people in approval, not sure if those numbers matter and there would be a lot less "Kay Vess is ugly" discourse on social media since the devs have an absolute visual target to work off from that they have to match precisely.
So my issue lies with whether these modifications were done right and did the team have the skill to pull it off?
Should we just accept it as such because it is Ubisoft approved, because that poster EA produced certainly was as was Sonics first iteration in that trailer that set off fireworks across the world.
I mean we could just say its a gamergate consipiracy and tell tell Sydney Leroux to mellow out or get a boob job so she looks more like her 3d model, but isn't it simpler just to say that the feedback however polarising is relevant and integral to making the "best game possible" rather than screw these bad-actors and hope the studios share price doesn't go into free fall?
What I meant is that when these soccer players have to provide statistics to companies they are expected to be professional about it when there is a genuine need.
It isn't always a necessity and usually you can get by with a scan, but there are some systems that work better with these values.
In this sense the size of a players bust isn't all that different from their shoe size and yes they do have agency on whether to provide this information.
In Kay's case, I appreciate the attempt to modify the actor but honestly it was best just to go with the actor the way she is rather than polarise the audience.
It is the main character after all.
And yes ubisoft can use that same logic and say that its necessary to modify the character regardless of the risk, or maybe they accounted for the risk and didn't care.
Where it becomes a problem is when the creative director instead of acknowledging feedback highlight's "bad actors" in a culture war and gives the impression that he is disregarding even genuine constructive feedback and that may indicate a culture issue within the company.
Laura Fryer explains this in the situation around Concord's character design that I do feel applies here in Kay's overall design.
Polarized suggest two equal, sharply contrasted sides.
but it's more like 10% at best. More likely, less than 1%. So the entire argument is moot if the first foundation isn't solid.
Not much point pulling out the microscope to decide if Kays pores are hot or not if only five weirdos think she is not hot. It's like if I extracted a single word from Nik's post and discussed ad nauseam whether or not the sequence of characters in this particular word is pleasing. Who cares? Nobody sane cares.
So to make a proper argument first have to establish a sane foundation.