I like the beard just as well, but the bare chest vastly improves his design. There's something kinda boxy about Kratos' look in GoW'18, and it appears to be due to the armor. And with the bare chest he just gets more of that raw strength look back. Very few of the armors in GoW'18 look good, and Kratos just looks so much better when you strip most of that stuff away, just like how the original design was decided.
They specifically wanted him to be less ripped and more "dad bod" in GoW 2018. If fact originally they wanted to make him kind of fat in that "retired athlete with a beer belly" kind of way.
It's not the physique that bothers me, it's the armor. Small bits work, like the Golden Fleece in the classic games, but the more you cover the guy up the more you lose that nice simple contrast. I know that for the new game they needed to sort of distance this Kratos from the "old" Kratos, and having him cover up to show that he's left that naked aggression behind is a good way to do that, but it feels like it's butting heads with the original design.
I don't think Kratos really gives a shit about the cold neither. He's been in snowy environments before with just a skirt without even so much as a shiver. None of the gods likely feel any impact from the cold, you also see Freya walk bare foot through the snow by the end.
Just so we're clear, Breath Of The Wild and Age Of Calamity have full voice acting. Link still can't talk though. All you're going to get is grunts and shout from him. Those are the most recent Zelda games, and Breath Of The Wild 2 (whatever it will be called) is supposed to have full voice acting again. Obviously, Link will be silent protagonist again.
How is it "full" voice acting if the playable character doesn't talk? Especially when it's not some build-your-own Fallout-style character.
And yet he still talks except he doesn't. It's weird because the game I think makes a point to note that Link can talk he just chooses not to or something, yet there's a bunch of scenes where Link is making the gesture that he's saying something with other characters responding as if he has just spoken. Also, he still grunts, yells, and guffs.
Still counts as full voice acting, even if the main character doesn't talk at all or not much. This is nothing new to gaming. The silent protagonist doesn't bother me too much, but I can see when it gets annoying. The pull an example from the '90s, there's a horror game called Enemy Zero. The main character, Laura, doesn't talk much. She does talk when you load a save, and she describes her current situation or predicament. Similar to gameplay and cutscenes, she only grunts, gasps or screams. It's justified in that game, because it's pointed out that she is shy, uncertain, and is waking up with little to no memory. There's a minimum cast, but everybody else talks. The game is basically Alien. Something like that I still consider full voice acting.
I would not mind either way. If he did start talking, it would be a nice change of pace. It's kind of like when Isaac Clarke started talking, and some of those same people that were complaining about him not talking, all the sudden had a problem (Yahtzee). Or says he "talks too much".
See this is kind of my problem- we're all savvy enough to understand that technology and budget have evolved. Yes, even small children (I play Switch with my nieces aged 6 - 18, they know more video games than the Escapist). Yet Nintendo just gets to fall back on implied nostalgia and style.
It's just that Link is so defined now as a character that doesn't talk. With characters like Mario and even Donkey Kong, eventhough they barely say anything they vocally express themselves enough for you to get some personality from it. But with Link...
Link feels like a wierd case here. He's not a faceless protagonist though he is meant to be the player insert to some extent. In some games he's just some dude(the first LOZ basically says he wandered into Hyrule from somewhere else and stumbled into the whole thing), in others he's got a backstory and such. But while there might be VA for everyone else, Link is pretty much Mr. Silent even if it's acknowledged he can talk(BOTW does have a diary Entry by Zelda where it says he prefers not to speak).
I don't see why they just can't make him canonically a mute. It could even be part of the "hero prophecy" or whatever. Grunts and impulsive cries are still fine, but there's loads of interesting in-universe reasons one could write for an eternal hero always being mute. I prefer the idea of emotional expression through exaggerated gestures and eye movement in place of often unfortunately stilted voice acting when possible too though, so, ya know. In a way it tends to have a more universal reach too, without the language barrier, and tends to age better through time.
One of the games I played a few months ago, Blasphemous, does that with the main character. It's implied if not outright stated, that because of all the magic/miracle stuff going on, your character has lost his ability to speak. Another character,Crisanta, who acts as your opposite(she believes her purpose to stop you from advancing) and ends up being one of the final bosses, is blind(for the same reason) but can still "see" you anyway, well enough to be a substantial challenge.
That is not true. The $60 and now $70 price change was done arbitrarily and nothing new. They did it because they know people will pay for it. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the voice actors. Especially in the 2010s when there was that strike and complaints from many voice actors who got underpaid or no pay at all. Most of games aren't even worth $60/$70, when the majority are shell prices, and you got to drop even more cash for features/costumes or Legendary Golden Cocksuckers Editions that were once unlockables in games or expansion packs.
en.wikipedia.org
arstechnica.com
You're like my polar opposite. I don't think I've agreed with a single post you've made in this thread.
I don't recall that, when did it happen?
Let us not forget that the 60$ price tag was itself an arbitrary measure implemented into game pricing. Before that games had variable costs. We've seen that limitation slowly get pushed aside, starting with the rise of indie games but I'd say the fact that it still kind of exists is still unnecessary.That is not true. The $60 and now $70 price change was done arbitrarily and nothing new. They did it because they know people will pay for it. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the voice actors. Especially in the 2010s when there was that strike and complaints from many voice actors who got underpaid or no pay at all. Most of games aren't even worth $60/$70, when the majority are shell prices, and you got to drop even more cash for features/costumes or Legendary Golden Cocksuckers Editions that were once unlockables in games or expansion packs.
2016–2017 video game voice actor strike - Wikipedia
Nearly a year later, video game voice actors end their strike
Approved deal ends the longest acting strike in U.S. history.
Voice actors speak out about their 300-day fight for basic needs
‘I wish the new agreement were stronger’www.polygon.com
Yep. I still remember when I voiced my complaints about $60, some GameStop employee looked and talked at me like I was some ungrateful bastard, or too "entitled". The fucker can still fuck off. This was back in 2006. Before $60, Sony made the decision to have most games cost $50 with the start of the PS1. Everyone was happy, and it was balanced. Because you usually got a full fucking game. The only time it would usually cost more, if it was either: a Special Edition w/bonuses, comes with an expensive and weird peripheral, or was an import.
People like that need to remember that, as the customer, I am the final arbiter as to what is or is not worth my money. I do not owe a developer sixty dollars if I decide to buy a game; if I decide it is thirty dollars, or fifteen dollars, or a dollar-ninety nine, I will wait until I can purchase it at that price before I do so. If it does not fall to that price, then I just will not buy the game.
The dude is combination of both of that. This is a GameStop that was shitty at the time when it first opened up in my neighboorhood (making a total of 3 at the time in my area), and they hired mostly assholes, people who did not shit about gaming, or clearly did not want to be there. The last time I ever saw him was in 2007, and he either quit or got fired. It's ironic, beacuse the shittiest GameStop got its act together in the mid 2010s and became an elite store. While the other two were still great, but both locations shutdown. Both were cases of the owners or those in charge of those locations did not want to pay the new price on rent, even though they could more than afford it. Neither locations were losing money at that time.
