Character Design Debate; Beauty or Lust?

[CaitSeith]

Honestly, how awful are female character designs when the deepest debate we can have about them is how specifically we want to stick our dicks inside their vaginas

Good variety

Variety has nothing to do with it.

League characters, aren't really characters. At least mostly. They are avatars that most people pick for one of two reasons:

1. How attractive or cool they look.
2. Their actual abilities in game.

Nobody picks a character in League because they prefer the lore of that character, or that characters personality, because like Overwatch the characters don't have any. There is no relevance to any of these characters in game, they could all be blob monsters and it wouldn't change a damage thing to the game.

So these kinds of discussions are all the 13-year-old boys who play LoL can actually have, because there is no further depth to the characters.

But if all were blob monster then the people who make their choice based on the first reason would find the rooster boring and go play something else. That's a big damage thing in a multiplayer-only game.

 

[MerlinCross]

Honestly, how awful are female character designs when the deepest debate we can have about them is how specifically we want to stick our dicks inside their vaginas

Good variety

Variety has nothing to do with it.

League characters, aren't really characters. At least mostly. They are avatars that most people pick for one of two reasons:

1. How attractive or cool they look.
2. Their actual abilities in game.

Nobody picks a character in League because they prefer the lore of that character, or that characters personality, because like Overwatch the characters don't have any. There is no relevance to any of these characters in game, they could all be blob monsters and it wouldn't change a damage thing to the game.

So these kinds of discussions are all the 13-year-old boys who play LoL can actually have, because there is no further depth to the characters.

"It's only a short way...., is that a short joke?!?!"
"I am evil! Stop laughing!"

I love Veigar cause of his quips and when Riot had Lore I loved to see what trouble he would get into.

As for Sona; Yeah I see her as this more elegant beauty that can be lust after from afar. Much like most older kinds of stage preformers(I think Shakespearen a bit).

 

[Nature Guardian]

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

 

[MerlinCross]

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

Eh I filp flop on the "which comes first" when making my own characters. I have a smartass know it all Mage. So for artwork said character probably has glasses this all knowing grin, and probably more stylish robe since he wants to look good/appear good. Reverse that; you have this stylish character with glasses, magic flames on the hands, and a "God your dumb" look. What personify do you give them?

Interesting question though; where should you start with making a character? Their looks? Their personality and back story? What they actually do in game? I know this is for topic but you can probably come up with different characters based on the order you start.

 

[Avnger]

The saddest thing about this thread is that the "average/reality" characters that are being talked about all still have super-model looks and figures. If video games were a person, they would be that guy whose sole interaction with women is their mother and porn.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

There are a lot of times I will design a character based on a neat look. It's a fair way to make one.

 

[Silvanus]

attractiveness is just one very shallow aspect of character design. this is hardly the 'deepest debate we can have'.

Oh, good.

Where is it? The deeper debate, I mean.

 

[Paragon Fury]

The saddest thing about this thread is that the "average/reality" characters that are being talked about all still have super-model looks and figures. If video games were a person, they would be that guy whose sole interaction with women is their mother and porn.

I'm sorry, what?

Even nearly shut-in, nerd-ass, socially awkward me knows this is a line of bull. Sure, the Lust/Beauty catagories are going to be relatively rare - but last? Average/Reality?

Lux is literally your average High School/College cheerleader; a group so common and ubiquitous at least in the US you'd swear they were goddamn clones just distributed around the country.

Taliyah and Riven? Perfectly normal woman's bodies that could go to damn near any college or town with a population of young women, throw a rock and hit 3 with their body types or better. Riven's is slightly less common since she has an athlete's body, but still common enough.

 

[Erttheking]

Honestly, how awful are female character designs when the deepest debate we can have about them is how specifically we want to stick our dicks inside their vaginas

Good variety

Variety has nothing to do with it.

League characters, aren't really characters. At least mostly. They are avatars that most people pick for one of two reasons:

1. How attractive or cool they look.
2. Their actual abilities in game.

Nobody picks a character in League because they prefer the lore of that character, or that characters personality, because like Overwatch the characters don't have any. There is no relevance to any of these characters in game, they could all be blob monsters and it wouldn't change a damage thing to the game.

So these kinds of discussions are all the 13-year-old boys who play LoL can actually have, because there is no further depth to the characters.

I'm pretty sure my main man Pantheon is highly famous for his long denied desire to become a baker. They don't make skins off of jokes the character makes unless the joke is very popular.

 

[cleric of the order]

Well op i don't know what you mean to ask about from the op but i don't really see the point.
Folks will lust after everything, i know of a guy that lusts after tiles.
now there are things that appeal to a great majority of people, stuff that says this person is a healthy mate and that they would preferable.
I don't tend to make anything of that.

The saddest thing about this thread is that the "average/reality" characters that are being talked about all still have super-model looks and figures. If video games were a person, they would be that guy whose sole interaction with women is their mother and porn.

I see woman like the average /reality type like this on my campus all the time. and when i was in highschool and where ever if go really
their proportions don't seem outrageous to me and i don't get where you see them as being super models.

both riven and taliah are pretty flat, not all that skinny or thicc.
regardless, this is a fantasy and video games are not a person. we don't need turbo twinks or manatees and i don't get what you point is all together. in this instance (league)folks don't tend to become fat while they fight, it's physically intensive, even gragas is like the fat-strong arm type that doesn't know how to lift weights for A-E-T-H-T-I-C-S and is a mutant hillbilly. Sort of like most of the working class folks i know who lift their shit all the it me but still have a learing beer-gut

[edit] also that analogue doesn't work, i get you are trying to say vidya == neet but you give it a way in the statement. they have their mothers and porn. most folks mothers are not knock outs and even then they would have to have been homeschooled not to have met teachers who are mostly female at preeschool right up until highschool. fact is it's a fantasy, if they want to indulge in it why are you being such an uptight moralist.

the human body is beautiful if people don't fucking drown it in fat, even then only because it looses it's distinctiveness [edit]

Nobody picks a character in League because they prefer the lore of that character, or that characters personality, because like Overwatch the characters don't have any. There is no relevance to any of these characters in game, they could all be blob monsters and it wouldn't change a damage thing to the game.

not true, i play kench because i like his voicelines and his character.
I play sion for the same reason.
Hell syndra was like that too, her kit helped.
there are vorthos players in league, infact a friend of mine prefers dota 2 because of hte the quips and character dialogue.
you loose a lot of soul when you don't really give your characters personality, DoW for example would have suffered because of that
take this for instance, i mean from this exchange i bet you get a very good idea of who these characters are from this small exchange in a small part of the sandbox campaign of dark crusade

Honestly, how awful are female character designs when the deepest debate we can have about them is how specifically we want to stick our dicks inside their vaginas
Good variety

pretty good i mean i see the gay fellas do it for male characters. My sister has exclaimed things about garen that i don't want to repeat. I would like more balalaika types

But that's besides the point, if i wanted to see ugly, unlikable people I'd look in the mirror, shit's a fantasy.

 

[cleric of the order]

I'm pretty sure my main man Pantheon is highly famous for his long denied desire to become a baker. They don't make skins off of jokes the character makes unless the joke is very popular.

and yet we see none for kench
it's pain my dude.

 

[default]

attractiveness is just one very shallow aspect of character design. this is hardly the 'deepest debate we can have'.

Oh, good.

Where is it? The deeper debate, I mean.

Not here. Look at any website or video dedicated to character design or costume design in media.

 

[Fox12]

Neither. I prefer character designs with real style and thought. Simple yet well thought out.

 

[Nature Guardian]

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

Eh I filp flop on the "which comes first" when making my own characters. I have a smartass know it all Mage. So for artwork said character probably has glasses this all knowing grin, and probably more stylish robe since he wants to look good/appear good. Reverse that; you have this stylish character with glasses, magic flames on the hands, and a "God your dumb" look. What personify do you give them?

Interesting question though; where should you start with making a character? Their looks? Their personality and back story? What they actually do in game? I know this is for topic but you can probably come up with different characters based on the order you start.

I tend to design most of my characters based on their story. I come up with a story, then their personality follows, and then they get an appearance to match all of that.

However....

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

There are a lot of times I will design a character based on a neat look. It's a fair way to make one.

.....When designing characters for little fanmade videogames and such, I do start with their design first.

So maybe, a rule of thumb is that the design becomes more important when it's the one thing the public will notice the most. In most videogames, the design is more important than the backstory or personality.
Incidentally, however, the issue is that focusing on design ends up producing more clich?s or stereotypes.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

Eh I filp flop on the "which comes first" when making my own characters. I have a smartass know it all Mage. So for artwork said character probably has glasses this all knowing grin, and probably more stylish robe since he wants to look good/appear good. Reverse that; you have this stylish character with glasses, magic flames on the hands, and a "God your dumb" look. What personify do you give them?

Interesting question though; where should you start with making a character? Their looks? Their personality and back story? What they actually do in game? I know this is for topic but you can probably come up with different characters based on the order you start.

I tend to design most of my characters based on their story. I come up with a story, then their personality follows, and then they get an appearance to match all of that.

However....

.....So, am I the only one who has the true answer here?

The true answer, of course, being that IT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER??

How about designing the looks of a character in a way that matches their story and personality, instead of viceversa?

There are a lot of times I will design a character based on a neat look. It's a fair way to make one.

.....When designing characters for little fanmade videogames and such, I do start with their design first.

So maybe, a rule of thumb is that the design becomes more important when it's the one thing the public will notice the most. In most videogames, the design is more important than the backstory or personality.
Incidentally, however, the issue is that focusing on design ends up producing more clich?s or stereotypes.

I don't think focusing on design will produce clich?? results unless your also focusing on cliches. It's an general element I want to rebuff. A lot of people have the idea that clich? or stereotype designs are a result of bad designing, but you can have bad designs that don't fall into that trap well good designs that do. If your going for clich??, you will get it not matter how you design.

P.S. I hate typing the word clich

 

[CritialGaming]

Honestly, how awful are female character designs when the deepest debate we can have about them is how specifically we want to stick our dicks inside their vaginas

Good variety

Variety has nothing to do with it.

League characters, aren't really characters. At least mostly. They are avatars that most people pick for one of two reasons:

1. How attractive or cool they look.
2. Their actual abilities in game.

Nobody picks a character in League because they prefer the lore of that character, or that characters personality, because like Overwatch the characters don't have any. There is no relevance to any of these characters in game, they could all be blob monsters and it wouldn't change a damage thing to the game.

So these kinds of discussions are all the 13-year-old boys who play LoL can actually have, because there is no further depth to the characters.

I'm pretty sure my main man Pantheon is highly famous for his long denied desire to become a baker. They don't make skins off of jokes the character makes unless the joke is very popular.

I mean I use my example in a vacuum of a scenario really. More on principal if that makes sense. I mean League's character roster and community has become a monolith of characters and memes. League and Overwatch I think are the only two games, where people have attached so much to characters who really have no character purpose in game. Katarina is cool, but if her abilities didn't fit in the current meta, nobody would play her and her tits wouldn't matter. Same goes for Overwatch chracters.

Which kind of leads me to a different concept. Attractiveness does not equal sexualization. Which is something I think people miss a lot.

In the terms of the OT: Sona being beautiful doesn't mean she is sexualized. It just means attractiveness, which a lot of people mistake for sex. Let me give you a real world example. Go into a Wallmart or a Target and look at their bra and pantie sections. All over the displays you will see attractive women in underwear. Then go to Victoria's Secret, there you will still see attractive women in underwear, but there is a very distinct difference between the displays. Both use attractive women to sell underware, but one uses a very suggestive sexual nature to said advertisements, where the other one doesn't.

This is why context matters, and it is really really unfair and stupid when people judge a character simply based on design, without looking at the context. Sona is attractive, but she is a musical muse, not a sexual creature. Katrina, Ms. Fortune, those are characters using their sex to achieve their goals and their designs reflect that.

 

[McElroy]

Neither. I prefer character designs with real style and thought. Simple yet well thought out.

Always nice to meet another loli fan. 8^)

Where is it? The deeper debate, I mean.

My guess is book clubs and LARPs.

 

[Nature Guardian]

I don't think focusing on design will produce clich?? results unless your also focusing on cliches. It's an general element I want to rebuff. A lot of people have the idea that clich? or stereotype designs are a result of bad designing, but you can have bad designs that don't fall into that trap well good designs that do. If your going for clich??, you will get it not matter how you design.

P.S. I hate typing the word clich

I disagree. Clich?s aren't inherently a bad thing: they serve the purpose of making the viewer understand immediately who the character is, just by a glance. That's why they're popular in videogames, in which most of the times there's actually little plot and it's all about the visuals to convey the message.

Clich?s became synonim of negative designs when they replaced original or varied designs.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I don't think focusing on design will produce clich?? results unless your also focusing on cliches. It's an general element I want to rebuff. A lot of people have the idea that clich? or stereotype designs are a result of bad designing, but you can have bad designs that don't fall into that trap well good designs that do. If your going for clich??, you will get it not matter how you design.

P.S. I hate typing the word clich

I disagree. Clich?s aren't inherently a bad thing: they serve the purpose of making the viewer understand immediately who the character is, just by a glance. That's why they're popular in videogames, in which most of the times there's actually little plot and it's all about the visuals to convey the message.

Clich?s became synonim of negative designs when they replaced original or varied designs.

I think that is what I said. A clich design isn't bad design it's clich design. Clich's are ok as an idea. Some times there are issues with a kind of clich, but as a whole they are OK.

 

[rightbehindyou]

As others have pointed out, beauty often inspires lust, so you don't pose 2 clearly separate choices.

Most of the time a revealing outfit inspires lust because what's showing is beautiful. Sona fits both categories. Most characters fit either both or neither.