xPixelatedx said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and assume you have never seen a carnivorous dinosaur.
From where I am sitting those kinds of legs look pretty functional for a two legged animal.
Alright, I'm not going to dwell the problems with using a video entitled 'Gigantosaurus' as evidence of the effectiveness of back-canted legs, nor that you're citing a CGI dinosaur made for a sci-fi show for evidence in an argument, nor even the fact that the video itself neatly condenses everything that's wrong with half the videos on Youtube (random video clips with someone else's music taste spliced over it).
Moving past those, you'll note that there was another half to my argument, specifically the "uses ungodly amounts of energy" part. How much does a creature with back-canted legs have to eat per day just to sustain normal activity? I mentioned neanderthals earlier, and that was one of their big issues: they were only slightly bigger than the average
homo sapien, but required significantly more food as a result. And when you're almost exclusively a carnivore, a fast-breeding competitor can literally
eat you to extinction.
Also note the gigantic tail. See, that's the thing about having back-canted legs: they aren't very good at keeping things that stand upright balanced. The T. Rex was originally thought to walk essentially upright, with the tail dragging behind it, but as it turns out, that sort of thing causes horrific joint damage over time. The gigantic tail was a counterweight to make up for the fact that you don't have forelegs to keep yourself balanced. You can't take one pair of legs off a table and still expect it to hold itself up.
Take a look at the body structure of everything bipedal with back-canted legs. Notice a pattern? Heavy front, counterweight in back, and constantly with their back parallel to the ground? There's a reason for that, and it's simple: back-canted legs provide shit balance for bipedal creatures. Every seen someone get taken down by hitting them behind the knees? Dinosaurs had all their dangerous bits jutting a fair distance in front of their legs, so it didn't matter for them, but put those joints on something bipedal that walks upright, and you've got an animal that crumbles like a house of cards if you kick them in the shin.
Or push them anywhere, really. If you've ever been shoved when your knees were locked, try and remember how you responded. Was it by moving your legs/joints in ways that would be impossible if your knees faced the other way? Probably. You can't brace yourself when your feet are kicking up in front of you while you topple over.
xPixelatedx said:
The real reason why they changed the legs is because they didn't want to make entierly separate armor/clothing variants for the beast races. They even came out and said this. You guys don't have to defend their lazy art design, they were happy admitting to it.
Okay...so they made the right choice for the wrong reasons. I've no problem with that. The end result is still the same.
Besides, it's less about defending Bethesda's aesthetic choices and more about dismantling OP's complaints. That's the fun part for me.