Jump to content

Video Game Culture 9


protar

Recommended Posts

It's pretty clear that they have specifically good intentions with the Overwatch cast and are listening for when they miss something due to privilege blinders or whatever. Good intentions doesn't necessarily lead to good praxis, but it's better than nothing.

My worries:

- As it wasn't something they thought of naturally, they might end up forgetting the whole thing and going back to cookie cutter shapes in the future.

- Have you played much Heroes? They have one female tank character out of ... like ten or twelve? And she's too squishy to really be useful as a tank, she's more of a durable melee DPS (and just rather bad in general). Overall there's a really strong trend towards men tough / women fragile, both in the proportion of roles and the distribution within roles. So I don't have a lot of confidence either in their willingness to make a legitimate female tank or in their commitment to the kind of diversity that includes going beyond stereotypes, not just checking lots of marginalized-person boxes.

Heroes is actually rather good with diverse body types within female characters, at least - there's various sizes of monster, there's a couple big tough ladies, and Jaina hulked out or something - she's got these broad shoulders and big bones and is just generally a very different body type from the standard issue Slender Model With Boobs. IMO that's beyond what Overwatch is demonstrating by a good bit. It's nice that they can have a 'buff one' or a 'fat one' or a big ol' butch or whatever but what's even better is when bodies are diverse beyond just the characters who have 'marked' body types.

It's important to the remember that there are basically no original charactesr in HOTS. IT's all characters from other properties. Thus, they are in some respects constrained by previous decisions about personality/role/look/etc. Meanwhile, when they have the chance, like with the Siege Tank or the Barbarian which are generic characters in the games they come from, they have had no qualms about adding in more women when they give them an actual face and personality.

I think they've done a good job as a company of paying attention to what their art department was doing before and trying to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's necessary though. If you know that forcefield kid is a tank (hypothetical example), and they have a recognisable silhouette, you can tell easily that they're a tank. Now if you're a complete noob you might not know that, but that's a small part of the learning curve. It's like with Hearthstone you've got over 500 cards to remember and know what they all do and how they interact. And the human brain being the miraculous thing it is it's manageable. Knowing the roles of a couple dozen heroes is simple in comparison and you don't need tanks to always equal big. It limits design not just from the "social justice" perspective, but also just from art design in general. Forcefield kid could be a cool character, why step on that potential?

That's not how you do visual design in video games though. Sillouette is VERY important. You want to convey alot of information about a character with a quick glance.

Tank = Big also gives you a nice beefy hitbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how you do visual design in video games though. Sillouette is VERY important. You want to convey alot of information about a character with a quick glance.

Tank = Big also gives you a nice beefy hitbox.

So long as each character has a distinct silhouette I don't see why each archetype must be restricted to a specific shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as each character has a distinct silhouette I don't see why each archetype must be restricted to a specific shape.

Because of what I just said.

Because the point is that each character's role should be recognizable from their visual design as well. Because that is in many ways the most important information to convey timely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of what I just said.

Because the point is that each character's role should be recognizable from their visual design as well. Because that is in many ways the most important information to convey timely.

But that is not relevant if the player knows what each character's role is, and that isn't hard to remember unless you're completely new to the game. So long as you know what each tank's silhouette looks like, it doesn't matter if not all tanks have a similar silhouette. And besides, they already don't: Despite her bulky figure Zarya is as far as I can tell not nearly as big as the other tanks - Winston and Reinhardt. I would say she is much closer in size to the non-tanks than to those two. So where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of what I just said.

Because the point is that each character's role should be recognizable from their visual design as well. Because that is in many ways the most important information to convey timely.

Visual cues can be re-trained and re-learned, and that's protar's point. Currently, tanks are big beefy silouhettes. But there are no real inherent reasons for it. You can define a slim, difficult-to-hit shape as tank that relies on avoidance and evasion, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is not relevant if the player knows what each character's role is, and that isn't hard to remember if you're completely new to the game. So long as you know what each tank's silhouette looks like, it doesn't matter if not all tanks have a similar silhouette. And besides, they already don't: Despite her bulky figure Zarya is as far as I can tell not nearly as big as the other tanks - Winston and Reinhardt. I would say she is much closer in size to the non-tanks than to those two. So where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary.

Yes it is. Because the point is to make it a faster and more obvious decision. To make the character's . This is the whole point of the idea of a silhouette in visual design. There is not a game in existence where anyone with enough know-how can't know what each character's role is. But the point is to convey that information faster and more viscerally trhough visual design. Shit, this is the entire point of visual design period. To convey information with how something looks.

Zarya may not be as big as other tanks, but one look at her and you know what she is. That's visual design.

Visual cues can be re-trained and re-learned, and that's protar's point. Currently, tanks are big beefy silouhettes. But there are no real inherent reasons for it. You can define a slim, difficult-to-hit shape as tank that relies on avoidance and evasion, for instance.

See, but your very example here is exactly what I'm talking about and not what protar is talking about at all.

character that relies on avoidance and evasion => slim shape

It's still the same thing: conveying information about the character via it's sillouette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is. Because the point is to make it a faster and more obvious decision. To make the character's . This is the whole point of the idea of a silhouette in visual design. There is not a game in existence where anyone with enough know-how can't know what each character's role is. But the point is to convey that information faster and more viscerally trhough visual design. Shit, this is the entire point of visual design period. To convey information with how something looks.

Zarya may not be as big as other tanks, but one look at her and you know what she is. That's visual design.

Perhaps it makes that transference of information even more immediate, but it should be by no means necessary. As I have said like twice now, players who aren't completely new to the game will know what each silhouette signifies regardless of what exact shape it is. Because even if a tank has a small silhouette, they associate that silhouette with the tank role. First and foremost the character design should be about having you know...interesting character designs and your quibbling about silhouette design shouldn't get in the way of that. Now, gender diversity is a consideration here - you don't want all the female characters shoe-horned into healing roles, but it also gets repetitive if all the female tanks are burly, masculine women. But even aside from that it's just dull and repetitive for each character in a certain archetype to look similar to all the other characters in that archetype. That isn't interesting. Is that repetitiveness really worth the slightly increased efficiency in information delivery, which is irrelevant to experienced players?

EDIT: You do have a point in regards to the actual hitbox, but again - Overwatch already has huge disparities in the hitbox size of tanks. Zarya is smaller than Winston who is smaller than Reinhardt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visual cues can be re-trained and re-learned, and that's protar's point. Currently, tanks are big beefy silouhettes. But there are no real inherent reasons for it. You can define a slim, difficult-to-hit shape as tank that relies on avoidance and evasion, for instance.

Yeah, but as Shryke pointed out, stereotypes can be useful. To me, a character that relies on avoidance and evasion is a stealth character, not a tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but as Shryke pointed out, stereotypes can be useful. To me, a character that relies on avoidance and evasion is a stealth character, not a tank.

Yeah, the point of being a tank is precisey to get in the way of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tanks that use avoidance, but that's a gameplay mechanic. The player doesn't dodge that attack, the attack hits and the game does some math and decides whether or not it was a dodge. Otherwise an avoidance tank plays the same as a regular one, meaning hitboxes would have to be similar.



If it actually requires a different playstyle they would also require a few other changes to keep attention on them, and while that might work in some games I don't see it working in an FPS.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters what the specific silhouette is for each class is, so long as its clear up front. If they want all the tanks to be thin and all the healers to be bulky, that's fine. But I think it is very important that each class have the same general silhouette. Games like this rely on twitch reflexes, and that means you need to know immediately what you're up against. Visual cues are essential to that, and its important to have a simple set of bases rules to always fallback on (e.g. the big ones are tanks).



Maybe it only saves a quarter second of time, but that quarter second could be very important. The actual gameplay considerations have to always be front and center. And if they want something like a thin tank when all the other tanks are big, make it clear that the character itself is thin (in their portrait and wherever else) but that they are in bulky power armor or something when actually playing so that the silhouette still matches.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tanks that use avoidance, but that's a gameplay mechanic. The player doesn't dodge that attack, the attack hits and the game does some math and decides whether or not it was a dodge. Otherwise an avoidance tank plays the same as a regular one, meaning hitboxes would have to be similar.

If it actually requires a different playstyle they would also require a few other changes to keep attention on them, and while that might work in some games I don't see it working in an FPS.

That makes sense for eg. an MMORPG, not a Team Fortress-(which honestly is what Blizzard's thing is trying to be)style shooter. If you avoid a shot that means the guy behind you gets hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense for eg. an MMORPG, not a Team Fortress-(which honestly is what Blizzard's thing is trying to be)style shooter. If you avoid a shot that means the guy behind you gets hit.

And even if you're far enough apart that this isn't an issue you need something to get attention on yourself. Normal tanks would do this simply by having so much health that if you didn't focus on them they would be able to run roughshod over you. An avoidance tank couldn't have high health otherwise what's the point of dodging. They can't draw attention with very high damage or they make the actual damage classes worthless. So there's no reason to treat them any different from a DPS class.

Which makes me realize they already have exactly this character, except they properly slot them into the offensive role. Pharah, Tracer, and Hanzo. All are supposed to be high mobility play styles. All would make terrible tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what your saying...

you're*

Sheltered from what? Goofy looking humans and robots? Note I also think the gorilla looks goofy but in my preferred version of the game they're all just normal gorillas, not super intelligent gorillas who can wear armour and bend space-time or whatever bullshit abilities they're peddling. They can however shoot weapons...otherwise it would just be a bunch of gorillas running around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense for eg. an MMORPG, not a Team Fortress-(which honestly is what Blizzard's thing is trying to be)style shooter. If you avoid a shot that means the guy behind you gets hit.

Which, as I was actually coming to point out, is exactly what Team Fortress (an absolute masterpiece of visual design in it's original incarnation) does. Each character has a distinct visual silhouette appropriate to their role .The Heavy and the Medic look like they do for a reason.

This is getting off-topic though, so regardless I think Overwatch shows Blizzard is doing a good job of trying to make their art-style more diverse and less unthinkingly cheesecake silliness.

Though sadly the same day they announced Zarya they also announced Sylvannas being added to HOTS, still in her ridiculous bikini-top outfit from her last model update in WoW. Le sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're*

Sheltered from what? Goofy looking humans and robots? Note I also think the gorilla looks goofy but in my preferred version of the game they're all just normal gorillas, not super intelligent gorillas who can wear armour and bend space-time or whatever bullshit abilities they're peddling. They can however shoot weapons...otherwise it would just be a bunch of gorillas running around...

Sheltered from having a dearth of representations in media to the point where you can go around loudly proclaiming to others about how much you don't care, despite the fact that you are even coming in to a thread related to that subject and telling other people all about it indicating that clearly you do care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheltered from having a dearth of representations in media to the point where you can go around loudly proclaiming to others about how much you don't care, despite the fact that you are even coming in to a thread related to that subject and telling other people all about it indicating that clearly you do care.

On reflection, I must admit that they're right. I'm threatened by the representations which is why I want all the heroes replaced by gorillas so my anti-diversity worldview can be sheltered from the harsh reality that we live in a pluralistic society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding: You just have to learn the basic "500 cards".


Well, thats exactly what Blizzard did not do for each other game they brought out. The core was always simple just the potential to the top was nearly unlimited.


So they were appealing to newbes and pros alike. To scuff on newbes is just stupid. Because they make up the bulk in every game fresh released. Those are the guys and girls buying the game 6 month after release. If they just get wacked over the head...Well, there goes your long time potential...



Regarding: Diversity Vs Mechanics.


Mechanics always win. Just the thought you line up a headshot with widowmaker just to see an "miss" pop up in the middle of your screen...



I guess the best example for this is the comparism from Arcanum to Bloodlines (both games were created by the same team)


They both played to the possibility of the player having real choices and supporting different playstiles.



The differance was that arcanum had a lot of interesting female NPCs (even in a world where women did not even have the right to vote), Bloodlines kept it mostly (some say totally) one demensional and boobs in your face. (Probably mostly in an effort to keep the game daring and youthful or whatever)


Still, with all my well natured hatred for the white wolf frenchise, Bloodlines was the better game. Despite all the bugs. The "HAHAHA, this skills is useless but those skills would have been super usefull"-moments of arcanum are just really frustrating.


Why is mechanic so much more important than "balanced NPCs"? Because one annoying cliche you will have to deal with for a short periode of time. One broken mechanic you will have to deal with, the entire length of the game (or close to it).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though sadly the same day they announced Zarya they also announced Sylvannas being added to HOTS, still in her ridiculous bikini-top outfit from her last model update in WoW. Le sigh.

Which is weird because I distinctly remember a new Sylvanas model a while back for HOTS which was not her normal bikini armour: http://www.buffed.de/screenshots/970x546/2014/11/Heroes_of_the_Storm_01-buffed.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...