If by gorgeous you mean boring.
so character most be ugly to be interesting ? LOL
So a female character must be pretty? This is what I mean by deviations will be killed. If I suggest deviation from pretty females people say that’s bad. Why does Roadhog get to be a giant? Why does Reinhardt get to be super old? Why does Junkrat get to be a twisted wreck? But females, even the cyborg has to have pretty and slick cybernetics. Even the old woman has to be beautiful and look younger than they supposedly are (when not wearing a mask or has a super young skin). Hell, even the fat girl isn’t even fat, turns out it’s all padding from her clothes.
Look, I’m not saying Brigitte has to be horrible twisted and scarred, but what was wrong with how she appeared in the comic?
I get the complaints though.
She was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more tomboyish before they put her in game and kind of girlified her
1 Like
It is fine when character isn’t fit or pretty however it is not fine when they create fat and ugly characters so people wouldn’t complain why all characters are pretty.
Only writer should decide what character gonna look like but in this case writer created a pretty fit woman but game developers changed it.
Variety for variety’s sake is bs.
Writer? What writer? You’re now suggesting there is any actual lore in the game.
Orisa Is about as diverse as you can get. And I hate diversity. Genders suck and everyone should strive to be at my level.
There’s only one way to be, and that’s to be me!
1 Like
well overwatch has michael as writer but by writer i meant character creator. now writer is usually for movies and books because there is same problem in movies and book.
most obvious one is harry potter how they turned hermione black and one of the wizards gay. Variety for variety’s sake. they did all of these after like idk 12 books or something. bs.
which adds to her charm
she got has much charm has a nerdy librarian, which is none.
1 Like
I believe you meant to say extremely charming. Nerdy librarians are awesome.
Every character looks different in cinematic universes. I mean, look at reaper’s mask for example, the mask looks ‘‘angrier’’ in the cinematics
1 Like
Brigitte looks nothing like Mercy. If anything she closely resembles Zara a bit and even then they still look different. Comparing Brigitte to Mercy is like comparing Junkrat to McCree.
Literally a lot of in game character models don’t look like their cinematic versions. They are reduced in quality for the game so what do you expect here?
Just look at Brigitte’s arms in the skins that show them compared to her in literally any other iteration; it’s like she’s lost half her muscle mass
her nose, jawline, eyebrows and cheeks are all different from mercy. Also the freckles are still there, just hard to see sadly.
1 Like
Characters in the game engine are rendered differently than in cinematics.
Actually, disregarding how fit, fat or skinny the models are, Meis old concept was way more interesting because of the striking shape language. The “new” Mei features mostly large and smooth, but also stiff shapes unfortunately.
I’m pretty sure it was changed due to diversity issues and because Mei is suited best for some fat on the hips since she’s living in antarctica.
On one hand, it’s annoying that she’s basically Mercy with red hair.
On the other, I’d rather she look the way she does now than with that horrible eye-line she has in the cinematic. Looks like she tried to be goth and then quit after the eyes.
Still, she’ll always be the lanky tomboy from the comics to me.
This video covered some of the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXYv9vhOI3s
And a comment on the video offered more insight:
Gemma Tweedy
I can tell you, as an aspiring CGI artist, that it is HARD to translate concept art into a finished model.
The first thing to know is that Concept Art only care’s about how something looks from one angle. In CGI, you have to make it look good for every angle. You see this with the Frozen concept art. Amazing work, but due to the animation, it would be impossible to represent the styles of the concept art in the movie.
Another thing that is often ignored is rigging. Everything you see in a CGI movie is made of triangles. EVERYTHING. Rigging is when you determine what and how the triangles move with the internal skeleton the animators use. And for something like expressions, if not modeled correctly, they can look like a bunch of ugly triangles. So not only does the CGI artist have to care about the look of the thing their making from all angles, but they also have to care about how the thing will move! And they have to arrange the triangles in a way that the viewer wont notice when in action.
Anyway, after the concept art has been finalized, another artist has to convert it into something called an orthographic reference. These are drawings of the to-be model from the X (Left or right), Y (Up or down) and Z (Front and/or back) axis’s without perspective so the CGI artist can accurately create the character. Even though this is necessary, it is an extra layer of compression as (at least) one artist is interpreting another’s work and their art style can influence the final product. Same thing happens while modelling. One artist is interpreting another’s work and it doesn’t always translate well.
So, hopefully, you can see how transferring concept to CGI is tough for a CGI team. There are so many things that the CGI artist has to consider, as well as the multiple artists working on the same work, that some info is bond to get lost along the way.
I don’t know how to end this, so… Yah dude. Don’t under estimate this job man. It’s feckin’ tough!
She’s pretty much same. The only real difference is pre-rendered cinematic model vs in-game model.
Back in my day, we knew that the cinimatics were always going to look better than the game. I mean, who would have bought Tomb Raider if miss polygon chest was on the cover?