Portraits

[injurai]

The amount of attractive woman that are into gaming is immense. I find they unabashedly cling to attractive female characters and pretty things more so than even the dudes who equally enjoy those things. As long as the character isn't the archetypal courtisan, then any level of attractiveness that would be appropriate in a semi-casual environment seems to be embraced. Those sorts of characters are a point of identification, and it's funny when some people pretend that pretty woman don't exist. The guys just seem to put enough distance to maintain plausible deniability, because enjoying digital woman is a point of shame.

 

Anyways, I don't think the stock portraits are unattractive either. They fit better with a party that is either out camping or on the high seas most of the time.

[Aramintai]

 

and I've yet to hear a good reason why women should look ugly in a video game, never minding all that SJW crap that is being fed down our throats lately by misogynists and ugly fat chicks who are just being jealous.

It's just a coping mechanism. Fat, ugly people don't have to accept they're unattractive if they convince themselves the attractive people in video games are "unrealistic". And what kind of argument is that anyway? Dragons aren't realistic either. Might as well ban dragons from video games.

Shhh, shhh, not so loud, least it gets spread to BioWare  - they've already banned beautiful women from their games, let's not let them take out dragons from Dragon Age.

[Lamppost in Winter]

And what kind of argument is that anyway? Dragons aren't realistic either. Might as well ban dragons from video games.

 

 

 

Exactly! And this is why I'm also okay with having many LGBTQ characters in games, even if it's more than would be "realistic". Well said.

[CENIC]

It's equally discriminatory to ban attractive people or call them "unrealistic," and I say that as an average-looking and insecure person.

 

The portrait edits look nice, and whoever did it is talented! Thanks, anonymous artist!

[Wormerine]

 

Ahh, nothing like sucking any unique characteristics out of your companions in favour of making TVshow babes out of them.

Being ugly somehow makes a character more unique? Interesting.

 

Anyway, it's escapism. Not sure what's wrong with wanting attractive characters in your fantasy game.

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

 

I must say, I am shocked how my throwaway snark poked a beehive. 

[Silent Winter]

 

Dragons aren't realistic either. Might as well ban dragons from video games.

Well, my party do seem to be on a dragon extermination campaign - poor things can barely get two words out before a shadowflame goes off in their snouts.

 

Edit: slightly more on topic - I was planning on making some more portraits for Deadfire, but between work and baby I've not had much time.

<- So I'll be sticking with this fella for the first playthrough (after making a watercolour version to go with it).

Edited March 3, 2018 by Silent Winter

[Valmy]

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

 

 

 

I must say, I am shocked how my throwaway snark poked a beehive. 

 

 

You are shocked? You poked a very well known point of political controversy that has been raging in this industry for over 20 years and you are shocked? Huh.

 

I will use the original portraits because they are the developers' characters but I don't see how those are glam models but hey what do I know?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Valmy

[Valmy]

Yeah none of them look like adventurers at all.

 

As long as you geeks can jerk your ding dongs all is well I guess.

 

I did not realize looking like an adventurer was based on small facial features.

 

Oh yeah. Those portraits are basically porn. For goodness sake.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Valmy

[Judicator]

 

 

and I've yet to hear a good reason why women should look ugly in a video game, never minding all that SJW crap that is being fed down our throats lately by misogynists and ugly fat chicks who are just being jealous.

It's just a coping mechanism. Fat, ugly people don't have to accept they're unattractive if they convince themselves the attractive people in video games are "unrealistic". And what kind of argument is that anyway? Dragons aren't realistic either. Might as well ban dragons from video games.

Shhh, shhh, not so loud, least it gets spread to BioWare  - they've already banned beautiful women from their games, let's not let them take out dragons from Dragon Age.

 

It really killed me when I saw what they did to Cassandra. She was cute in DA2.

 

 

 

Ahh, nothing like sucking any unique characteristics out of your companions in favour of making TVshow babes out of them.

Being ugly somehow makes a character more unique? Interesting.

 

Anyway, it's escapism. Not sure what's wrong with wanting attractive characters in your fantasy game.

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

No, the Crones' true forms are freaking disgusting. Like, revolting.

 

I really hate the "real people" argument. I guess all those attractive women I see outside, or in the mall, or the gym are figments of my imagination. Which reminds me, I should inform my gf she isn't real. That'll teach her for being a model in her college years. Seriously though, there's nothing about being ugly or average that makes you more likely to be an adventurer than an attractive person. If anyone wants to use the original portraits then go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that, but saying the edited ones don't look "real" is silly. Bird women, shark women, and elves are not real to begin with.

 

By the way, I feel that the edited Pallegina portrait looks a lot closer to the PoE portrait. The unedited PoE2 variant looks very different to me.

[PneumaticFire]

I actually agree with there being no need to discriminate against 'attractive' portraits, yet I also see the other side.  

It's not so much an issue of beauty or 'plainness', but rather that a seasoned or well travelled adventurer wont look like they just came off the set of a photo shoot all dolled up. 

You can still have attractive features with less airbrush and more 'grit'.

[Aramintai]

May I humbly request a watercolour edit of a couple (ok, 3) of portraits? Do it for those who like short-haired girls!

 

Please and thank you.

 

https://imgur.com/a/QFwvF

 

P.S. it's the first time I link an album with more than 1 picture, if something is wrong with the link let me know and I'll try to fix it. ^^;

 

 

[Judicator]

I actually agree with there being no need to discriminate against 'attractive' portraits, yet I also see the other side.  

 

It's not so much an issue of beauty or 'plainness', but rather that a seasoned or well travelled adventurer wont look like they just came off the set of a photo shoot all dolled up. 

 

You can still have attractive features with less airbrush and more 'grit'.

 

Well, that depends on the character's backstory, doesn't it? It wouldn't make sense for a fresh-faced, 20-year-old Bhaalspawn raised in Candlekeep to look tired and grizzled in BG1, would it? Now I don't know these new characters' stories (I've been keeping myself out of the loop on purpose), but I assume they're not all war veterans or slaves or whatever.

[Wormerine]

 

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

No, the Crones' true forms are freaking disgusting. Like, revolting.

I am not a native english speaker, so my intuition might be off, but calling someone "ugly" is quite rough, isn't it? Someone who is really unpleasant to look at. 

 

 

I really hate the "real people" argument. I guess all those attractive women I see outside, or in the mall, or the gym are figments of my imagination. Which reminds me, I should inform my gf she isn't real. That'll teach her for being a model in her college years. Seriously though, there's nothing about being ugly or average that makes you more likely to be an adventurer than an attractive person. If anyone wants to use the original portraits then go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that, but saying the edited ones don't look "real" is silly. Bird women, shark women, and elves are not real to begin with.

 

By the way, I feel that the edited Pallegina portrait looks a lot closer to the PoE portrait. The unedited PoE2 variant looks very different to me.

They don't sell intended character - thats what I am bother by (and by bothered by I mean: roll my eyes. I really don't care enough to have any strong emotional reaction). PoE is not a gym or a mall simulator. I find it just as absurd as I would an attempt to sexy up Durance. Just... why? Why can we have Humphrey Boghart or Jack Nicholson but every female character gets reduced to: "is she bangable or not". 

 

 

I think she looks spot on. Her skin seems a bit darker in the new portraits but thats about it. Same hard and proud expression.

 

EDIT: I am sorry for messing up the thread. If I knew consequences of my snark I would keep it to myself.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Wormerine

[TheisEjsing]

You just couldn't help yourself.. :D

[Selky]

I don't know, anon's Pallegina portrait looks a lot more faithful than the official one. Both her and Eder's portraits have received criticism since we first saw them because people thought they don't sell the characters and look off.

 

The other edits may be fanservice but Pallegina's seems like a genuine attempt to fix the official version.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Selky

[Juodas Varnas]

Well, i mean, we should keep in mind that PoE 2 is set 5 years after the events of PoE 1.

 

People can change quite a lot in 5 years.

[algroth]

On my behalf I don't mind either version existing. I'm in agreement that female characters in videogames tend to look overly supermodel-like even when the specific characters hardly call for it, and I like that Obsidian avoids that pitfall even if in turn the portraits for the famale character don't attract me in those terms. But I don't really mind the sexualization of characters in fanart and I take these alternate portraits as just that. Taken in terms of being fanart I think they're pretty good.

 

Weirdly enough I do find this alternate Pallegina portrait seems to fit her Deadfire character model a bit more due to the nose shape and the more angular frame of her face, or would with just a slight bit less "waifufication".

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by algroth

[Sannom]

The other edits may be fanservice but Pallegina's seems like a genuine attempt to fix the official version.

The straight nose and lighter skin just aren't right. That edit is just as bad as the others.

[Judicator]

 

 

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

No, the Crones' true forms are freaking disgusting. Like, revolting.

I am not a native english speaker, so my intuition might be off, but calling someone "ugly" is quite rough, isn't it? Someone who is really unpleasant to look at. 

 

 

I really hate the "real people" argument. I guess all those attractive women I see outside, or in the mall, or the gym are figments of my imagination. Which reminds me, I should inform my gf she isn't real. That'll teach her for being a model in her college years. Seriously though, there's nothing about being ugly or average that makes you more likely to be an adventurer than an attractive person. If anyone wants to use the original portraits then go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that, but saying the edited ones don't look "real" is silly. Bird women, shark women, and elves are not real to begin with.

 

By the way, I feel that the edited Pallegina portrait looks a lot closer to the PoE portrait. The unedited PoE2 variant looks very different to me.

They don't sell intended character - thats what I am bother by (and by bothered by I mean: roll my eyes. I really don't care enough to have any strong emotional reaction). PoE is not a gym or a mall simulator. I find it just as absurd as I would an attempt to sexy up Durance. Just... why? Why can we have Humphrey Boghart or Jack Nicholson but every female character gets reduced to: "is she bangable or not". 

 

 

I think she looks spot on. Her skin seems a bit darker in the new portraits but thats about it. Same hard and proud expression.

 

EDIT: I am sorry for messing up the thread. If I knew consequences of my snark I would keep it to myself.

 

I honestly don't understand what the problem is. Why are "dolled up" characters less likely to be adventurers than less attractive ones?

 

No way. PoE1 Pallegina looked like Rihanna with feathers. The Deadfire version looks like a man.

[CENIC]

The straight nose and lighter skin just aren't right. That edit is just as bad as the others.

 

What? You do realize there are Africans and people of African descent with varying skin tones? Are you suggesting it isn't "right" for them to have lighter skin tones?

 

Pallegina's skin tone in the Deadfire portrait is different from her skin tone in her original Pillars portrait. The edited portrait brings her skin tone closer to her original Pillars portrait. I can see how someone with darker skin than Pallegina would be excited and happy if she was "darkened" to look more like them because representation is important, but there is nothing WRONG with being a light-skinned black person. Jesus.

[algroth]

Ooooh boy...

 

 

I'll go make some popcorn.

 

Edit: So in all seriousness, I'm inclined to agree that the skin tone is closer to the original portrait if a little on the light side as well, but let's drop the pretend indignation, alright? No remark was made about race or anything resembling some ethnic generalization, so there's no need to assume it's speaking in those terms either.

Edited March 3, 2018 by algroth

[Fardragon]

 

 

 

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

No, the Crones' true forms are freaking disgusting. Like, revolting.

I am not a native english speaker, so my intuition might be off, but calling someone "ugly" is quite rough, isn't it? Someone who is really unpleasant to look at. 

 

 

I really hate the "real people" argument. I guess all those attractive women I see outside, or in the mall, or the gym are figments of my imagination. Which reminds me, I should inform my gf she isn't real. That'll teach her for being a model in her college years. Seriously though, there's nothing about being ugly or average that makes you more likely to be an adventurer than an attractive person. If anyone wants to use the original portraits then go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that, but saying the edited ones don't look "real" is silly. Bird women, shark women, and elves are not real to begin with.

 

By the way, I feel that the edited Pallegina portrait looks a lot closer to the PoE portrait. The unedited PoE2 variant looks very different to me.

They don't sell intended character - thats what I am bother by (and by bothered by I mean: roll my eyes. I really don't care enough to have any strong emotional reaction). PoE is not a gym or a mall simulator. I find it just as absurd as I would an attempt to sexy up Durance. Just... why? Why can we have Humphrey Boghart or Jack Nicholson but every female character gets reduced to: "is she bangable or not". 

 

 

I think she looks spot on. Her skin seems a bit darker in the new portraits but thats about it. Same hard and proud expression.

 

EDIT: I am sorry for messing up the thread. If I knew consequences of my snark I would keep it to myself.

 

I honestly don't understand what the problem is. Why are "dolled up" characters less likely to be adventurers than less attractive ones?

 

No way. PoE1 Pallegina looked like Rihanna with feathers. The Deadfire version looks like a man.

 

 

If you are getting your face smashed in (burned/frozen/etc) on a regular basis you aren't going to stay pretty for long.

 

And lightning bolts are terrible for the hair!

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

"Ugly" is quite an extreme discription. Crones in Witcher 3 are ugly. Those original portraits simply look more like real people, instead of a glam photos for a cover of Vogue. I really can't say anything about Yidwin or Xoti as I now nothing about them, but that is not Pallegina. I just find desire to edit female character portraits to be more sexually appealing... curious. "Really?" That said: quality work. They do look very good.

No, the Crones' true forms are freaking disgusting. Like, revolting.

I am not a native english speaker, so my intuition might be off, but calling someone "ugly" is quite rough, isn't it? Someone who is really unpleasant to look at. 

 

 

I really hate the "real people" argument. I guess all those attractive women I see outside, or in the mall, or the gym are figments of my imagination. Which reminds me, I should inform my gf she isn't real. That'll teach her for being a model in her college years. Seriously though, there's nothing about being ugly or average that makes you more likely to be an adventurer than an attractive person. If anyone wants to use the original portraits then go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that, but saying the edited ones don't look "real" is silly. Bird women, shark women, and elves are not real to begin with.

 

By the way, I feel that the edited Pallegina portrait looks a lot closer to the PoE portrait. The unedited PoE2 variant looks very different to me.

They don't sell intended character - thats what I am bother by (and by bothered by I mean: roll my eyes. I really don't care enough to have any strong emotional reaction). PoE is not a gym or a mall simulator. I find it just as absurd as I would an attempt to sexy up Durance. Just... why? Why can we have Humphrey Boghart or Jack Nicholson but every female character gets reduced to: "is she bangable or not". 

 

 

I think she looks spot on. Her skin seems a bit darker in the new portraits but thats about it. Same hard and proud expression.

 

EDIT: I am sorry for messing up the thread. If I knew consequences of my snark I would keep it to myself.

 

I honestly don't understand what the problem is. Why are "dolled up" characters less likely to be adventurers than less attractive ones?

 

No way. PoE1 Pallegina looked like Rihanna with feathers. The Deadfire version looks like a man.

 

 

If you are getting your face smashed in (burned/frozen/etc) on a regular basis you aren't going to stay pretty for long.

 

And lightning bolts are terrible for the hair!

 

In fairness to realism, if you were adventuring and getting smashed the way you usually are in the game's combat on a regular basis, I doubt your body could last a week without permanent injury serious enough to put a short end to any adventurer's career. And in fairness to setting, it also depends how effective magical healing can be - as in, can you be mended all the way back to normal?

Edited March 3, 2018 by algroth

[Juodas Varnas]

 

If you are getting your face smashed in (burned/frozen/etc) on a regular basis you aren't going to stay pretty for long.

 

And lightning bolts are terrible for the hair!

 

I beg to differ!

[Judicator]

 

 

If you are getting your face smashed in (burned/frozen/etc) on a regular basis you aren't going to stay pretty for long.

 

And lightning bolts are terrible for the hair!

 

This doesn't apply to a world with literal healing magic. Also, if you're getting hit *that* often, then you'll probably be dead soon anyway.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Judicator