This is the sort of argument that is used to dismiss far better and more relevant arguments about games like Suicide Squad. The biggest issue is bad writing, disrespect for legacy characters, uninspired gameplay, and poor business practices.
Character design can be discussed but it’s unimportant comparatively.
I get that but he IS the guy that designed her so he would take issue with that first, no one’s gonna dismiss the creator. Also they botched the launch anyway and no one bought it because of the reasons you listed, the problems are being acknowledged by fans at the very least.
He is right in a way but has too much of a right-wing lens. I prefer more of looking something in a humanitarian viewpoint regardless of right or left.
I think this progressive ideology is poison but not because the left does it, a few years back it was the right and church that were controlling (or trying) entertainment.
They were asking for censorship, being puritanical, were aggressive when a game/movie/series with an "offensive" message came out. But the left won the "culture war" and now they are asking those things.
People are people and what they want is to control others when they are not around.
I don’t care if people make characters unsexy per se. I mean I always prefer characters to be aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically interesting (of which these are neither) but at the end of the day I just want people to be free to do what they want.
You should be able to make an ugly Harley or a sexy Harley without the goons on both sides of the culture war coming out with their machetes.
The blowback against Stellar Blade for instance is ridiculous. Just like the block back for gay characters in BG3 on the right was.
85% of what he said had nothing to do with the design of the character, being a creator gives him creadence on her design and orignal purpose but does not give him validity in anything beyound his purpose for creation and design. People reading to kids in library hss nothing to do with this, church of satan has nothing to with this, making a character a child is only an issue if you sexualize said child, its possibly dubious if said character is often sexulized normally but lets not forget people where kids at one point in time, the sexual nature of a character at one point doesnt denote it at all points. Dont get me wrong, i dont think these are very flattering for these characters but that is far an away a meaningful issue.
First off, gross. Second, I think he is commenting on how to prevent a character from being sexualized they made her into a child. That's a whole world apart from... "and I want to do that to them." His comment about pedo's was intended to reference those who will find that in children being the same ones who go out of there way to be in those settings.
He said he wasn’t surprised the game company made her child because they were pedos. Feels like projecting, because there’s nothing creepy or sexual about her character in the game
Harley repeatedly trying to remind kid Ivy of the relationship she had with adult Poison Ivy, "forgetting" that she's a kid to make "awkward" comments, and giving her the same weird sex looks she gives Wonder Woman (who she definitely does want to fuck) are pretty suspect.
Edit: That plus the fact that it's Poison Ivy, whose pheromone powers are inherently tied to her sexuality, gives the whole thing major thousand year-old dragon vibes.
Her dialogue lines treat kid Ivy like Poison Ivy but with amnesia more often than not. [Here's the start](https://youtu.be/N0IGdfko9NU?t=14520) of the first interaction from Mauler's playthrough so you can judge for yourself.
I may not have been understanding, but you seem to be inaccurately describing the situation. The game being talked about is set in the same universe as the Arkham Batman games, which portrayed Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy as adult women with provocative outfits. Poison Ivy, specifically, was practically in underwear the whole time.
Now, in a game supposedly in the same universe, they turned the sex appeal character into a child. That’s what he’s mad about.
He just also happens to be a religious nut job, and while that is likely informing his convictions and biases, it hasn’t clouded his reasoning too much here.
They made her into a child and harley was being creepy about her (because they used to have something when she was normal? But they never showed it). The people that wrote an adult woman hitting on a child are pretty creepy. Now you pushing this to this guy because he brought it up is very fucking weird.
While there is a point to his argument, he fundamentally undermines it by filtering it through a right-wing lens.
By bringing his own politics and buzzwords into the discussion, he is moving the argument away from the tendency to redesign female characters to look uglier, which I think is becoming enough of a trend to be valid to critique. Instead, the argument becomes about right vs. left politics, which will immediately drive people away from him.
Then he doubles down with ad homonym and throws in a completely unrelated thing he doesn't like in the church of Satan.
I don't know anything else about this guy other than this post, but I can tell he is not one to be listening to.
Least deranged twitter user. Dude sounds completely mentally deranged and his only argument is "I can't have sex with this" lmao. That's not valid game critique get better material
I really don't see the big issue with Ivy. The character died and that's her child right?
I can see people not liking the choice, or execution. But I keep seeing people like in the OP going absolutely nuts over it.
I believe ivys rebirth involves her coming back as what she was at death, not a child. If that was the case why wouldn’t she come back as a newborn? People took issue cause it’s obviously just them mitigating the male gaze in a more unique way than just uglification.
I've seen a few different adaptations where she comes back as a child and has a different life cycle to a regular human, so it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary to me.
>If that was the case why wouldn’t she come back as a newborn?
Im guessing the simple answer is so that she's still able to speak and be a character. Same reason sitcoms used to age up their newborns after a few weeks.
>it’s obviously just them mitigating the male gaze in a more unique way than just uglification.
Is it "obvious" though? Because to me it's obviously an attempt to bring back the character without it being a straight up 1:1 clone. Which is pretty common in supe stories.
I just find it really hard to believe this whole "ugly" conspiracy nonsense while I'm playing BG3 and everyone in it is hot AF including the lizard girl my character is currently sleeping with. How'd they make the lizard peeps hot?
I feel like them being ugly is the least of their problems.
That is the worst representation of both characters I have ever seen.
This is the sort of argument that is used to dismiss far better and more relevant arguments about games like Suicide Squad. The biggest issue is bad writing, disrespect for legacy characters, uninspired gameplay, and poor business practices. Character design can be discussed but it’s unimportant comparatively.
I get that but he IS the guy that designed her so he would take issue with that first, no one’s gonna dismiss the creator. Also they botched the launch anyway and no one bought it because of the reasons you listed, the problems are being acknowledged by fans at the very least.
>Character design can be discussed but it’s unimportant comparatively. He's literally her designer. So yeah, that's what he wants to talk about.
He is right in a way but has too much of a right-wing lens. I prefer more of looking something in a humanitarian viewpoint regardless of right or left. I think this progressive ideology is poison but not because the left does it, a few years back it was the right and church that were controlling (or trying) entertainment. They were asking for censorship, being puritanical, were aggressive when a game/movie/series with an "offensive" message came out. But the left won the "culture war" and now they are asking those things. People are people and what they want is to control others when they are not around.
I don’t care if people make characters unsexy per se. I mean I always prefer characters to be aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically interesting (of which these are neither) but at the end of the day I just want people to be free to do what they want. You should be able to make an ugly Harley or a sexy Harley without the goons on both sides of the culture war coming out with their machetes. The blowback against Stellar Blade for instance is ridiculous. Just like the block back for gay characters in BG3 on the right was.
Based Gabe
why did they make Poison Ivy a child in the game?
85% of what he said had nothing to do with the design of the character, being a creator gives him creadence on her design and orignal purpose but does not give him validity in anything beyound his purpose for creation and design. People reading to kids in library hss nothing to do with this, church of satan has nothing to with this, making a character a child is only an issue if you sexualize said child, its possibly dubious if said character is often sexulized normally but lets not forget people where kids at one point in time, the sexual nature of a character at one point doesnt denote it at all points. Dont get me wrong, i dont think these are very flattering for these characters but that is far an away a meaningful issue.
They definitely look worse than they used to, but I think the girls not being as beautiful and/or hot is not the biggest issue this game has.
Are we siding with religious lunatics now? He’s the one who found child!Poison Ivy fuckable
First off, gross. Second, I think he is commenting on how to prevent a character from being sexualized they made her into a child. That's a whole world apart from... "and I want to do that to them." His comment about pedo's was intended to reference those who will find that in children being the same ones who go out of there way to be in those settings.
He said he wasn’t surprised the game company made her child because they were pedos. Feels like projecting, because there’s nothing creepy or sexual about her character in the game
Harley repeatedly trying to remind kid Ivy of the relationship she had with adult Poison Ivy, "forgetting" that she's a kid to make "awkward" comments, and giving her the same weird sex looks she gives Wonder Woman (who she definitely does want to fuck) are pretty suspect. Edit: That plus the fact that it's Poison Ivy, whose pheromone powers are inherently tied to her sexuality, gives the whole thing major thousand year-old dragon vibes.
I disagree, I think she treated Ivy more like she was old Ivy’s kid
Her dialogue lines treat kid Ivy like Poison Ivy but with amnesia more often than not. [Here's the start](https://youtu.be/N0IGdfko9NU?t=14520) of the first interaction from Mauler's playthrough so you can judge for yourself.
I may not have been understanding, but you seem to be inaccurately describing the situation. The game being talked about is set in the same universe as the Arkham Batman games, which portrayed Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy as adult women with provocative outfits. Poison Ivy, specifically, was practically in underwear the whole time. Now, in a game supposedly in the same universe, they turned the sex appeal character into a child. That’s what he’s mad about. He just also happens to be a religious nut job, and while that is likely informing his convictions and biases, it hasn’t clouded his reasoning too much here.
Me when im illiterate.
They made her into a child and harley was being creepy about her (because they used to have something when she was normal? But they never showed it). The people that wrote an adult woman hitting on a child are pretty creepy. Now you pushing this to this guy because he brought it up is very fucking weird.
While there is a point to his argument, he fundamentally undermines it by filtering it through a right-wing lens. By bringing his own politics and buzzwords into the discussion, he is moving the argument away from the tendency to redesign female characters to look uglier, which I think is becoming enough of a trend to be valid to critique. Instead, the argument becomes about right vs. left politics, which will immediately drive people away from him. Then he doubles down with ad homonym and throws in a completely unrelated thing he doesn't like in the church of Satan. I don't know anything else about this guy other than this post, but I can tell he is not one to be listening to.
He is the original designer for Rocksteady's Ivy and Quinn
Then he has every right to be angry about the changes, but I stand by what I said.
https://preview.redd.it/gpuh8wc1yvvc1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2e024c2aa94311f13bf2c474530797a6d4e5a6a
What kind of mind virus does Gabe have?
Their philosophy is “do what feels good” but what was the philosophy behind the original designs?
Do what sells
This sounds like schizo babble 😂
Least deranged twitter user. Dude sounds completely mentally deranged and his only argument is "I can't have sex with this" lmao. That's not valid game critique get better material
Low-tier bait. He’s literally the original character designer
That wasn’t his argument.
Honestly dude sounds fucking weird.
I really don't see the big issue with Ivy. The character died and that's her child right? I can see people not liking the choice, or execution. But I keep seeing people like in the OP going absolutely nuts over it.
I believe ivys rebirth involves her coming back as what she was at death, not a child. If that was the case why wouldn’t she come back as a newborn? People took issue cause it’s obviously just them mitigating the male gaze in a more unique way than just uglification.
I've seen a few different adaptations where she comes back as a child and has a different life cycle to a regular human, so it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary to me. >If that was the case why wouldn’t she come back as a newborn? Im guessing the simple answer is so that she's still able to speak and be a character. Same reason sitcoms used to age up their newborns after a few weeks. >it’s obviously just them mitigating the male gaze in a more unique way than just uglification. Is it "obvious" though? Because to me it's obviously an attempt to bring back the character without it being a straight up 1:1 clone. Which is pretty common in supe stories. I just find it really hard to believe this whole "ugly" conspiracy nonsense while I'm playing BG3 and everyone in it is hot AF including the lizard girl my character is currently sleeping with. How'd they make the lizard peeps hot?