Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The ugliest RPG protagonists/characters

Arbiter

Scholar
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
2,554
Location
Poland
warcraft 3’s graphics were top notch back in the day. still looks better than reforged today

Models were a bit blocky due to a high number of units that had to be rendered at the same time.

Since we've gone off topic, Starcraft's rednecks in space were ugly too:

maxresdefault.jpg
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,038
Location
NZ
I quite like deliberately ugly or plain characters (Lawrence Garte from Disco Elysium, Myron or The Nameless One).

Portrait_garte.png


Oblivion has to take some 'points' for every character looking like a fucked up melted potato (though this wasn't intentional). Modern western RPGs are also a obvious candidate with their penchant for bulky (though lacking tits or ass) man-jawed failed transsexual looking women. When the game acts like these characters are sexy and attractive is the worst.
 

Tweed

Professional Kobold
Patron
Joined
Sep 27, 2018
Messages
2,891
Location
harsh circumstances
Pathfinder: Wrath
I quite like deliberately ugly or plain characters (Lawrence Garte from Disco Elysium, Myron or The Nameless One).

Portrait_garte.png


Oblivion has to take some 'points' for every character looking like a fucked up melted potato (though this wasn't intentional). Modern western RPGs are also a obvious candidate with their penchant for bulky (though lacking tits or ass) man-jawed failed transsexual looking women. When the game acts like these characters are sexy and attractive is the worst.
There's a difference between plain or somewhat ugly characters and the deliberately grotesque things western devs are shitting out today.
 

Cross

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
3,014
warcraft 3’s graphics were top notch back in the day.
:hmmm:

600b359d28fa4.jpg
ZTBeFRc.png


Warcraft 3 looks notably worse than its contemporaries in the 3D RTS genre. Sacrifice came out 2 years before Warcraft 3 and has better looking graphics. And with how fast 3D graphics were advancing back then, 2 years should have meant a massive leap in graphics quality. Sacrifice is heavily stylized of course, which is one of the reasons it looks much better - actual stylization, not the Blizzard school of stylization of "let's just give everyone giant shoulderpads and call it a day".

Blizzard was great at 2D art (Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft 2 still look excellent), but they transitioned poorly to 3D.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
4,488
Location
[REDACTED]
warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)
myth-3-the-wolf-age-03.png


Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)
command-and-conquer-generals-02.png


Age of Mythology (2002)
2014-05-14-aom-08.jpg


Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)
dune1big1.jpg


WarCraft 3 (2002)
watchuplay6-1024_2.jpg
worst strawman screenshots ever

warcraft 3’s squad size is 12 units vs 30 units in AoM and 60 in AoE2.

Population cap in AoM is also at 300 while warcraft’s food mechanic allows you to have much fewer units/squads.

large battles in AoE have hundreds of units on screen, while warcraft 3 has pretty much what can be seen on your screenshot which btw has 4 teams on screen on a 4v4 multiplayer map.

Nice try
 
Last edited:

Camel

Scholar
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
2,092
Warcraft 3 looks notably worse than its contemporaries in the 3D RTS genre. Sacrifice came out 2 years before Warcraft 3 and has better looking graphics. And with how fast 3D graphics were advancing back then, 2 years should have meant a massive leap in graphics quality. Sacrifice is heavily stylized of course, which is one of the reasons it looks much better - actual stylization, not the Blizzard school of stylization of "let's just give everyone giant shoulderpads and call it a day".

Blizzard was great at 2D art (Diablo and Warcraft 2 still look excellent), but they transitioned poorly to 3D.
Blizzard always had average graphics at best compensating it with a great gameplay i.e. Diablo 2 highest resolution at release was 640x480. Their long development time didn’t help with a starting game engine being obsolete.
 

Arbiter

Scholar
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
2,554
Location
Poland
warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)
myth-3-the-wolf-age-03.png


Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)
command-and-conquer-generals-02.png


Age of Mythology (2002)
2014-05-14-aom-08.jpg


Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)
dune1big1.jpg


WarCraft 3 (2002)
watchuplay6-1024_2.jpg
worst strawman screenshots ever

warcraft 3’s squad size is 12 units vs 30 units in AoM and 60 in AoE2.

Population cap in AoM is also at 300 while warcraft’s food mechanic allows you to have much fewer units/squads.

large battles in AoE have hundreds of units on screen, while warcraft 3 has pretty much what can be seen on your screenshot which btw has 4 teams on screen on a 4v4 multiplayer map.

Nice try

You said "unit sizes are much smaller", not "there are fewer units" or "armies are smaller".

81331010.jpg
 

Arbiter

Scholar
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
2,554
Location
Poland
warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)
myth-3-the-wolf-age-03.png


Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)
command-and-conquer-generals-02.png


Age of Mythology (2002)
2014-05-14-aom-08.jpg


Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)
dune1big1.jpg


WarCraft 3 (2002)
watchuplay6-1024_2.jpg
worst strawman screenshots ever

warcraft 3’s squad size is 12 units vs 30 units in AoM and 60 in AoE2.

Population cap in AoM is also at 300 while warcraft’s food mechanic allows you to have much fewer units/squads.

large battles in AoE have hundreds of units on screen, while warcraft 3 has pretty much what can be seen on your screenshot which btw has 4 teams on screen on a 4v4 multiplayer map.

Nice try

You said "unit sizes are much smaller", not "there are fewer units" or "armies are smaller".

81331010.jpg

Watch this clip and explain to us what "unit lost", "unit promoted" means.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/mC-zD0snKAM

Is it a reference to a single tank or a group of tanks?
 

Arbiter

Scholar
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
2,554
Location
Poland
Blizzard always had average graphics at best compensating it with a great gameplay i.e. Diablo 2 highest resolution at release was 640x480. Their long development time didn’t help with a starting game engine being obsolete.

That's correct, the last good looking (in terms of technology, not art style) Blizzard games were WarCraft 2 and Diablo 1. But it wasn't only about long development cycles: Blizzard deliberately developed games with low system requirements that could run on old computers (and presumably on office computers that were likely only networked computers that many players had access to in 90s).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom