The ugliest RPG protagonists/characters

[KörangarTheMighty]

Ol' Obed Marsh's blood runs strong in Vizima.

 

[Modron]

Very Beetlejuician.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

So he forgot his mask. People don't look too shocked. But damn...

He's like a new man with it.

 

[Vic]

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:

warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

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:

"Ah love yew, Sarge!"

 

[oscar]

I quite like deliberately ugly or plain characters (Lawrence Garte from Disco Elysium, Myron or The Nameless One).

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.

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

At least Aloy got a Genshin crossover/cameo that's more pleasant on the eyes.

https://genshin-impact.fandom.com/wiki/Aloy

 

[Tweed]

I quite like deliberately ugly or plain characters (Lawrence Garte from Disco Elysium, Myron or The Nameless One).

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.

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

Any of the Outer Worlds randomly generated gargoyles

 

[Cross]

warcraft 3’s graphics were top notch back in the day.

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.

 

[Zariusz]

Warband was a treasure trove

Also that ugly she-elf from DA Inquisition

 

[Arbiter]

warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)

Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)

Age of Mythology (2002)

Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)

WarCraft 3 (2002)

 

[Tihskael]

A year later the Japs release this, though in defense of Todd, he didn't have the budget Yu Suzuki had, otherwise the game is near flawless.

 

[Vic]

warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)

Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)

Age of Mythology (2002)

Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)

WarCraft 3 (2002)

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

 

[Camel]

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.

 

[GrainWetski]

No contest.

What do you mean? Looks exactly like the woman they based her on.

Great job, BioWare!

 

[Camel]

No contest.

What do you mean? Looks exactly like the woman they based her on.

Great job, BioWare!

Another BioWare MC’s sister three years before.

 

[Ryzer]

No contest.

What do you mean? Looks exactly like the woman they based her on.

Great job, BioWare!

Looks like a before/after makeup

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Uh, is he wearing smaller boots on his hands?

edit... That nose, and stance, and his hair looks like big floppy ears. WOOF WOOF!!! DOG MAN FOR THE EMPIRE!!!

 

[Arbiter]

warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)

Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)

Age of Mythology (2002)

Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)

WarCraft 3 (2002)

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".

 

[Arbiter]

warcrafts unit sizes are much smaller than other RTS

Myth 3 (2001)

Command and Conquer: Generals (2003)

Age of Mythology (2002)

Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001)

WarCraft 3 (2002)

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".

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?

 

[Cpt. Dallas]

No contest.

 

[Semiurge]

Also that ugly she-elf from DA Inquisition

In some lighting even she can look acceptable. Most of the game is less forgiving than this:

 

[Arbiter]

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).

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

No contest.

I swear this is almost a frame from a J-horror movie. D: