He Said , She Said is a new feature at WoW Insider, which looks at the game from masculine and feminine points of view. This week we discuss the difference between bearing among male and female characters.
David: What's the big idea with all the macho attitude in male characters? I wrote an article about this problem some time ago, and I'd like to see what you think about it. Many people don't even realize it's an issue though; they just assume: "This game is about killing things, therefore, as a male, I should look as violent and intimidating as possible." For those people that think this this way, that's fine; those people should have that option. But let's look at all the male avatars that are available to us in WoW and find out how many options there are for those of us who don't want to look like a football player on steroids. The answer is... one! Other than Gnomes, every single male avatar in the game is pumped full of that "I'm gonna kill you if you get in my way" attitude that I just don't want to play.
Where's the old wizard who spends all his time reading books rather than pumping iron? Where's the skinny rogue who kills things by knowing when and where to put his dagger rather than slashing it around with arms the size of some tree trunks? Where's the option for a male to actually look wise and eloquent instead of brutish and arrogant?
As it is, your can only look gentle and sophisticated if it's female. In fact, women are the only ones with a broad range of options for various personalities, from "delicate vixens" to "good-natured giantesses," "cutesy girls" to "barbarian war-mongers." Men, on the other hand, get just two choices: "Body-builder bent on breaking bones," or "Gnome." That's it.
Amanda: I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for a Bage to have the same physique as a warrior. Mages throughout the history of fantasy have been largely been spindly and sickly, with the exception of battlemages, of course. Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee were excellent choices for epic Mages. Neither of them were too young nor were they overly buff, but they struck fear in the hearts of those who opposed them. It's kind of a "I'm gonna kill you if you get in my way" kind of a world, especially if you're a Gnome.
On the other hand, for female characters, it seems that fantasy is filled with tantalizing temptresses of classes. While the female characters do have the option of having a pleasant visage, they are almost too pleasant. Do you think a Paladin staring down a Pyroblast would have such a vacuous look on her face? Probably not. Even if you don't take their armor into consideration, when in battle female toons look more like prom queens than combatants.
I think you mean that
My understanding is that Blizzard doesn't give character variation in the models due to scaling for armor and mounts and such. I looked into Star Wars Galaxies where you had more control over character customization. I didn't play the game a whole lot, but I found that I was unimpressed with the game. I would not trade extensive storyline and graphics for a more customizable character. It also seemed that most players gravitated to the same shape and size and didn't really make use of the variability in characters. I do expect that Blizz will follow through with better character customization in WOTLK. (and give Undead the Thriller dance!)
So you've stated a problem, how would you fix it?
David: The female characters in the game do have a lot of options -- if you want to be vicious, you can choose any female troll face but one, and yet if you want to be a nice female troll, then that one option is available to you. If you want to be an intelligent looking male human, however... good luck. Every single one looks like a middle-school dropout on steroids. Taking all the available combinations as a whole, female characters have a multitude of facial expressions and body types to fit any kind of human personality, whereas males only have two: vicious or laughable.
The solution could have been pretty easy: Just provide some alternative choices for the characters. Let the blood elves be tall, skinny and wizard-like, for instance. Or even provide an additional body-type for some races without changing what is there now, since I know many people like the races the way they are. The Chronicles of Spellborn is a good example of a game with a wide variety of body-types for males.
Now, however, it's probably too late for new body types. Wrath of the Lich King will not provide any new races, and anyways, Blizzard seems to think any new race would have to match this ultra violent stereotype they've created for all Warcraft males or else it wouldn't "fit" properly. I'm sure a number of players would agree with them, even if I would not.
New faces and expressions could be added, though. I'd like some options for a character to be wise and friendly looking, as a holy priest, for example. I may never get my old and frail wizard, but at least I could have my wise elder shaman without a scowl, snarl, idiot stare, or a mouth hanging open.
Amanda: I haven't heard that the reason for not adding new races is about fit. Our readers came up with a number of great suggestions for making some of the existing classes in the game into playable classes. There's plenty of material out there. Just like the inability to change the body type of models for different classes, it's not in their plans for programming. I would rather have dynamic facial expressions, depending on the situation I'm in.
I found it an interesting move to give the Horde the pretty Blood Elves in the Burning Crusade while assigning the monstrous Draenei to the Alliance. I believe this was done for the purpose of making the different factions appealing to different types of gamers. As a pretty loyal Horde player, I would gladly swap those two races any day. And by the way, the only female troll face that doesn't seem angry looks pretty vacuous.
In the end the name of the game is Warcraft. Most people are more interested in the MMO rather than the RP parts of MMORPG. Keep in mind though, that by the time you reach the end of the game, your facial expression really doesn't matter since it is usually hidden behind a helm or hood. We shall see what happens come Wrath of the Lich King. For now we just grin (or grimace or pout) and bear it.














Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
4-30-2008 @ 9:17AM
Matt said...
Sort of surprising there wasn't a link to this old post about the modifications made to the male blood elf model.
http://www.wowinsider.com/2006/10/23/blizz-bulks-up-beta-build-blood-elves/
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:20AM
Jim said...
My wife and I were talking about this last night. Lots of games have your appearance change over time to match your stats/class. Lvl 70 Warriors shouldn't have the same physique as a Lvl 1 Priest. A Priest doesn't need to look like a bodybuilder.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 1:57PM
Manatank said...
While in general I understand that people would like more customization, I don't understand why people get upset about it. Who cares if you can't make a character that looks like you?
4-30-2008 @ 9:26AM
ShafeNutS said...
Not that the points in this article are not all valid observations of things that are not often spoken about in WoW, but I felt like when I was reading I had a growing sense of "who cares?" and "why am I reading this?" I love the diversity of topics around here, but this one just doesn't seem to interest me.
On a positive note though, Amanda the idea of dynamic facial expressions is great, but then you would have to constantly monitor player emotions for each NPC and Player Character and I am guessing it would be horribly inefficient and cause more lag and bottlenecks than it would produce a quality result you actually cared to see in game.
This is the type of article that needs a BLUE response to see what blizzard's official stance is on character custiomization in the future?
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 2:02PM
Ikarus said...
There was nothing insulting or trollish about the above post. Why was it voted down?
4-30-2008 @ 9:28AM
ShafeNutS said...
BTW Bobnightelf is on the juice!!!
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:30AM
Liel said...
When they changed the BE male model that drove me nuts. Normally I do not care but the 14 year olds who were insecure about their lack of real life masculinity wanted more masculine elves. Elves lore wise have always been/seem to be androgynous. "I want to look more manly" was the claim, heck go to the gym then moron j/k.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 10:27AM
Jewbanks said...
I was really annoyed with this too. The older models just looked better for one they didnt have a chest that poofed out like a chicken thats been doped up with the roids for your KFC eating pleasure.
Also the sheer fact that blizzard had to go against the idea, lore, and aesthetics of a character class because of homophobia in the player base infuriates me.
4-30-2008 @ 9:32AM
Wowie said...
"Hypermasculinty"? "Bage"? I'm a fan, Amanda, but don't forget that spellchecker. :)
In a way, I like it that the game bucks stereotypes by allowing you to have a big beefy-armed mage or a teeny Gnome warrior that can tank a boss just as well as a Tauren. Having more options for the faces would be great though. I've noticed a lot of them that look ugly on the character creation screen actually look quite nice in the game, particularly with the Troll and Orc females, so sometimes it's worth making the final decisions about your character's look in the starting zone.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:36AM
shmiga02 said...
I was talking actually about this with a few of my guild members the other day, and one of them had a very good idea. Basically a very nice balance to this issue would be class vizual effetcs. Lets say that if u choose a human warrior, then the higher lvl he gets, the more pumped up he gets, if u choose a priest, then well, lets say he gets slimmer and looks more academic or smth, and so on, basically that if u strip 2 equal classes of the same race, they wouldnt look the same. a naked lvl 70 warrior would have to look more muscular then a lvl 70 priest, the same effect could be applied to the female sex.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:51AM
grab said...
or they could relate it to the stats of that character... make the character look stronger, more agile, more harty, intelligent or spiritual... some might be harder
4-30-2008 @ 10:33AM
Jewbanks said...
The only problem is Id hate to lose control over how the character looks. I wish we just had more option in the beginning.
4-30-2008 @ 9:38AM
moink said...
I play mostly dwarven females because they're the only Alliance female characters that aren't either hypersexualized or cutesy. Actually, I don't mind cutesy as much, and if I ever decide I won't suck at tanking I might level up my tiny little female gnome warrior.
I do think that it would be nice to have a wider variety of body types and faces for both gender characters. Elf males, both night and blood, seem too beefy for their race. And could I please get a female human face that doesn't look like she has some major developmental delays?
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 11:10AM
kunukia said...
/cheer
I too play a lady Dwarf on all my characters that CAN be Dwarfs. And my only feeble attempt at RP is my druid thinks she is a Dwarf. The nice thing about meeting another female Dwarf is that you can be 95% certain she is played by a female in real life.
4-30-2008 @ 9:42AM
Naix said...
Gnomes are made to be punted.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:49AM
Matthew Rossi said...
Why do so many human faces have split upper lips? They look like freaking Lion-O.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 9:51AM
VSUReaper said...
First off, you guys totally overlooked the undead for non-body building character models. ALL of the undead are spindly, bony, and weak looking, even the warriors.
And I agree, we need to be able to choose if we want a hulking, raging monster as a character or a nerdy, toothpick. Most of the decisions we make to customize our character are usually hidden before we hit Outlands.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 1:52PM
Snailking said...
My troll doesn't look like he's been hitting the gym either. He's more gangly than I am.
4-30-2008 @ 9:17PM
schm0 said...
Yeah, but why should anyone wanting to play a skinny male have to also be missing half of their vital organs?
4-30-2008 @ 9:45PM
VSUReaper said...
Please re-read my comments. I never mentioned anywhere that if you want to play a toothpick, then you HAVE to roll undead. I merely posted that they said the only skinny class were gnomes, and I countered that they never mentioned UD, with snailking pointing out that his character is also very skinny.