Messages

Look, this whole thing started because I made an off-hand comment on Disney having a huge impact on western culture, because US media does have more on an impact in those countries,
and I've noted it myself in conversations with Crimson Wizard and others living in other countries that many persons there don't have the same pop-cultural reference points as people I've talked to
living in USA and western Europe.

I've never claimed that there aren't differences between USA and Europe, or that there isn't discrimination within Europe, and I used "the western world" to denote that some places are
more influenced by American pop-culture than other places, for various historical reasons, and do you really disagree with that statement?

Or what other words should I use when referring to countries that have closer ties to US culture than countries that don't and have historically closed themselves off to the US?

Does anyone else like the Nemi comics?

As for the concept of the western world, as I've said before, I haven't seen people be offended by it before, and this has been a blind spot to me. In my homeland, Sweden, I was taught in school
that the idea of "the western world" was popularized during the cold war, where on one side, there was USA and most western European nations mostly siding with USA and consuming Anglo-Saxon media
(Hollywood blockbusters, music, fashion)

Hmm, did not have much intention to speak on this topic as I have minimal experience with this, but has to admit that it was also a surprise to hear "western world" term may cause this kind of reaction. Guess it depends on what level of "identity" one puts into this. In Russia "western world" is a very common term, used to loosely define the cultural basis that lies in foundation of west-european countries and their deriatives (USA, Canada, and so on)

I can't speak for FormosaFalanster, but for me it's a reaction against what is being increasingly perceived as an Americanization of the world, whether it's by means of literal military force (in places like the Middle East), military propaganda in "family-friendly" media (obvious e.g., Marvel), the left-wing turn towards identitarianism over class concerns, the embrace of commodification, mercantilization of every aspect of life and capitalism as supreme values, and the inspiration for right-wing populist movements via figures like Donald Trump. Rejecting the association with the idea of some homogenized "western world" is, indeed, admitting it does exist on one hand, but also expresses a will to push against this and to be able to find solutions to each culture's specific issues that are specific to those cultures, not just a blanket set of anglocentric values pushed by greedy, massive corporations and a culture that prioritizes individualism over everything else.

And USA as we know it was created in the first place thanks to English, French, Spanish and other European colonizers settling the continent through imperialist means. Heck, even Sweden was in on it for a short while,
and many of the problematic parts of US culture that still remain today are a legacy of the European colonizers.

Now, I don't like US foreign politics, or their cultural imperialism, or how many local things get replaced by mass-produced American stuff, but I also think it's hard to criticize USA without also recognize how it was created in the first place.

It has never been my intention to claim that there aren't any differences between Spanish and German culture, or that discrimination between European nationalities and ethnicities doesn't exist,
I was trying to use examples from countries I've visited on how two European countries will have more in common than a European country to a country far outside Europe.

As for the concept of the western world, as I've said before, I haven't seen people be offended by it before, and this has been a blind spot to me. In my homeland, Sweden, I was taught in school
that the idea of "the western world" was popularized during the cold war, where on one side, there was USA and most western European nations mostly siding with USA and consuming Anglo-Saxon media
(Hollywood blockbusters, music, fashion), and on the other side, there was the Soviet Union and China, which was largely closed off to western imports and most people had no easy access to media from the west
instead almost entirely consuming their own films, music, and literature. And then there were countries who were not part of either side, which thus were labeled "the third world".

Of course much has changed since the cold war, but from what I've seen, you can still see much of the cultural differences left from this era, and this is the background I was taught for the terminology,
but also, having a grandmother who moved from what was then Checkoslovakia to Sweden to marry my grandfather, has colored my personal understanding of it.

I get that I have a limited perspective, but I'd be curious to hear what other AGSers from other countries think of this.

Besides, the cats love how warm the big black box is!

Be glad it's not sitting on your keyboard!

I'm actually waiting up on summer to see what new hardware comes out, as I'm looking to replace my current PC with a newer box. Sadly, it seems crypto miners are buying up all the fancy graphics cards, so availability is poor.

Having recently found a new job in a computer store, I barely have anything to do, exactly because of the lack of graphics cards putting a halt to almost everything in building and distribution.

My own PC and laptop are getting super old and noisy, but it seems I have little hope in changing that anytime soon.

I tried animating a dancing woman in graphicsgale:

There is no such thing as "western world". Your use of this term is cultural appropriation and ethnocentrism. This "western world" you are talking about includes plenty of rich and independent cultures that have nothing to do whatsoever with Anglo/Nordic/Protestant people and it is not appropriate of you to speak in their name. If you actually knew about these cultures you would know that in most of them, my opinion of Disney being a tacky entertainment of secondary importance is often the norm, and they do not see Disney as so omnipotent.

Really?
This is literally the first time ever that I had heard anyone having a problem with "the western world". It's a pretty well-established concept, but also, I'd say that when I've travelled to different countries,
I did see more cultural similarities in Spain, Germany and the USA than I did between India, Thailand and Nepal, especially in terms of what media was consumed and advertised.

Plus it's commonly understood that "the west" is more about culture than geographical markers (like how Australia often counts in, but Eastern Europe don't).

You are giving Disney way too much credit. And probably too much attention as well. Disney does not have the bravery to create trends, they follow them once they are deemed profitable enough. If you ever see Disney doing something progressive it is not because they genuinely support it, it is because it has become a better way to make money. Thus it means that trend is already established by other people who were more brave and less greedy than them. These should receive praise and attention, not Disney.

I don't know much about Disney's agenda (I just keep hearing they're evil, mostly from youtube critics), but you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. However power-hungry they may be, they still employ some genuinely talented, creative people. I loved The Lion King as a kid and I think they took some risks with that one, the death scene especially. I still have a soft spot for it, it's one of the things that got me into animation. Also Aladdin by the way, especially the platformer based on it - I would constantly pause it to see each animation frame .

true but sadly that was a long time ago  Walt Disney himself was a great person and he was actually very daring and willing to experiment. That's how he was successful in the first place. But he is long gone. Disney as we know it today, 25 years after the Lion King, is much different.

Look at the last time they experimented with something new: the design of Hercules or the whole Treasure Planet thing. They made less money, so they stopped. Now everything they do smells like analytics and marketing. They had a strong commercial streak for a long time but now that's all they are about.

And that's why, to me, I'd rather get people to set higher standards for their Disney entertainment to try and get them to go back to the artistic ideas that made them create timeless classics than do away with Disney entirely.

Crimson Wizard: I think there's a difference in having similar expressions and similar faces. And the villains do change expressions in their respective films, if anything, they're often having more different expressions than the heroes.

Sure thing. But I can assure you that there's no need to tell me this. I even feel akward having to discuss this, so much this is silly.
Speaking freely, it often seems like you think people are arguing with you unless they explicitly state they agree in their post. But I've already said before that was not arguing with your point. Of course I saw these princess characters are same (maybe using same 3D model).
I made a casual observation on how other Disney characters look similar, which seemed funny to me, in general and in context of that article. I tried to explain why, but that is really irrelevant, and in retrospect was not necessary. You are discussing serious things here and guess my comment was out of place. So, I apologize if this caused distraction.

I'm sorry if any of my replies came off as confrontational, I didn't mean it to be. I was merely curious as to what similarities you saw and trying to elaborate my point, and I have no problem with anything you've said here.
One of the downsides of text communication is that it's harder to gauge what tone one is giving off. 

No, they stopped doing racial caricatures because racial caricatures stopped bringing money and could actually cost money. 

I don't know that this is accurate. Aladdin had several edits after it's release in response to criticism. (Not in terms of character design, which obviously, wouldn't be possible.) Similarly, no longer releasing Song of the South can't be said to have made them any money, but it has saved them from (I would say, valid) criticism. No one's praising Disney for doing the bare minimum, here.

Indeed.

They are filthy and should not be granted so much attention in the first place. The way we will stop looking at them as if they were some sort of important cultural landmark we will have done a great progress in humanity.

Even if you think so, ignoring Disney will not make it go away, and it has had a huge cultural impact on western society whether you want it or not, and right now the best we can do as individuals is to call them out on problematic depictions to make them improve, even if Disney's just improving that stuff in order to avoid criticism.

I don't think that qualifies for this thread, because that's something that SHOULD unnerve you. 

I suppose that's a fair point! 

This jewellry...

Bad fantasy writing in a nutshell.

Disney characters look similar because they are only interested in making money. So if Elsa is successful in bringing money, they will make every character look like Elsa because that's how they will make more money. And if there are similarities between villains it is because they identified those are the villains that are making money.

Disney doesn't worth the conversations people have about them. They're just an awful and toxic organization that would do anything and its contrary for the sole purpose of making money. Don't talk about them like they are anything else than a big money machine. Everything they do has the same explanation: it was the best way to make money. Everything else about Disney is irrelevant.

Well, Disney also used to make a lot of money on films featuring racial caricatures, but stopped including those designs in their later films when enough people called them out on it.

Crimson Wizard: I think there's a difference in having similar expressions and similar faces. And the villains do change expressions in their respective films, if anything, they're often having more different expressions than the heroes.

As for the differences in the male main characters in Frozen, I will agree that that image in the post made them look similar, but they do look more distinct in the film, just look at these gifs:


Now compare those two to the two female protagonists:

And they don't even change faces from when they are toddlers in the prologue of the film!

I was not arguing with your point, but made a casual observation on how these Disney characters look similar in general. Yes, they look pretty similar to me; it may be a subjective impression too. Don't know whether or not I could tell them apart in other circumstances, besides I don't know these characters very well. But that's not really important.

Ok, I still don't really see how you think they are that visually similar apart from the typical evil smile and half-closed eyes. The red queen and Ursula both have chubby chins, but that's about the only thing those two have in common.

What would you consider a good example of clearly different character designs?

But it's true that female artists do this too, since nearly all cartoons and animated media features women with a very narrow set of facial features and a Disney princess look, many people sadly seem to think that's the only way to draw women.
This blog post has a pretty well-written analysis about a female artist who realized she was doing it when pointed out to her, and goes on to explore why that is.

This is kind of funny, because when blog author compares villains and sais that they are more diverse, I on contrary see that they have mostly similar facial features (eye shape, mouth, facial expression), different mostly in fatness and skin colour; only exception is Frollo from "Notre Dame" (but then maybe it's a matter of finding a different scene where he looks more in tone with others).
And when she sais that "two male leads of Frozen look quite different", they look pretty similar to me. I mean, their eyes, chins, and facial expressions are practically copy/paste; maybe it's only that one has rounder face and wider nose?

On another hand seeing the comparison of early "frozen" character sketches to their final look makes me sad.
Disney surely love sticking to the stock character looks.
(But then, the last Disney "princess" cartoon I've seen was "Tangled" probably)

Well, the Disney villains have different nose shapes, jaw shapes and overall head shapes, and I don't see any big similarities outside of their "evil grin" facial expression. You gotta admit you could still tell them apart if they swapped costumes, right?

Meanwhile, the three female main characters in Frozen looked like this:


Also, Disney even took existing female characters, and made them less diverse when they gave them a CGI makeover for Wreck it Ralph 2, and the same goes for all the more recent marketing images of the princesses.

Hear! Hear! Wham.  It is so nice to see that video gaming has really taken off over the last year. Far from being the bad influence, once thought, encouraging the
populus to get up to every unspeakable attrocity, it is now being recognised as a great stress reliever and a way to ward off altzeimers. An accolade rightly deserved   

*Picks up cane and starts waving it around like a madman.* Gaming died over a decade ago!

Ahem. Now I've gotten that out of my system. I honestly didn't realize gaming had taken off last year. I'm pretty sure games had become well-established mainstream nearly two decades ago (roughly around the time "AAA" became a common term). Did Covid really bring that many new people in?

It kinda reminds me of those who still treat the comic book and superhero fandoms as these obscure nerdy underdogs, even after a full decade of blockbuster Superhero flicks dominating cinemas.

That's a great point, though I also think the need of many animators to make all main female characters pretty plays a role too, similar to how an animated guy supposed to be an "everyman" will be drawn to look different than a typical Disney prince, but animated girls and women meant to be regular people still look like typical Disney princesses, to the point even female animals will share the same facial shape as the princesses.

Yeah, I try to vary the types of women I draw and steer clear of blatant stereotypes, but it's true that I also have the tendency to make men more goofy and heavily caricatured, while women are more often at least *somewhat* pretty. It's something I'm happy to avoid though (note to self: make more ugly, silly-looking women ). I wonder if female artists also do this - it seems to me that they do.

You already seem to be doing well in that regard! 

But it's true that female artists do this too, since nearly all cartoons and animated media features women with a very narrow set of facial features and a Disney princess look, many people sadly seem to think that's the only way to draw women.
This blog post has a pretty well-written analysis about a female artist who realized she was doing it when pointed out to her, and goes on to explore why that is.

As for Poe's Law, I thought it was about a serious work being so ridiculous it was indistinguishable from parody, but I admit I was going off from the top of my head when writing that.

I still think there are plenty of examples of artists defending bad works as "it's parody" though, not only in regards to sexism but for example, Tommy Wiseau claiming that "The Room" was
meant to be a comedy all along when people were laughing at the bad acting and weird script in his drama film.

Might as well post this:

If I may add my two cents, what helped me the most was to open up one of the tutorial games in AGS and look at the code for the room in it and compare it to the manual.

And as Danvzare said, start simple, my advice would be to just make a super simple test game with some default art and just make one room with;

1.An inventory item you can pick up.
2.A character you can look at + talk to.
3. A dialogue tree for said character with two different branches.
4. An object in the room that you can use the inventory item on (a door and a key would be the most obvious choice).

Once you've learned this, you've learned enough of the basics to try making a project worth sharing with the community!