Can Charr's back be modified to be straight?

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > Here's a quote explaining the reasoning behind the charr posture, from Kristen Perry, one of the designers who worked on them:

> >

> > > In designing them from the beginning of Guild Wars 2, there had been a very large internal debate about whether or not they were going to bend more like creatures or stand upright as more humanoid. In the end to better stand out against the humans and norn, it was decided to slouch them.

> >

> > (The full article can be found [here](https://kristenperryart.com/projects/w8YEL6), and a lot of it is about the impact the posture had on designing clothing for them.)

> >

> > I'm not convinced that their appearance in GW1 is really relevant to this discussion, since several other (non-playable) races had major redesigns between games, e.g. trolls, hydras, skelk, giants. Designs from GW1 obviously influenced the ones in GW2, but the designers were obviously open to making alterations - many of them more substantial than this.

>

> And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

 

I don't think this comparison works. Even assuming that ANet was "wrong" about those things – which is highly debateable – you're comparing an artistic decision (the design of the charr) with a business model decision (whether or not to have expansions) and decisions about gameplay mechanics (mounts, raids, healers). Those are completely different things – and, in particular, it doesn't actually mean anything to describe an artistic decision as "wrong". There's just no measure of rightness or wrongness.

 

> Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

 

On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

[Diak Atoli.2085]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > Here's a quote explaining the reasoning behind the charr posture, from Kristen Perry, one of the designers who worked on them:

> > >

> > > > In designing them from the beginning of Guild Wars 2, there had been a very large internal debate about whether or not they were going to bend more like creatures or stand upright as more humanoid. In the end to better stand out against the humans and norn, it was decided to slouch them.

> > >

> > > (The full article can be found [here](https://kristenperryart.com/projects/w8YEL6), and a lot of it is about the impact the posture had on designing clothing for them.)

> > >

> > > I'm not convinced that their appearance in GW1 is really relevant to this discussion, since several other (non-playable) races had major redesigns between games, e.g. trolls, hydras, skelk, giants. Designs from GW1 obviously influenced the ones in GW2, but the designers were obviously open to making alterations - many of them more substantial than this.

> >

> > And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

>

> I don't think this comparison works. Even assuming that ANet was "wrong" about those things – which is highly debateable – you're comparing an artistic decision (the design of the charr) with a business model decision (whether or not to have expansions) and decisions about gameplay mechanics (mounts, raids, healers). Those are completely different things – and, in particular, it doesn't actually mean anything to describe an artistic decision as "wrong". There's just no measure of rightness or wrongness.

>

> > Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

>

> On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

 

Camels are wonderful, misunderstood creatures!

 

On topic: I think the straightbacked form looks nice, prefer the hunchbacked form for lore reasons, and would rather not have ANet waste developmental resources better spent on new content.

 

Opinions, man!

[Regh.8649]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...

This simple sentence should be enough, thank you

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> The lead artist on GW2 charr was "wrong"?

>

> Considering the amount of research and work she put in, and also considering she does this for a living and you don't, I'm going to take her word for it over yours.

 

Yeah like they were wrong that Living World was better than expansions and expansions wasn't needed because of living world. They know more about that stuff because of research and work they put into that back then right?

Again we are the consumers of the product. We know better than anybody in the office what works and what don't work. They were wrong about certain features and designs.

 

You can take their word over the consumer all you want. But if we went by that logic we would never had Expansions, Raids, Mounts, Healers, all the stuff that Anet was against at first, which wasn't a good outlook back then as we see today.

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

>

> > And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

> Those are all "new" content and not a redesign of existing models. Every outfit and armor set would have to be redone for upright-standing charr. If Anet has read through this thread, I'm sure that they would have done the math to determine whether or not the resources are worth the end result.

>

>

 

I didn't say it would be done. I just said it was a decision that the artist behind it thought was for the best, but really wasn't. Most people don't play Charr for a reason. Main issue people say is the models and mainly the hunch back long neck design. That was their decision early on, and over the course of time we been able to see the long term results of that decision.

 

Will it likely be changed? Most likely not.

 

Would it had been better had they went with a different model from the start? Maybe so. That's all I am saying.

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > Here's a quote explaining the reasoning behind the charr posture, from Kristen Perry, one of the designers who worked on them:

> > >

> > > > In designing them from the beginning of Guild Wars 2, there had been a very large internal debate about whether or not they were going to bend more like creatures or stand upright as more humanoid. In the end to better stand out against the humans and norn, it was decided to slouch them.

> > >

> > > (The full article can be found [here](https://kristenperryart.com/projects/w8YEL6), and a lot of it is about the impact the posture had on designing clothing for them.)

> > >

> > > I'm not convinced that their appearance in GW1 is really relevant to this discussion, since several other (non-playable) races had major redesigns between games, e.g. trolls, hydras, skelk, giants. Designs from GW1 obviously influenced the ones in GW2, but the designers were obviously open to making alterations - many of them more substantial than this.

> >

> > And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

>

> I don't think this comparison works. Even assuming that ANet was "wrong" about those things – which is highly debateable – you're comparing an artistic decision (the design of the charr) with a business model decision (whether or not to have expansions) and decisions about gameplay mechanics (mounts, raids, healers). Those are completely different things – and, in particular, it doesn't actually mean anything to describe an artistic decision as "wrong". There's just no measure of rightness or wrongness.

>

 

Yeah it does because those all were decisions made in the past that have results in the future. Deciding not to do expansions back in prerelease was a decision made by somebody. Deciding that Living World was good enough, was a decision made by somebody. No Mounts, Raids, Healers, etc was decisions made by somebody. They said the game would be better without those things and well were wrong.

 

Making playable Charr hunched back with elongated necks like they are in GW2 and only this way, was a decision made by somebody. They thought it was for the better. But it wasn't. Why? - - - - - - - v

 

 

> > Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

>

> On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

 

Because Charr is the least played race. Anet themselves in the past dropped some data for us. Most players don't play Charrs. Some people share vocally why they don't, while most don't even speak on it, but actions speak louder than words, which Anet can see from their own data, that people avoid playing Charr.

 

Again many people are more vocal about the "Why" and this here like most of the discussions on this topic are respectful but explain the dislike of the current Charr models. Which we as consumers have that right to disagree with their decisions just like we did about the other above decisions that wasn't well received in the long run.

 

[Lonewolf Kai.3682]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > Here's a quote explaining the reasoning behind the charr posture, from Kristen Perry, one of the designers who worked on them:

> > > >

> > > > > In designing them from the beginning of Guild Wars 2, there had been a very large internal debate about whether or not they were going to bend more like creatures or stand upright as more humanoid. In the end to better stand out against the humans and norn, it was decided to slouch them.

> > > >

> > > > (The full article can be found [here](https://kristenperryart.com/projects/w8YEL6), and a lot of it is about the impact the posture had on designing clothing for them.)

> > > >

> > > > I'm not convinced that their appearance in GW1 is really relevant to this discussion, since several other (non-playable) races had major redesigns between games, e.g. trolls, hydras, skelk, giants. Designs from GW1 obviously influenced the ones in GW2, but the designers were obviously open to making alterations - many of them more substantial than this.

> > >

> > > And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

> >

> > I don't think this comparison works. Even assuming that ANet was "wrong" about those things – which is highly debateable – you're comparing an artistic decision (the design of the charr) with a business model decision (whether or not to have expansions) and decisions about gameplay mechanics (mounts, raids, healers). Those are completely different things – and, in particular, it doesn't actually mean anything to describe an artistic decision as "wrong". There's just no measure of rightness or wrongness.

> >

>

> Yeah it does because those all were decisions made in the past that have results in the future. Deciding not to do expansions back in prerelease was a decision made by somebody. Deciding that Living World was good enough, was a decision made by somebody. No Mounts, Raids, Healers, etc was decisions made by somebody. They said the game would be better without those things and well were wrong.

>

> Making playable Charr hunched back with elongated necks like they are in GW2 and only this way, was a decision made by somebody. They thought it was for the better. But it wasn't. Why? - - - - - - - v

>

>

> > > Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

> >

> > On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

>

> Because Charr is the least played race. Anet themselves in the past dropped some data for us. Most players don't play Charrs. Some people share vocally why they don't, while most don't even speak on it, but actions speak louder than words, which Anet can see from their own data, that people avoid playing Charr.

>

> Again many people are more vocal about the "Why" and this here like most of the discussions on this topic are respectful but explain the dislike of the current Charr models. Which we as consumers have that right to disagree with their decisions just like we did about the other above decisions that wasn't well received in the long run.

>

 

Sorry but you are overwhelmingly wrong. Based on this thread and past threads of similar topics, the VAST majority of Charr players want the current posture of them to stay. They do not want straightened backs.

 

And as others have repeatedly stated, that’s against GW lore and Anet will not stray from lore, rightfully so.

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"Lonewolf Kai.3682" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > > Here's a quote explaining the reasoning behind the charr posture, from Kristen Perry, one of the designers who worked on them:

> > > > >

> > > > > > In designing them from the beginning of Guild Wars 2, there had been a very large internal debate about whether or not they were going to bend more like creatures or stand upright as more humanoid. In the end to better stand out against the humans and norn, it was decided to slouch them.

> > > > >

> > > > > (The full article can be found [here](https://kristenperryart.com/projects/w8YEL6), and a lot of it is about the impact the posture had on designing clothing for them.)

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm not convinced that their appearance in GW1 is really relevant to this discussion, since several other (non-playable) races had major redesigns between games, e.g. trolls, hydras, skelk, giants. Designs from GW1 obviously influenced the ones in GW2, but the designers were obviously open to making alterations - many of them more substantial than this.

> > > >

> > > > And just like how Anet early on was wrong about Expansions, Mounts, Raids, Healers, Anet is wrong here on this subject regarding the Charr's models in GW2.

> > >

> > > I don't think this comparison works. Even assuming that ANet was "wrong" about those things – which is highly debateable – you're comparing an artistic decision (the design of the charr) with a business model decision (whether or not to have expansions) and decisions about gameplay mechanics (mounts, raids, healers). Those are completely different things – and, in particular, it doesn't actually mean anything to describe an artistic decision as "wrong". There's just no measure of rightness or wrongness.

> > >

> >

> > Yeah it does because those all were decisions made in the past that have results in the future. Deciding not to do expansions back in prerelease was a decision made by somebody. Deciding that Living World was good enough, was a decision made by somebody. No Mounts, Raids, Healers, etc was decisions made by somebody. They said the game would be better without those things and well were wrong.

> >

> > Making playable Charr hunched back with elongated necks like they are in GW2 and only this way, was a decision made by somebody. They thought it was for the better. But it wasn't. Why? - - - - - - - v

> >

> >

> > > > Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

> > >

> > > On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

> >

> > Because Charr is the least played race. Anet themselves in the past dropped some data for us. Most players don't play Charrs. Some people share vocally why they don't, while most don't even speak on it, but actions speak louder than words, which Anet can see from their own data, that people avoid playing Charr.

> >

> > Again many people are more vocal about the "Why" and this here like most of the discussions on this topic are respectful but explain the dislike of the current Charr models. Which we as consumers have that right to disagree with their decisions just like we did about the other above decisions that wasn't well received in the long run.

> >

>

> Sorry but you are overwhelmingly wrong. Based on this thread and past threads of similar topics, the VAST majority of Charr players want the current posture of them to stay. They do not want straightened backs.

>

> And as others have repeatedly stated, that’s against GW lore and Anet will not stray from lore, rightfully so.

 

Ok

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > The lead artist on GW2 charr was "wrong"?

> >

> > Considering the amount of research and work she put in, and also considering she does this for a living and you don't, I'm going to take her word for it over yours.

>

> Yeah like they were wrong that Living World was better than expansions and expansions wasn't needed because of living world. They know more about that stuff because of research and work they put into that back then right?

 

Ironically, if they'd put more research into that particular decision, they might have done Living World differently, and expansions might never have been a thing. There are games out there that have grown larger over the same 7-year period with no paid expansions at all. Whether ANet could ever happen upon that business model and get it to work for GW2 specifically is hard to measure at this stage, though.

 

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> Again we are the consumers of the product. We know better than anybody in the office what works and what don't work. They were wrong about certain features and designs.

 

From my experience, players might know what works and doesn't work, but they're some of the worst at figuring out _why_ it works or doesn't work. Add a single layer of abstraction, so that they can't tell whether it does or doesn't work unless they know why it's there, and they just don't know anything.

 

> You can take their word over the consumer all you want. But if we went by that logic we would never had Expansions, Raids, Mounts, Healers, all the stuff that Anet was against at first, which wasn't a good outlook back then as we see today.

 

Well, they have a bigger picture than an individual consumer and a better ability to respond to it appropriately. If they pander to every consumer who tells them they're "wrong" they'd end up implementing all kinds of suggestions, many of which are even more ridiculous than this one. Bikini elves, anyone?

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Regh.8649" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...

> This simple sentence should be enough, thank you

 

You'd think so, but I'm amazed by how frequently I read arguments along the lines of: lots of people want this thing, therefore ANet should do it. Especially since "lots of people" usually only means one or two.

 

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > Again they had their own thoughts on this but they were wrong or better yet off from what most people feel or agree with.

> >

> > On what grounds are you claiming that "most people" want straight-backed charr? All we have to go on is this thread, in which only a handful of people have said that they want them – and more than twice as many people have expressed a strong preference for not having them! (Of course, making artistic decisions democratically is a terrible idea anyway...)

>

> Because Charr is the least played race. Anet themselves in the past dropped some data for us. Most players don't play Charrs. Some people share vocally why they don't, while most don't even speak on it, but actions speak louder than words, which Anet can see from their own data, that people avoid playing Charr.

 

Even if charr is the least played race, you can't deduce that the reason is that they have hunched backs and (supposedly) long necks. There are many reasons why someone might pick a different race over charr – it's an absolutely huge stretch to assume that the opinions of four or five people in this thread are representative of everyone. It might well be the case that, had the designers given charr a more upright posture, they would have ended up less popular overall on account of being less appealing to the people who prefer bestial races. Personally, the design of the charr was the main thing that prompted me to play the game in the first place – if they had looked more humanoid, there's a high chance that I wouldn't have played it at all.

 

Also, your line of reasoning also has an absurd conclusion: humans are the most popular race, so they should have designed the other races to be as close to humans as possible.

 

> Again many people are more vocal about the "Why" and this here like most of the discussions on this topic are respectful but explain the dislike of the current Charr models. Which we as consumers have that right to disagree with their decisions just like we did about the other above decisions that wasn't well received in the long run.

 

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion – but you have to realise that it is just your opinion. There's nothing objective about it and, although it does appear to be shared by a handful of other people, there's nothing universal about it either.

[Justine.6351]

If the charr invent a steamroller they might be able to correct it.