That didn't explain anything at all.
Go fraps your attempt at it and I'll believe you <3
Second row, 4th from the left is Kerrigan. The only red head chick from a glance so unless you are going to contest this I'm moving on.
Row starting with ghost, 2 unit portraits later we see Nova.
Moving onto Nova, you state she 'still has dat ass,' although we have no seen a single development render of Nova aside her in-game unit which does not include her portrait.
If this statement is what I think it is and I am not grammatically challenged I believe you implied that we have not seen Nova's portrait yet which has just been shown. If you want to log into Bnet you can also see the exact portrait I've chosen be titled "Nova" under portrait rewards. If you do not wish to spoil yourself, please stop arguing.
Moving on.
So with Kerrigan, you are saying they "made her pretty ugly" and after said "oh wait she's the main character." This was relative to the statement you were quoting, which was "Love the look of the hero units I've seen so far." So, in return you are saying "she's the main character, and they made her pretty ugly," I suppose.
You mean like how they took Kerrigan, made her pretty ugly, then said oh wait she's the main character and Nova still has dat ass and took her portrait and made it more ugly to cover it up?
The first quote is yours and how you depicted my statement. The second quote is mine which I will now break down as simple as possible.
Bold = Blizzard taking the ghetto pixel Kerrigan from SC1 and everyone's nostalgic/imaginary image of her
Italic = Rendered her with in the trailer somewhat hideously with regards to facial structures of her portrait in SC1 (We have discussed this) and now even the portrait itself has some giant pair of frown lips. Take away the hair, zoom in and you basically get a butch. What's interesting is the giant contrast of the girl to the right who while not remotely smoking hot is definitely at least trying to look like a girl from a gaming marketing point of view. I have no idea who she is and will assume she is some civilian who gets killed by the end of the campaign. If you wish to take this to 4chan they will most likely be able to take Kerrigan's portrait and deconstruct it enough to show that it's the face of a man.
Underlined = Blizzard realizes she's the main slut who's going to get her zergerella heels and therefore other competition must be taken care of because enhancing her looks is too hard without making it into a cheap porn game.
Glow = Refer to that nova wallpaper where everyone complains about her suit glued to her ass. Take note that she does show her face. Take note that her face is relatively detailed and is also not so butch. Not saying she's hot, but she's not a man.
Shadow (Doesn't seem to work booo) = Realizing that in-game models will never be capable of rendering the ass of the wallpaper, all Blizzard has to do is adjust Nova's upcoming portrait to suck just as hard, which is basically do it normally. Voila.
Yet, you end your statement with "but yeah everything looks about right."
Refers to the results being typical of Blizzard. Or have they won a best graphics or most realistic character award yet in the last decade? It's not their cup of tea, and this statement simply affirms it. Doesn't mean no one should be allowed to criticize them anyways what with how much they've grown and all. Or are the portraits meant to be cartoony like WoW and emphasis features? Like the big frown lips? Cause I think Finding Nemo did that. Lastly this end statement also is meant to show I'm clearly not being negative or remotely serious.
however the developers never changed the look of Kerrigan ever since they announced StarCraft 2, actually prior to this when they released her statue, so where did they have an epiphany of realizing she is the main character so they must do something about her looking pretty ugly?
News to me. They made a statue of her? Like pre-Queen of Blades? How does it compare to Nova's ugly statue? The advantage of 2D is that you are allowed specific viewing angles without having to compromise, and the comparison between the nova wallpaper and statue is easily proof.
Moving onto Nova, you state she 'still has dat ass,' although we have no seen a single development render of Nova aside her in-game unit which does not include her portrait.
Wallpaper. Google. Go. Debating about whether or it's an ass or a butt has no meaning either so don't try. Renditions are still based off of the concept arts and any officially releases from Blizzard, and that was one of them. Whether or not they are capable of transitioning from 2D to 3D is another matter. The fact that they didn't make a similar wallpaper for Pre-Queen Kerrigan only tells you how much lack of confidence they have with her old image. You are from my limited knowledge of CC, one of the most knowledgeable members about anything Blizzard so I do not understand where you don't "get it".
And while it may be ugly, it is not exactly covering up 'dat ass.'
Again, in-game models are not good enough to even retain such features because from a scrubs glance the portrait renditions should be of a higher quality than in-game models. Face takes priority then. Natural order of logic. Applies heavily in SC1 and still applies in Wc3 and SC2.
I am confused, Xealxiuz! Help us, elaborate!
I'm the last person that would be a zealot of anything, because in order to be one I would have to be serious about it first in order to go overboard. Unfortunately this is just my -_- face.
So you can see why I value stuff like
IskatuMesk PSA 3 so much. Or can you? Well that's for homework and no the answers will not be revealed even if you don't do it.
