this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
393 points (99.5% liked)
People Twitter
10213 readers
1689 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've always seen the argument coming from incels who want their game women to look like anime, but this is the first realistic take on it.
Yeah, i don't want to spend money on a new graphics card because some artistic vision includes peach fuzz. Realism in video games has met a new point where, we dont want to spend money on seeing more realism.
Like it's cool to see some realistic hair but i dont want to smell Geralt's unwashed anus when i havent visited a bath house in a while. I cant speak for everyone, but realism isnt always necessary or better.
Wouldn't it be a similar amount of graphics used as putting in a man's beard?
Also did most people have to upgrade their graphics cards to play Horizon: Forbidden West? I thought it was scaled to most people's setups?
Yes, but a beard on a man makes up a significant part of his appearance. A few barely visible hair do nothing for graphics except waste performance - a negligible amount tho, tbf.
But then again, afaik, the in game model has none of this facial hair. It's just on the box art.
I would say the key difference is that facial peach fuzz will be virtually invisible except in a close up still frame, and if it's missing it won't be missed.
I'd counter by saying that girls and women playing this game would be able to identify with Aloy and real representation of women in media would be missed.
Suit yourself. I think that anything that's invisible except in a close-up still frame is a poor use of resources in a video game, and that nobody would say "hang on, where's her peach fuzz?"
This topic has already been debated to death.
The game developers don't care what you think.
Women being accurately portrayed in media is important.
I don't know how to make it clearer that I'm not talking about representation, I'm talking about bloated game development. I'm a hairy guy, but hair on a man's chest being modeled instead of just a texture would be a waste, too.
I don't know how to make it clearer that game developers have already decided that this is more important than cutting graphics to appease a bunch of gamer gate tantrums.
This game was designed to be played on the PS5 and many common graphics cards. It isn't even a valid argument that you're pushing.
It's also possible that some details don't render unless you are close enough to see it, and so it won't take up much space
Part of the problem is everyone is on UE5 and UE5 does everything for you, which means the art of designing a game engine to efficiently do exactly what you want it to do for your unique game is a dead art. True innovation in game design is gone, so all you have are massive budgets trying to push as many photorealistic details down a standardized pipeline as possible to make a game look AAA.
Looks at GTA VI hype