Bloodrayne Gets Her Bits Out For The Lads, Playboy Deal Revealed!

This is SO sad.

I wonder what kind of a loser had the ridiculous idea of even thinking about making something like this happen! He/She deserves a punch!

Newtynho wrote:

>I wonder what kind of a loser had the ridiculous
>idea of even thinking about making something like
>this happen! He/She deserves a punch!

Why? What's so freaking wrong with it? They've created a game that majors on the "sexiness" of the main character.. what's wrong with expanding that? Let's face it, enough people downloaded the nude Lara mod, and bought copies of FHM/Maxim/GQ with pictures of the Lara models in. And a whole bunch more people went to see the Tomb Raider movies to ogle Ange Jolie than because of their undying devotion to the game series.

Sex sells! live with it.

On the other hand, if they use the same model they used at E3, her tits were a bit droopy. And her dress was rather less skin-tight than the spray on ones she sports in the games.

Unless, of course, you were protesting about the Evansescense thing, in which case, you're right. That is total madness!

>Why? What's so freaking
>wrong with it? They've created a game that majors
>on the "sexiness" of the main character..
>what's wrong with expanding that? Let's face it,
>enough people downloaded the nude Lara mod, and
>bought copies of FHM/Maxim/GQ with pictures of
>the Lara models in.

I was thinking of selling crack to schoolchildren. Well what's wrong with that? They'll buy it won't they? It's not up to me to try and have any kind of standards as long as I can make some money from it.

I'm not entirely sure this analogy actually applies, but I'll post it anyway.

schnide wrote:

>I was thinking of selling crack to
>schoolchildren. Well what's wrong with that?
>They'll buy it won't they? It's not up to me to
>try and have any kind of standards as long as I
>can make some money from it.
>
>I'm not entirely sure this analogy actually
>applies, but I'll post it anyway.

Why? Because typing something as contravertial as selling crack to schoolchildren gives you an illicit thrill?

The analogy doesn't work on SO many levels.

Crack is illegal - soft porn is not.

It's not even wrong, for God's sake, the most popular newspaper in the country has a pair of woman's chests on the third page every day (except when a member of the royal family dies).

Sex isn't wrong, it isn't bad, it isn't harming anyone. Even allowing for a taste for ill considered sensationalism, you probably wouldn't say the same of crack, which turns even your close friends into lying, cheating, stealing dirtbags.

The game is a 15 rating. One year after it's legal to buy the game it's legal to do sex, for real, with a woman. What's the tragedy and scandal about letting people get a bit of manual practice in beforehand?

Plus Playboy magazine isn't for sale to minors.

>and Scandanavian rock-karaoke

Dude, Evanputrescence is from Arkasas. Did you, like, think that was in Norway?

Rod Todd wrote:

Dude,
>Evanputrescence is from Arkasas. Did you, like,
>think that was in Norway?

Dude, I've never thought that Arkansas is in Norway (although Arkasas might be for all I know). But I didn't know that evenanenenscense came from there, nor frankly, did I particularly care ; )

But that doesn't change the fact that they play scandanavian/east european style rock music which is much loved by scandanavian/east european style rock people. So that's the official term for such music as decided by me.

So there ; p

Mecha Ghandi wrote:

>But I didn't know that evenanenenscense
>came from there, nor frankly, did I particularly
>care ; )

You are right not to care where Ever-nessence hail from.

But you are wrong to saddle our Nordic brothers with responsibility for such mundane nu-goth s**te. After all, it was those near-artic lands that gave us the Leather Nun, Sahara Hotnights, Hellacopters, Hives, that bird who sings about Gran Turismo, Stina Nordenstam, Abba and the essentially named Cat Rapes Dog.

Hail the nordics.

Eastern Europeans however, are an entirely different matter. I was in a bar in Prague recently, and they played the WHOLE Nevervesence album from steenking start to steenking fineesh. If the beer hadn't been 20p a pint, and the barwench hot as Bloodrayne herself (except without the ging), I would have left.

Ok folks, back to the point of the post. I feel it okay for a game character to be sexy and have presence in peoples minds, they same way we do with film stars etc. Only difference is that live action film stars are real, where as the animation kind are not, only the voice.

It's that dividing chasm between imaginary and real heroes and heroines etc, being crossed.

It's acceptable to like a real person because we can connect with them on so many levels, and they will respond if they can. But with game characters it's different, but not in japan however. they celebrate their favourite characters via costume play (dressing up as favourite characters from games), game merchandise, anime, manga and music. Lara Croft was the first game character to really do the cosplay thing outside of japan. Perhaps if other game characters were more celebrated outside of japan we'd also appreciate them and games more. This kind of thing is only really seen at anime conventions outside of japan. Wow, a nice cute blonde lady cosplaying as Sniper Wolf would real hit the spot for me. Any favourites anyone else?

Playboy is basicly a wank mag though, whereas GQ and FHM aren't. When you have a 15 rated game character in a 18 or over rated mag, it can create problems. But I suppose kids are having so much sex, so young these days, that it doesn't really matter much now. An article on male and female game characters would be an interesting read though.

Joji wrote:

>It's that dividing chasm between imaginary and
>real heroes and heroines etc, being crossed.

That's a "chasm" that over the next few years will narrow to a crack, and then be fused to a seemless suface of illusion. We all saw Spirits Within... just imagine what they'll be able to do soon. Real-time photorealism in game engines will be with us. Eventually games wil become real time movies. Characters will be used seemlessly in games and movies. Actors will become redundant.

I know it sounds far fectched... but watch the movie S1m0ne. There is nothing that film studios would love more than ridding themselves of moody, capricious, overpaid actors. Think about it, the average movie costs £100,000,000 to make, but half of that is stars salaries. Virtual stars will rid the studios of those costs. And it will also prevent an "actor" starring in a rival studio's movies, because the they really will be "property" of the studio that created them.

>Playboy is basicly a wank mag though, whereas GQ
>and FHM aren't.

Nice generalisation. Have you ever read it? There is more quantity and quality of editorial in an average issue of Playboy than in either of those other mags, and only marginally more nipples.

Playboy has fought against cencorship and for progressive politics for over 50 years. Playboy has interviewed celebrities as diverse and as famous as Miles David, Jack Nicholson, Fidel Castro and Martin Luther King Jr. Whereas FHM struggles to throw piss-poor double entendres at this weeks soap star.

Playboy has featured the work of artists such as Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol, it has commisioned photography by Uwe Ommer, Helmut Newton, Stephen Meisel, David Bailey, Herb Ritts and Ellen Von Unwerth amongst many others.

To compare Playboy (and compare it unfavourably) to the wankstains that are GQ and FHM is a joke.

>An article on male and
>female game characters would be an interesting
>read though.

Go on. In what way do you mean?

Damn, I just had the smackdown given to me by DDee. LOL. I jest with thee.
I have to say I haven't read Playboy in years so perhaps I might be wrong, and if so I stand corrected. Last time I looked at an issue I was a spotty teen, and not there to read any articles of any sort, if you understand.

When I say articles about game characters I mean something deeper than what's yours or someone elses favourite, perhaps. Something like inspirations for character design, character persona and motivations, and stuff like character designs etc that never reached the final stage to be put into a game.This kind of stuff interests me because I'm an artist and writer as well as a gamer. Once I've finished a game and put it on the shelf, I like to look deeper into it's creation to learn from it if I can. Kind of like a behind the scenes stuff you get for films around their release. Only other way I can find this stuff out is via japanese game art books, and there is no similar counterpart in the west to get that info from. Developers and publisher are also sometimes sheepish about their stuff long after a game is on the shelf, and concept work disappears into the vaults.

Unfortunately for games we don't really see this side of games to appreciate them as more than just a game, this is a shame and I wish for the day we can celebrate games in an unabashed way like they do in japan. Maybe with the cosplay included if brave enough.

Edge does a "The Making Of" series of articles, that focus on a specific game, but they are just that, about the game, though they do say little stuff about the characters. We need some focus on characters, because without them isn't really a game (most of the time).

I hear what you are saying about actors and synthespians as they call them in Hollywood. I've seen FF:TSW and was astounded by the CG quality, and even though Square lost money it showed that the option to do more with animation is there. I still find it strange that Hollywood has yet to produce a serious CG film when FF was done a few years ago now and technology has progressed. They see CG as a vehicle for funny flicks like Shrek and Finding Nemo, and perhaps the odd kiddie age group film like Jimmy Neutron. This is also a shame that they won't take a more serious theme film for the CG treatment. Perhaps this is as you say, because they know that though CG actors like S1m0ne would put others out the doors, and they don't want that to happen. Big name actors means big everthing else. Tell the truth I believe Hollywood restricts CG films from going any further deliberately, because the technology is there and all that's needed is the ideas, and the CG wouldn't be playing second fiddle to the big name actor. Maybe this is why years after Roger Rabbit, we are still seeing a mix of the two, like Wil Smith in I-Robot. CG still playing second fiddle, never the leader, except for in comedies like the upcoming Incredibles, where the actors voice carries their presence.

The only time this will change is if someone else does it. The latest effort I know of is the new Appleseed, and Ghost In The Shell Innocence movies. Though these area CG anime they are the closest thing I know of. I believe a serious story CG film will come from japan, or out east because they are willing to take the chances. After FF: TSW I'm glad S.E are doing FF:AC movie because the are challenging Hollywood which can only be a good thing, and giving us films that Hollywood refuses to give us in favour of chesse like Tomb Raider. I think S.E have learned to stick to what people know from the game with this film, and I truly believe this will bring them the money they deserve, and should have got from the last film. Fingers crossed anyway.

My bloody essay answers.....don't you just hate them?

DocDee, I see what you're saying. My disliking for this whole thing has nothing to do with cheap moralism. If they want to create a sexy character and put it on playboy, fine. But for chrissakes at least make a GOOD game. Have you played Catwoman?! Honestly, the worst game of the year! And the sad thing is that it will probably sell more copies than something like "Beyond good and Evil", because the protagonist is a hot character and not a non-protuberant cartoon-style smart journalist! To make an analogy with the music "industry", it's sad to see that what sells more records these days is something like Britney Spears, who obviously can't sing, but hey, she is so hot in her videos! So, the real reason why I'm pissed is because Bloodrayne is probably the most generic game of the recent past (not much better than Catwoman), and its sequel will probably sell more than "beyond good and evil" too! :( I want quality!

- Newtynho

Joji wrote:

>Last time I looked at an issue I was a
>spotty teen, and not there to read any articles
>of any sort, if you understand.

Yeah, lots of people "buy it for the articles" but just as many buy it for the huge plastic tits.

>When I say articles about game characters I mean
>something deeper than what's yours or someone
>elses favourite, perhaps. Something like
>inspirations for character design, character
>persona and motivations, and stuff like character
>designs etc that never reached the final stage to
>be put into a game.

I think this would make an excellent article. An excellent series of articles really. But I wonder how many developers would be honest. They like to be seen as having "created" their characters as an act of hard work and genius. How many of them would be prepared to admit that their new character was the result of a childhood obsession with tank girl and the blonde one out of Abba?

>I wish for the
>day we can celebrate games in an unabashed way
>like they do in japan. Maybe with the cosplay
>included if brave enough.

I think it would be great if Cosplay came to the west. Certain Americans are doing it nowadays, but yanks are famous for their lack of reserve, and it's only the most un-reserved Americans who are doing it. Whether it will ever make it to the UK remains to be seen. I certainly can't get my wife to dress up as Catwoman, and that's not for want of trying.

>I hear what you are saying about actors and
>synthespians as they call them in Hollywood.

They do, but they really shouldn't. Certain neologisms are instantly cool and catchy, but synthespians is the crappest and most contrived word I ever heard. It's not even as if anyone has called them thespians since Noel Coward's day.

> I've seen FF:TSW and was astounded by the CG
>quality.

Yeah, but that was years ago, this is a fast moving industry, and what they could do then, then can do WAY better now.

>I still find it strange that Hollywood has yet to
>produce a serious CG film when FF was done a few
>years ago now and technology has progressed.

But FF lost so much money that Hollywood will be shy of the technology for a while yet. Pixar will help break down the barriers, but they still see it as "cartoon" technology. Eventually, they'll come back to it, and FF:TSW will be seen as a milestone movie.

>Perhaps this is as you
>say, because they know that though CG actors like
>S1m0ne would put others out the doors, and they
>don't want that to happen. Big name actors means
>big everthing else.

And big name avatars would mean the same. Let's face it, no-one ever gets to really meet these people. An avatar could do adverts, 'making of' features, talk show appearances, guest TV appearances, cameos in rock videos (the corporations that own the movie studios also own all the music studios now). An avatar could be as "real" as a hollywood star. And for premieres, they could hire a lookalike to ignore the fans just as effectively as a real star.

>Tell the truth I believe
>Hollywood restricts CG films from going any
>further deliberately, because the technology is
>there and all that's needed is the ideas,

No way! The technology is not there. The thing about TSW was that although it was awesome, the fact that it was meant to be realistic made the small faults all the more obvious. The technology WILL get there, and when it does, Hollywood will embrace it. But it's not there yet.

>name actor. Maybe this is why years after Roger
>Rabbit, we are still seeing a mix of the two,
>like Wil Smith in I-Robot. CG still playing
>second fiddle.

But Roger Rabbit used cell animation and live action. CG plays second fiddle nowadays because it is restricted to special effects. They cannot yet do a convincing human. Jesus, in I Robot they couldn't even do convicing environmental mapping on the bots. And the first shot of Spidey in Spiderman 2 looks like he was crafted in Plasticene by Aardman.

>The only time this will change is if someone else
>does it. The latest effort I know of is the new
>Appleseed, and Ghost In The Shell Innocence
>movies.

Ooh, I gotta see the new Apleseed movie.

>and giving us films that
>Hollywood refuses to give us in favour of chesse
>like Tomb Raider.

Jeez, that's a whole other discussion. Hollywood sucks so bad, and yet it is the arbiter of global taste and culture.

>My bloody essay answers.....don't you just hate
>them?

No.

Newtynho wrote:

>DocDee, I see what you're saying. My disliking
>for this whole thing has nothing to do with cheap
>moralism. If they want to create a sexy character
>and put it on playboy, fine. But for chrissakes
>at least make a GOOD game.

Ah, now that really is getting to the real issue. Sex is harmless fun (if done properly) and it's used to sell everything from ice cream cones to cars. It's inevitable that as games player get older. I'm in my thirties, and have been playing games all my life, and will continue to do so - why should I have to put up with noddy in toytown advertising just because kids play games too?

But the fact that most games are generic, unimaginative crap is a bigger concern. And the situation is unlikely to get better as more and more independent developers are bought by big bland profit-driven studios, afraid to take risks.

Walking round E3 this year was completely depressing, I went from stand to stand, and couldn't tell I was playing different games. Each one involved walking around a 3D world hitting things with a stick/sword/spanner and using either guns or magic to kill enemies at a distance. It's like no one had a single original idea since Doom and Tomb Raider.

I hear and agree with what you are saying. Now the big wigs are sucking the life from samller better softcos the originality is being lost to generic "play it safe" games. Halo was a chance taken, but they didn't stay independant for long, Viewtiful Joe was also a chance taken, but Clover Studios are still free.

Some suits act like those Ferengi from Star Trek. Always chasing new acquisitions for themselves, LOL. Working with a company is one thing, but taking them over is another quite another. I believe Atari are suffering because of this, now by pushing for Driver games and little else different. What's wrong with another Shadow of the Beast game?
They might be sitting comfortably on their cash for now, but I really believe a shock to the system is due for them. And with more consoles on sale within the next two years I keep wondering where all these games are gonna come from. I know Nintendo, Sony etc will have things covered on that front, but as for softcos outside of japan, I really don't know.

If this industries bubble one day bursts we will know who to blame, the souless suits and money chasing, chairman ass kissers. And to think I once wanted to enter the industry to make good games. With all this going on I'm probably glad I didn't.

Hope you like my previous post though it was a bit long, do you guys agree on Hollywoods holding back CG bit or not? And what about the games characters bit? Feedback is welcome.

DoctorDee wrote:

[re:playboy]
>Yeah, lots of people "buy it for the articles"
>but just as many buy it for the huge plastic
>tits.

The Brazillians! Let's not forget the Brazillians :)

>>I still find it strange that Hollywood has yet
>to
>>produce a serious CG film when FF was done a few
>>years ago now and technology has progressed.
>
>But FF lost so much money that Hollywood will be
>shy of the technology for a while yet.

I'm certain that a massive pile of that money went on R&D and hardware. IMO Square was crazy to shut down the studio. The CG wasn't the failing of the movie - it was the seemingly far flung plot that the "mass market" found indigestable. Square should have tried another movie on the back of the same R&D, or at least stepped back and replenished its coffers on TV commercial CG work.

>Pixar will
>help break down the barriers, but they still see
>it as "cartoon" technology.

Pixar are, IMO, CG gods - though their lighting and shaders are occassionally out, leading to "tells" that would shatter the illusion if they tried to pass stuff off as realistic. Pixar purposefully chose to stick with cartooney human characters for thi very reason.

>And big name avatars would mean the same. Let's
>face it, no-one ever gets to really meet these
>people. An avatar could do adverts, 'making of'
>features,

The Shrek DVD already has one as a features.

>talk show appearances,

Interaction with real hosts in real time would be the issue here.

>guest TV appearances, cameos in rock videos (the
>corporations that own the movie studios also own
>all the music studios now).

Well, Smeagol/Gollum did the MTV awards acceptance.

>Joji wrote:
>>Tell the truth I believe
>>Hollywood restricts CG films from going any
>>further deliberately, because the technology is
>>there and all that's needed is the ideas,
>
>No way! The technology is not there. The thing
>about TSW was that although it was awesome, the
>fact that it was meant to be realistic made the
>small faults all the more obvious.

The two big failings in TSW were the skin, which was waxy and didn't have the right translucency. The other, killer fault was the lip synching, which was just terrible. EVery character seemed to be suffering from lockjaw and a Bottox shot in the lips.

Today, I reckon there are shaders that can handle the multi-layer, semi-opaque qualities of human skin. Pixar have damn good model and shaders for eyes, another essential for "reading" a character. The lip synch and lack or over emphasis on character anims will continue to be the prime suspects in the whistle blower lineup, IMO. Once you've got character models and a host of shaders, putting together believable human characters would be a breeze, but there still won't be a "walk and talk" option under properties drop down menu.

config wrote:

>characters would be a breeze, but there still
>won't be a "walk and talk" option under
>properties drop down menu.

Not for a while. But humans have a very well understood anatomy, that is subject to well understood laws of physics. It is only a matter of time until Viewpoint's basic human has a full skeleton, relistic kinematics, and a set of rules that make it obey "real-world" physics.

The talk thinging is a bit trickier, but subject to he same issues. Everyone has the same muscles, but with different strengths, thicknesses, flexibilities and weights. The time when a head model comes with the ability to edit these values (plus those that define the underlying bones structure) and create a different face, that animates realistically is not soon, but it is not inconceivably distant either. Skin is a problem, but as you acknowledge, shaders that will make this a possibility are here, or will be soon. I think the "synthespian" will not just happen in my lifetime, but will come to be commonplace.

config wrote:

To bring us right back on topic.

Would it not be interesting if Bloodrayne's appearance in Playboy is not some crack addict porn-star wannabe, as I think we have all assumed, but actually was a 3D modelled photospread.

Well, in the end it was all a big nothing. Not a real model pretending to be Bloodrayne, not a computer generated model of Bloodrayne, just some crappy illustration for an article on gaming growing up...



But then this is the mag that had Half Life 2 down as one of their favourite games of 2003!

Dude! What's with the space invaders? Let's see Bloodrayne's puppies.

I know I could always buy a copy of Playboy, but I'm in Singapore right now, and they don't sel it over here.

In fact, they even censor Maxim!