Since many of you are asking me what do I think about teaser trailers/games revealed with a title logo and so on, I'll adress my view on that.

Those cases almost always come from already stablished IPs, and their objective is usually to let the fans know that they are working on a specific game that has been heavily requested for years or fantasized about by the fans. It's more like a "It's real, it's happening" kind of message. And yes, that excites people. If they are remaking an old classic, one of the best JRPGs of all time and the personal favourite of a lot of people with cutting edge graphics... I think it's normal to be excited by that. If they are making a sequel to a series that is beloved by many, but has been ignored by the publisher for many years... I think it's normal to be excited by that.

Do I think teasers and titles are a good way of showing a game by developers? No. It's lazy. It capitalizes entirely on the love fans have for the IP. But since it's an already existing IP and generally a direct sequel/remake, people can already know what to expect from it, at least to a certain degree. People can imagine Metroid Prime 4 will be a First Person Adventure with shooting mechanics and a Metroidvania structure on an alien planet, for example. You can't do that exercise with Intergalactic.

That's why I think those kind of announcements can afford the luxury of being scarce on information (even if the announcements themselves are lazy and lacking in what they actually show). In my opinion, if you are going to show the world a new IP, you have to let people know what kind of game you are making: what genre it is, how does it play; if it's story focused a basic premise... But Intergalactic's trailer has none of that. And that's why I believe it's sad and pathetic that the most relevant information about their new IP is the developer's resume.

I think I have already said everything I needed about this topic.

I don't know, nothing about her is very convincing, I don't think I need to see much more than this. I can fully imagine Ripley in Alien 3, in very similar "outift", delivering those lines and being convincing...but Sigourney is great actress. This one I find very unconvincing for the part.

You shouldn't label misinterpretation as "lying" and "putting word into your mouth". If you would've liked to avoid this misinterpretation, a better rewording of your message would've been: “The fact that the only thing this trailer has to make people excited about the game is the studio’s self-inserted resume is frankly quite pathetic and sad…”. I do understand now that it is "the fact" which is "pathetic and sad", with "the fact" referring to "the thing this trailer has to make people excited"...which should be interpretted not as a critique on "the reason people are excited" but rather on the studio's inability to provide more information in the trailer. I feel it's a reasonable misunderstanding to have, but ig not to you.

In any case, you've chosen to make clear your intent on ignoring me going forward, and I'll accept it. Move along.

I mean, sure, I can to but that's after 2 other films in which she's dealt with the Aliens before. 

Maybe the character will be a dud but it's hard to judge based on a single CG trailer when we know nothing about their actual characterisation.

The point I'm making isn't just about posing or makeup, it's about how the developers intentionally altered the character’s features to the point where she looks noticeably different from the real-life model. Posing and lighting might explain some minor differences, but when you really compare the two images, there are changes that go beyond that.

For example, Aloy’s face in the game seems broader, her jawline softer, and her overall appearance less refined than the model's. These changes aren’t accidental, they're deliberate design choices made by the developers. My question, "Why do they do this?" is a valid question about why developers would alter so much from the real-life reference. Is it a stylistic choice? Does it serve the story? These aren't small tweaks, and that’s why it stands out.

I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re missing the heart of my question by a mile (probably my fault for being vague). Sure, lighting, angles, and makeup explain some of the differences, but the changes go beyond that. If you look closely, Aloy's in game face doesn't just look rugged or weathered from being outdoors it's structurally different.

Take the facial proportions, for instance. Aloy's jawline is less defined, her cheeks are fuller, and her features feel more exaggerated compared to the real-life model. These aren't things that happen just because of an open mouth or different hairstyle, these are conscious design choices made by the developers.

Now, I’m not saying Aloy looks bad, she doesn't. But why do the developers tweak her features so much in the first place? It feels like a trend in western gaming where characters are deliberately altered to seem less "perfect" or polished, maybe to make them more relatable. That’s fine, but when the character starts to look significantly different from the model, it raises the question "Why?" There are real-life beautiful women around the world. 

Your point about Instagram and beauty standards is interesting, but this isn't about taking an awkward screenshot to make someone look bad. Developers control every aspect of how the character looks in the game. If the real-life model is the inspiration, then why move so far away from her appearance?

At the end of the day, no one's attacking Aloy's design or calling her "ugly." This is just about understanding why these changes are made when the reference model already has such a striking, natural look. It’s a fair question, and the differences are noticeable enough to discuss.

Fuck 'em. They aren't fans of video games. I can tell ya that now with no doubt. After all the hollering that grummz privk did about Wu Kong, he admitted to not even playing it. I have no doubt that these people don't want to play it or will play it anyway on the quiet after much complaining. The character is indeed bland but Jesus christ she's not THAT bad.

Omfg I saw that and burst out laughing, Grummz is the peak example of "FUCK WESTERN STUDIOS, THEY'RE ALL WOKE, SUPPORT YOUR ANTI-WOKE ASIAN STUDIOS" and he hasn't even played Black Myth Wukong which was used as their "anti-woke" weapon but guess what he was playing? Indiana Jones, Lmfao. He's such a fucking grifter and all his fans are being taken for a ride, nobody knew who the fuck he was until he started ranting about this shit and now he has a bunch of useful idiots to look forward to his anti-woke videogame that has been in development for god knows how long.

The fact that we know next to nothing about this game but it's getting this level of sheer hatred directed towards it makes it very clear that it's only about the fact that it's a black lady with a shaved head that some don't deem sexy enough, nothing about "cramming politics into games" because the trailer doesn't tell us shit. Btw I'm not criticising anyone who thinks the trailer is boring or bland, just those who are seething at the sight of the character. I'm absolutely confident in saying that if Alien was released today, these same idiots would be blasting Ripley as "woke" before the film released too.

"Is it a stylistic choice? does it serve the story?" Yes, both.

Because this model isn't Aloy. Multiple pictures shows that Hannah's face is a lot closer to Aloy's than just that 1 picture, if they just wanted a render of the model, they could have done that and left as is. Instead they changed the character model, hair and face because Aloy is a warrior who grew up in a world where you use bows, climb mountains and attack massive metal machines with wooden spears. Probably less concerned about appearing pretty or being thin to appease TV casting agents.

Personally I think it's kind of annoying that we're seeing more game models that are 1:1 of their actor/actresses.

This guy is in one of the pictures in the background, you can 100% tell it's him.

I personally think it's preferable for the experience, the immersion to have more unique characters.

Going "oh it's Keanu!" isn't exactly immersive. 

Perhaps characterization is fine...I just don't find "actor/model" to be. Maybe she's even good actor, I don't know, never watched anything she did, but to make comparison, imagine first shot of Riddick in Pitch Black, but instead of Vin Diesel, it's Mat Damon. Perfectly fine actor, just completely wrong for the part.