5 ms·

> It only looks cheap because meta made cheap, low effort avatars. There is a wider societal statement packed in there, but that's for later. I would point ou

> It only looks cheap because meta made cheap, low effort avatars. There is a wider societal statement packed in there, but that's for later. I would point out that memoji looks equally as cheap. However, there are slightly more rich people who choose/chose to use memojis

dartos 3y ago
Memoji do not look as cheap. They don’t look great, but not nearly as cheap. You can see the polygons on meta’s models. They look like characters in PlayStation 2 era games. Besides that, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. Avatars in VR are full-body (ish) and are meant as your primary method of viewing and probably interacting with others in a Vr space. Memojis are just little faces you can put in your text message conversations. The fact that people are making this comparison shows how little effort went into the visual design of metas avatars.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  Heres a thought experiment: You are looking at potential videos to watch on $subject. There are two videos you can see, one with a thumbnail of avatar/memoji/emoji, the other with a real person. Which one are _most_ people going to clock on (hint we can test this by analysing youtube) The point I am making is that avatar/memojis look cheap, not because of how they are created, but because of ease of creation/lack of differentiation.
  - dartos 3y ago
    I don’t see the connection between those two statements, but I wholly disagree with your point. 3d humanoid models (avatars) can look like anything. Some look cheap, some don’t. Look at the sheer variety of avatars on vrchat. VRchat has technical limitations that prevent avatars from looking straight out of a AAA game, but the sheer variety of the avatars and how they’re made and how they’re designed (maya, blender, with shaders, with props, etc) makes VRChat feel more alive and engaging than metas offering. Any project that has billions of dollars of funding should be able to make good looking avatars that lend a distinct style. Hell, video games do it yearly on several million dollar budgets. Sorry, but you’ve convinced me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

dartos 3y ago

Memoji do not look as cheap. They don’t look great, but not nearly as cheap. You can see the polygons on meta’s models. They look like characters in PlayStation 2 era games. Besides that, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. Avatars in VR are full-body (ish) and are meant as your primary method of viewing and probably interacting with others in a Vr space. Memojis are just little faces you can put in your text message conversations. The fact that people are making this comparison shows how little effort went into the visual design of metas avatars.

KaiserPro 3y ago
Heres a thought experiment: You are looking at potential videos to watch on $subject. There are two videos you can see, one with a thumbnail of avatar/memoji/emoji, the other with a real person. Which one are _most_ people going to clock on (hint we can test this by analysing youtube) The point I am making is that avatar/memojis look cheap, not because of how they are created, but because of ease of creation/lack of differentiation.
- dartos 3y ago
  I don’t see the connection between those two statements, but I wholly disagree with your point. 3d humanoid models (avatars) can look like anything. Some look cheap, some don’t. Look at the sheer variety of avatars on vrchat. VRchat has technical limitations that prevent avatars from looking straight out of a AAA game, but the sheer variety of the avatars and how they’re made and how they’re designed (maya, blender, with shaders, with props, etc) makes VRChat feel more alive and engaging than metas offering. Any project that has billions of dollars of funding should be able to make good looking avatars that lend a distinct style. Hell, video games do it yearly on several million dollar budgets. Sorry, but you’ve convinced me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.