It was originally an army jacket. That's probably the reason it got removed, to not glorify the military or something. Could be something "Hit detection" suggested. Seems up their alley.
And while i understand this, its something i really hate when people "remake" others' art pieces. They choose this look, not because it resembled military, but most probably, to fit the age when this happened (Since this is a Vietnam jacket). If you attribute to a simple jacket many of this "modern" sentiments and decide to change it, it feels disrespectful to the source material. Its like "yeah you did that but i know better" kind of feel.
And i'm not refering to this remake in particular (Which i overall liked a lot). But to anyone redoing someone else's work. Specially when its considered a masterpiece.
It was originally an army jacket. That's probably the reason it got removed, to not glorify the military or something. Could be something "Hit detection" suggested. Seems up their alley.
It must be fun to just make up s#*! huh?
The original had the extra bits of color to break up James's silhouette. That's it. It's still a military field jacket, very easily identifiable as a military field jacket. They simply decided to not have the patches. It's not that deep. Stop thinking every single thing is a conspiracy theory.
The original had the extra bits of color to break up James's silhouette. That's it. It's still a military field jacket, very easily identifiable as a military field jacket. They simply decided to not have the patches. It's not that deep. Stop thinking every single thing is a conspiracy theory.
It's not worth trying to de-program the brain rot that these people are so susceptible to. We can only hope that some day in the future, they can look back at how ridiculous they used to be and try to better themselves.
It's not worth trying to de-program the brain rot that these people are so susceptible to. We can only hope that some day in the future, they can look back at how ridiculous they used to be and try to better themselves.
There's extremes to be found on both ends - unhinged conspiracy theories and then delusional "fans" who bury their head in the sand.
I mean, just look at this whole "DEI" phenomenon. Only recently has it gained any kind of acknowledgement from people. Before, people would laugh at you and call you a conspiracy theorist for that too, but only now that it's so blatant and in your face, did even the most staunch deniers of this started to acknowledge its existence.
But I digress. It's complicated because the reality is found somewhere between these two extremes. But people on the internet rarely have a balanced approach. Like in the case of Maria and Angela, I would agree in thinking Hit Detection played a part in changing the character design. But for something this trivial? Unlikely.
There's extremes to be found on both ends - unhinged conspiracy theories and then delusional "fans" who bury their head in the sand.
Nobody is burying their heads in the sand, they're pointing out how insane people are becoming with their conspiracy theories.
I mean, just look at this whole "DEI" phenomenon. Only recently has it gained any kind of acknowledgement from people.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies have been around in American politics for longer than video game have existed. Before the truly absurd right-wing moral panic about it, nobody cared except for fringe racists who found the idea of non-whites being given equal opportunity offensive. Because that's what DEI policies are about, and they exist so that the very real problem of people finding reasons not to hire non straight white guys for any reason, regardless of if they're qualified. Nobody really ever denied that it existed, it's just that until very recently nobody thought it was a problem. And then the extreme political right turned it into a talking point as a way to push a white supremacist agenda. That's why you see literally any inclusion of a black person deemed "DEI".
Like in the case of Maria and Angela, I would agree in thinking Hit Detection played a part in changing the character design.
Maria looks nearly identical to her original model (as does Mary since they have the same face) and Angela looks like her actress. I haven't seen anyone complain that James, Eddie, and Laura don't look exactly like they did in the original, probably because these complaints aren't actually about "they're not accurate" and are actually about "I'm not sexually attracted to them", which is what 99% of "female character look bad/woke" nonsense boils down to. Gooners being upset that not every woman looks like a sex doll. But more importantly, I'm pretty freaking sure Masahiro Ito was in control of what they looked like, and since the concept art he made for Maria looks very close to the final model, I'd be willing to bet that they had actors picked out well before contacting any media consultant companies for the minor s#*! they contacted them for. Because these companies, just like SBI, don't secretly run the games industry. That is actually just a conspiracy theory.
ive complained about eddies looks just as the other characters. maria is designed to look "like a sex doll" due to james lust. nobody has ever said sweet baby runs the games industry you dork, but they are heavily influenced/pressured to use such groups by blackrock, statestreet, vanguard etc. which are all at the top of the pyramid of companies that own each other.
I care that nobody actually looks like the characters they're supposed to be, (Or sound like them either, but that's not as easily controllable.) These characters have highly detailed CG models by SatoWorks that shows exactly what they're supposed to look like, no PS2 model ambiguity involved. The fact that Bloober was unable to just make optimized higher fidelity versions of these existing designs demonstrates that they think they know better than the original Team Silent, and aren't interested in making a faithful remake. It has nothing to do with DEI or any of that schizo nonsense. Simply the ego of a team that has never made a good game.
I think that's easy. His original jacket with the american flag was inspired by a military jacket, as was supplied during Vietnam. The new devs probably did not want to appear pro military.
HnK416 5 sec google search for original SH2 concept art shows that original Maria didn't have a gigachad masculine jawline. Also completely butchered original costume from y2k crop top and butterfly tattoo to this generic female protagonist from shutterstock of a late millenial core era. Stop coping
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies have been around in American politics for longer than video game have existed. Before the truly absurd right-wing moral panic about it, nobody cared except for fringe racists who found the idea of non-whites being given equal opportunity offensive
The "E" in DEI stands for "Equity." Equity is literally the opposite of "equal opportunity." Equity = Equality of Outcome. "Equality of Opportunity" and "Equality of Outcome" are actual opposites, and completely mutually exclusive. You can't believe in both, and you literally cannot have both.
DEI policies result from radical left-wingers simply looking at the outcomes and if they find any inequality in numbers, i.e a disproportionately low amount of one ethnicity in the profession of Pilot, for example, then they assume there's discrimination against that ethnicity at play in the hiring process and set about lowering the bar for that ethnicity to qualify as pilots in order to increase their numbers. If you can't see what's wrong with that then I don't know what to tell you.
The policies you're talking about that have been around for decades are Civil Rights laws that make it illegal to hire people based on immutable characteristics like race and gender. That's the opposite of DEI, which is why DEI activists have been actively campaigning to overturn Civil Rights laws (seriously, they actually did this in San Francisco a few years ago) so they can implement DEI policies.
Because that's what DEI policies are about, and they exist so that the very real problem of people finding reasons not to hire non straight white guys for any reason, regardless of if they're qualified
No, that's literally the opposite of what DEI policies are about. DEI policies are about making sure the demographics of every profession reflect the demographics of the entire population, i.e 50/50 male and female, 60% white, 14% black etc... regardless of why they don't already reflect that. This means if the percentage of pilots that are black, for instance, is lower than 14% then they need to hire more black pilots even if they're less qualified than other applicants. THIS is the problem people have with DEI - it results in less qualified people being given jobs, which is one thing when it comes to things like videogame design, but quite another when it comes to things like piloting a plane...
And just in case one is extremely dense, these policies are just as damaging to the very minority groups they're purporting to be helping because, strange as it might be to imagine, it turns out that minorities take flights on planes, too...
Just to be clear, there would be the exact same problem if we hired people based on height. If someone decided we don't have enough 7ft pilots, and put a policy in place of hiring 7ft pilots over shorter pilots even if the 7ft pilot is less qualified, then we'd have less skilled pilots piloting planes. It isn't bigoted against 7ft people to acknowledge that. Hiring for any reason other than merit, will, by definition, lead to less merit in that industry. Hiring for any reason other than skill will, by definition, lead to a lack of skill in that industry. I seriously don't know how to dumb that down any further.
And if you need any more proof, just look at the absolutely botched response to the recent LA fires.
A less important example would be the game Mass Effect: Andromeda. The lead character animator herself explicitly stated in an interview that she didn't feel she was qualified for the job as she had no experience animating, but Bioware/EA wanted the game's animator to be female and wouldn't consider anyone else for the job, and she took it for the money (don't blame her). The result is a AAA game with some of the most laughably awful character animations ever. To believe that DEI doesn't result in poor quality is to believe that the awful state of Mass Effect Andromeda - the first Mass Effect game to significantly use DEI hiring - on release was purely coincidental...
Nobody really ever denied that it existed, it's just that until very recently nobody thought it was a problem.
No, in the past it was called "Affirmative Action," and people did always have a problem with it (including many minority people, I might add, because it causes other problems for them down the road, too) but it was confined to a limited set of professions. The reason there's been a recent "right-wing moral panic" about it (in reality, a completely normal reaction from people across the political spectrum) is because about 15 years ago it started being rolled out to increasingly more professions, and it's starting to cause problems across the board. If you look at the graph showing airline accidents over the last 40 years, for instance, they start spiking right at the time airlines and airports started DEI hiring. That isn't a coincidence.
And then the extreme political right turned it into a talking point as a way to push a white supremacist agenda. That's why you see literally any inclusion of a black person deemed "DEI".
White Supremacy = hire the white guy, regardless of skill. DEI = hire anyone but the white guy, regardless of skill. Meritocracy = hire the candidate with the most skill, regardless of race or gender.
Meritocracy is clearly the true non-racist, non-sexist system of the 3, as well as being the most sensible. It's the extreme political left that seem to have got it into their heads that selecting for merit will automatically result in only white people being hired, which says more about the covert racism of the radical left than it does anything else. As for the "political right" deeming any inclusion of a non-white person to be DEI, as I'm typing this the current nominee for FBI Director is a brown dude, and most of the "political right" seem quite happy with this pick. The only people who aren't happy about it are the "political left" which completely disproves your assertion.
And, incidentally, meritocracy doesn't actually "favor" white people. It "favors" Asian people, based on the numbers. Asians and Jews, actually. That's why the university of Harvard faced a scandal several years ago when it turned out they'd been using DEI type policies to select for qualifying students for the last 40 years - because if they used pure meritocracy it would have resulted in a disproportionately high amount of Asian students entering Harvard, and for some reason that's apparently a problem.
So, you see, being against DEI does not = "white supremacy." Most people who are against DEI want the most skilled people being chosen, regardless of race, and if that results in a disproportionate amount of jobs going to Asian and Jewish people, then so be it. And, indeed, if the most qualified person for the job happens to be a black lesbian, then she should get the job over any white dude. No one has a problem with that. But that's not what DEI is about. DEI is about selecting a black lesbian even if she's not the most qualified for the job, simply so the company can point and say "look, we hired a black lesbian!" And when you do this again and again and again, it results in a lack of competency in that particular field. Which is a problem.
Maria looks nearly identical to her original model (as does Mary since they have the same face) and Angela looks like her actress. I haven't seen anyone complain that James, Eddie, and Laura don't look exactly like they did in the original,
They deliberately de-sexualised Maria's outfit, which makes zero sense since her sexuality is actually an integral part of the story. The face, I agree, is the result of hiring real models and scanning them, so I don't think there's any deliberate malice in that regard at all (and people that do are indeed being paranoid).
Eddie is supposed to be an "ugly" character, so that's a bad example. James and Laura look close enough to their original counterparts that it doesn't matter. In the case of Angela her face is just a little too different that it was jarring at first, although I must admit it's grown on me (and most of the backlash was due to people on the "other side" overreacting to a particularly bad screenshot of her that made her look bigger than she actually is).
probably because these complaints aren't actually about "they're not accurate" and are actually about "I'm not sexually attracted to them", which is what 99% of "female character look bad/woke" nonsense boils down to.
Well, if the original character was sexy, and the modern designers and consultant companies have been quite explicit in saying they're designing these modern versions to be less sexy so players can't be sexually attracted to them, then I fail to see your point. Regardless, that's not actually the reason, and is in fact simply the go-to straw-man from people who are in favor of this influence on videogames.
I vividly remember fans of Devil May Cry having an extreme negative reaction to the redesign of Dante in the 2013 reboot by Ninja Theory. In that case the redesign had little to do with "woke" or political reasons, it was simply an artistic decision but was, nevertheless, extremely badly received from fans to the point the game lost a lot of sales. There's countless other examples. Point being, videogame fans have always been particularly sensitive to radical redesigns for any reason. The fact that the reasons behind the modern redesigns are often political in nature is almost incidental.
Gooners being upset that not every woman looks like a sex doll.
As opposed to kinky submissive male gamers wanting every woman to look like a body builder? Regardless, in the case of Maria in Silent Hill 2, she's kind of supposed to look like a sex doll. It's part of the story. She represents James's repressed lust and sexual fantasies about his wife.
Because these companies, just like SBI, don't secretly run the games industry. That is actually just a conspiracy theory.
No one said they secretly "run" the games industry. That's a straw-man, something you seem quite prone to engaging in.
What people believe is that these companies like SBI are conducting what is essentially a kind of extortion racket, "offering" their services to developers/publishers on the understanding that if these developers/publishers refuse then companies like Blackrock and Vanguard will pull their funding for these studios. And the reason people believe this is because there are literally videos of Blackrock and Vanguard CEOs stating openly that they're engaging in this strategy on Youtube. It's actually hilarious that things like this are still dismissed as "conspiracy theories" when the people behind them are actually admitting on camera in front of the entire world that they're doing it. Blackrock literally say, freely, on stage and on camera that they're doing this, people voice their opposition to it, and then you say that they're wrong, that it's not happening and is in their imaginations. Ok...
And btw, it's 2025: falsely smearing anyone who disagrees with you as a "racist" or "white supremacist" doesn't work anymore.
To be clear, I don't think the redesign of James's jacket has anything to do with political reasons. On that issue I agree that people are being paranoid. The reason for the redesign is, in my opinion, simply laziness on the part of the developer.
It's not worth trying to de-program the brain rot that these people are so susceptible to. We can only hope that some day in the future, they can look back at how ridiculous they used to be and try to better themselves.
There is, indeed, a lot of cringe in the "anti-woke" crowd.
I've seen people calling the recent remasters of Soul Reaver "woke" because an in-game statue is slightly less curvy than in the original. Which is, of course, patently absurd, and the people saying this are embarrassing AF (those remasters are pretty mint btw). Likewise, some of the assertions about James's jacket here are silly.
As xztbaudelaire said, there's cringe on both sides.
However, if you're going to try and act like the bulk of the cringe is coming from that side of the aisle, you're having a laugh. It's not even close.
Let's not forget how all this crap started in the first place: hypersensitive reactionism from paranoiacs in the 2010 era insisting every aspect of a videogame was some secretly coded message of racism, misogyny, colonialism or heteronormativity etc, that cleavage on female videogame characters was causing male players to commit SA in real life, and other such nonsense, and started organising boycotts and whatnot to put pressure on companies to change their products accordingly. Some of the things the "woke" crowd pushed in that era were absolutely unhinged. Just because the other side is now engaging in the same kind of ridiculous paranoia, hypersensitive reactionism and unhinged behaviour doesn't change that fact.
, but they are heavily influenced/pressured to use such groups by blackrock, statestreet, vanguard etc. which are all at the top of the pyramid of companies that own each other.
Blackrock and Vanguard literally have videos online where they proudly declare that they are doing this, and go into intricate details explaining this strategy, and these people will still call you crazy and dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."
People also seem to think that a "conspiracy theory" is automatically untrue. MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory. It also happened to be 100% real.
You literally just stated that there is a nationwide conspiracy against minorities and women that's been operating for decades to prevent them from gaining employment or advancing in certain fields.
I'm not even getting into whether that's true or not, but the fact that you patronisingly dismissed what the other guy said as being untrue on the grounds that it's "a conspiracy theory" immediately after citing a conspiracy theory to back up your own argument is just wild.
"Conspiracy theories are false - except the ones I believe in..." - you may as well have just said that.
I've never even played the original SH2 and am still baffled this wasn't the default design in-game. This is a great mod, I find it really nice seeing these patches in the cutscenes, they give James a bit more character, showing that he's worn this jacket for awhile and to many places
It's not a complain, but I noticed that the shoulder patches are not perfect. The red "rectangle" parts are supposed to be next to the yellow squares. But here, it's like there is a mistake on the right shoulder. The yellow "square" has the size of the "rectangle", and as a result, make size of the elements wrong. I don't know how to upload a screenshot, but here is an example of the original Jacket. You can compare it with the game.
Your mod is still an essential for me. Thank you :D
92 comments
And i'm not refering to this remake in particular (Which i overall liked a lot). But to anyone redoing someone else's work. Specially when its considered a masterpiece.
The original had the extra bits of color to break up James's silhouette. That's it. It's still a military field jacket, very easily identifiable as a military field jacket. They simply decided to not have the patches. It's not that deep. Stop thinking every single thing is a conspiracy theory.
I mean, just look at this whole "DEI" phenomenon. Only recently has it gained any kind of acknowledgement from people. Before, people would laugh at you and call you a conspiracy theorist for that too, but only now that it's so blatant and in your face, did even the most staunch deniers of this started to acknowledge its existence.
But I digress. It's complicated because the reality is found somewhere between these two extremes. But people on the internet rarely have a balanced approach. Like in the case of Maria and Angela, I would agree in thinking Hit Detection played a part in changing the character design. But for something this trivial? Unlikely.
"Equality of Opportunity" and "Equality of Outcome" are actual opposites, and completely mutually exclusive. You can't believe in both, and you literally cannot have both.
DEI policies result from radical left-wingers simply looking at the outcomes and if they find any inequality in numbers, i.e a disproportionately low amount of one ethnicity in the profession of Pilot, for example, then they assume there's discrimination against that ethnicity at play in the hiring process and set about lowering the bar for that ethnicity to qualify as pilots in order to increase their numbers. If you can't see what's wrong with that then I don't know what to tell you.
The policies you're talking about that have been around for decades are Civil Rights laws that make it illegal to hire people based on immutable characteristics like race and gender. That's the opposite of DEI, which is why DEI activists have been actively campaigning to overturn Civil Rights laws (seriously, they actually did this in San Francisco a few years ago) so they can implement DEI policies.
And just in case one is extremely dense, these policies are just as damaging to the very minority groups they're purporting to be helping because, strange as it might be to imagine, it turns out that minorities take flights on planes, too...
Just to be clear, there would be the exact same problem if we hired people based on height. If someone decided we don't have enough 7ft pilots, and put a policy in place of hiring 7ft pilots over shorter pilots even if the 7ft pilot is less qualified, then we'd have less skilled pilots piloting planes. It isn't bigoted against 7ft people to acknowledge that. Hiring for any reason other than merit, will, by definition, lead to less merit in that industry. Hiring for any reason other than skill will, by definition, lead to a lack of skill in that industry. I seriously don't know how to dumb that down any further.
And if you need any more proof, just look at the absolutely botched response to the recent LA fires.
A less important example would be the game Mass Effect: Andromeda. The lead character animator herself explicitly stated in an interview that she didn't feel she was qualified for the job as she had no experience animating, but Bioware/EA wanted the game's animator to be female and wouldn't consider anyone else for the job, and she took it for the money (don't blame her). The result is a AAA game with some of the most laughably awful character animations ever. To believe that DEI doesn't result in poor quality is to believe that the awful state of Mass Effect Andromeda - the first Mass Effect game to significantly use DEI hiring - on release was purely coincidental...
DEI = hire anyone but the white guy, regardless of skill.
Meritocracy = hire the candidate with the most skill, regardless of race or gender.
Meritocracy is clearly the true non-racist, non-sexist system of the 3, as well as being the most sensible. It's the extreme political left that seem to have got it into their heads that selecting for merit will automatically result in only white people being hired, which says more about the covert racism of the radical left than it does anything else. As for the "political right" deeming any inclusion of a non-white person to be DEI, as I'm typing this the current nominee for FBI Director is a brown dude, and most of the "political right" seem quite happy with this pick. The only people who aren't happy about it are the "political left" which completely disproves your assertion.
And, incidentally, meritocracy doesn't actually "favor" white people. It "favors" Asian people, based on the numbers. Asians and Jews, actually. That's why the university of Harvard faced a scandal several years ago when it turned out they'd been using DEI type policies to select for qualifying students for the last 40 years - because if they used pure meritocracy it would have resulted in a disproportionately high amount of Asian students entering Harvard, and for some reason that's apparently a problem.
So, you see, being against DEI does not = "white supremacy." Most people who are against DEI want the most skilled people being chosen, regardless of race, and if that results in a disproportionate amount of jobs going to Asian and Jewish people, then so be it. And, indeed, if the most qualified person for the job happens to be a black lesbian, then she should get the job over any white dude. No one has a problem with that. But that's not what DEI is about. DEI is about selecting a black lesbian even if she's not the most qualified for the job, simply so the company can point and say "look, we hired a black lesbian!" And when you do this again and again and again, it results in a lack of competency in that particular field. Which is a problem.
Eddie is supposed to be an "ugly" character, so that's a bad example. James and Laura look close enough to their original counterparts that it doesn't matter. In the case of Angela her face is just a little too different that it was jarring at first, although I must admit it's grown on me (and most of the backlash was due to people on the "other side" overreacting to a particularly bad screenshot of her that made her look bigger than she actually is).
I vividly remember fans of Devil May Cry having an extreme negative reaction to the redesign of Dante in the 2013 reboot by Ninja Theory. In that case the redesign had little to do with "woke" or political reasons, it was simply an artistic decision but was, nevertheless, extremely badly received from fans to the point the game lost a lot of sales. There's countless other examples. Point being, videogame fans have always been particularly sensitive to radical redesigns for any reason. The fact that the reasons behind the modern redesigns are often political in nature is almost incidental.
What people believe is that these companies like SBI are conducting what is essentially a kind of extortion racket, "offering" their services to developers/publishers on the understanding that if these developers/publishers refuse then companies like Blackrock and Vanguard will pull their funding for these studios. And the reason people believe this is because there are literally videos of Blackrock and Vanguard CEOs stating openly that they're engaging in this strategy on Youtube. It's actually hilarious that things like this are still dismissed as "conspiracy theories" when the people behind them are actually admitting on camera in front of the entire world that they're doing it. Blackrock literally say, freely, on stage and on camera that they're doing this, people voice their opposition to it, and then you say that they're wrong, that it's not happening and is in their imaginations. Ok...
And btw, it's 2025: falsely smearing anyone who disagrees with you as a "racist" or "white supremacist" doesn't work anymore.
To be clear, I don't think the redesign of James's jacket has anything to do with political reasons. On that issue I agree that people are being paranoid. The reason for the redesign is, in my opinion, simply laziness on the part of the developer.
This comment didn't age well.
I hope you didn't live in the Palisades...or anywhere in LA, for that matter...
There is, indeed, a lot of cringe in the "anti-woke" crowd.
I've seen people calling the recent remasters of Soul Reaver "woke" because an in-game statue is slightly less curvy than in the original. Which is, of course, patently absurd, and the people saying this are embarrassing AF (those remasters are pretty mint btw). Likewise, some of the assertions about James's jacket here are silly.
As xztbaudelaire said, there's cringe on both sides.
However, if you're going to try and act like the bulk of the cringe is coming from that side of the aisle, you're having a laugh. It's not even close.
Let's not forget how all this crap started in the first place: hypersensitive reactionism from paranoiacs in the 2010 era insisting every aspect of a videogame was some secretly coded message of racism, misogyny, colonialism or heteronormativity etc, that cleavage on female videogame characters was causing male players to commit SA in real life, and other such nonsense, and started organising boycotts and whatnot to put pressure on companies to change their products accordingly. Some of the things the "woke" crowd pushed in that era were absolutely unhinged. Just because the other side is now engaging in the same kind of ridiculous paranoia, hypersensitive reactionism and unhinged behaviour doesn't change that fact.
People also seem to think that a "conspiracy theory" is automatically untrue. MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory. It also happened to be 100% real.
I'm not even getting into whether that's true or not, but the fact that you patronisingly dismissed what the other guy said as being untrue on the grounds that it's "a conspiracy theory" immediately after citing a conspiracy theory to back up your own argument is just wild.
"Conspiracy theories are false - except the ones I believe in..." - you may as well have just said that.
Modders doing the developer's job for them, again!
Your mod is still an essential for me. Thank you :D