Hey, the developer here!
Thanks for using it :)
Maybe could look like this... I have my hand tied because I'm not the owner of the artwork
Thanks for using it :)
Maybe could look like this... I have my hand tied because I'm not the owner of the artwork
If 50% of the haircuts / outfits / whatever are feminine vs masculine, maybe you get a 50/50 split.
But if then 3/4 of the time, the "Other" category adds facial hair, you're getting masculine people 7/8th of the time.
I don’t care if 12 of the 32 hairstyles are clearly feminine, that number should be at least 16. And even then, as a closeted misandrist, I would find the remaining 16 masculine hairstyles to be extremely triggering.
In your hasty response, you failed to be an ally for the facially-divergent. Whether it be one eye or no eyes, these people need to be seen. And don’t even get me started on the default skin tone… Whyte? Really? It’s 2023.
Not sure you should be the judge on what is "clearly famine" when you falsely equate being inclusive of women, as being related to misandry. Poor trolling attempt.
As for your fake "facially-divergent" comment, there is a way to go in terms of visibility of disabled people, which would include people with a variety of facial differences from the "norm" -- it's a shame you weren't serious, because you could've almost made a valid point there.
Presuming the artist is still around, one would imagine you're capable of commissioning them for a wider array of options. Women represent around half the people on the planet, yet seem to be more of an afterthought, or not a thought at all.
Even for men, the options are pretty "big and blocky" or go home.
As developer93 said, your respond was quite blasé, and absolutely feels exclusionary - the kind of "nothing I can do" attitude just puts across that you don't want to do anything about it, presumably because - given the apparent lack of forethought on including women in the design spec - you don't think it's a problem?