Melissia wrote: Yep. I was mentioning the series as a whole, but Quake 3 is what I had in mind, and it had a ton of really interesting characters.
That is the only one I played, and I remember neither story nor characters in it. I mean, yeah, there were some nice models, Xaero and Lucy and Hunter and Sarge and Plesk and all that, but had any of them a backstory beside “This is a demon alien” “This is an angry fat lady” “This is a space shaolin monk” ?
Melissia wrote: Yep. I was mentioning the series as a whole, but Quake 3 is what I had in mind, and it had a ton of really interesting characters.
That is the only one I played, and I remember neither story nor characters in it. I mean, yeah, there were some nice models, Xaero and Lucy and Hunter and Sarge and Plesk and all that, but had any of them a backstory beside “This is a demon alien” “This is an angry fat lady” “This is a space shaolin monk” ?
There's little background blurbs for each one. For example, Ranger was the main character in Quake 1. he was supposedly so scarred from battle that he was barely human any more. Eventually he was captured and thrown in the Arena, to live an eternity of violence-- at which point the gave up in despair, and became resigned to his fate.
Melissia wrote: Yep. I was mentioning the series as a whole, but Quake 3 is what I had in mind, and it had a ton of really interesting characters.
That is the only one I played, and I remember neither story nor characters in it. I mean, yeah, there were some nice models, Xaero and Lucy and Hunter and Sarge and Plesk and all that, but had any of them a backstory beside “This is a demon alien” “This is an angry fat lady” “This is a space shaolin monk” ?
All id games had a more or less elaborate background story. Sometimes in a readme file
quake game manual wrote:"thou cannot kill that which duth not live....but you can blast it to chunkie kibbles"
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Minx wrote: or more likely as in pen and paper RPGs...
..which is a "proper" RPG because...?
RP-computer-games were / are inspired by pen-and-paper RPGs and sometimes are just straight translations of the pnp variety. It seems quite adequate to use proper in these circumstances then.
Project Zomboid is one of the best zombie horror games ever made. Only the tutorial has anything other than a blank slate of a character.
Yet again debatable. I disagree.
I hate the zombie genre as a whole as it is just a reuse over and over again. As the horror genre is sort of gone down hill, there are some good games out there but for every walking dead game we have we have 12 call of duty zombie game rip offs.
As strange as it is, I still enjoy zombie games. I mean who would have guessed zombies have so much staying power. Also this though is on topic because has anyone noticed that zombie games seem to have some progressive casts? I was thinking about state of decay the other day and it is chocked full diversity. I think there is something about the kind of setting that almost mandates it.
Melissia wrote: Or if you prefer, "RPGs proper", if you think "proper RPGs" is somehow stuck up or arrogant.
It's the same. If you think there's anything like a "proper" RPG, then that's your very personal definition. Any cRPG is just as much of a RPG than a PnP RPG.
Melissia wrote: Strictly speaking, almost every game ever made is a Role-Playing Game in some way or other.
Some games aren't. I would kind of define them as movie games or game games. A movie game is the kind that has a story it wants to tell you and treats the player as an more of an observer then a participant. Then you have game games that are just games like tetris were the context/story is this is a game you are playing.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Asherian Command wrote: For mainstream First person shooters and third persons. Yes. But for RPG games, it is defaulted to blank slates.
I don't see any evidence of this. There's still tons of RPGs where you are forced to play as someone else's character instead of creating your own like a proper RPG.
Proper RPG as in "Your idea of a RPG".
or more likely as in pen and paper RPGs...
*sigh*
They want a Proper RPG?
Spoiler:
No just me sighing. Because I don't agree. I don't think I should force players to make their own character. I also think it gives the player to much agency. It makes the player feel privileged that they earned that victory. I don't want them to feel that way.
I want them they achieved something, but I don't want them to feel like they alone did it.
She's describing the difference between a game where a role is given to you to play (Final Fantasy) and a game where a world is given to you and you create a role in it (Elder Scrolls). It's a fine difference by it's not mythical. In a traditional sense the later is a more 'proper' RPG in the sense that it more closely adheres to the spirit of the table top games RPG video games were initially modeled after.
LordofHats wrote: She's describing the difference between a game where a role is given to you to play (Final Fantasy) and a game where a world is given to you and you create a role in it (Elder Scrolls). It's a fine difference by it's not mythical. In a traditional sense the later is a more 'proper' RPG in the sense that it more closely adheres to the spirit of the table top games RPG video games were initially modeled after.
Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).
LordofHats wrote: Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).
Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.
LordofHats wrote: Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).
Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.
So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?
LordofHats wrote: Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).
Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.
So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?
Yes. I want to be told a story. Something I can relate to, but it doesn't mean I am the character. I want set characters, a set background. It can be done very well in games. I think even better than movies.
LordofHats wrote: Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).
Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.
So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?
Yes. I want to be told a story. Something I can relate to, but it doesn't mean I am the character. I want set characters, a set background. It can be done very well in games. I think even better than movies.
LordofHats wrote: I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).
Well he said it so I didn't have to. If you want to be told or shown a story, then you might as well rad a book or watch a movie.
LordofHats wrote: I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).
Not exactly. I mean people still enjoyed final fantasy games 1-7. Yet you are stuck to a path, but that path happened no matter what. But it doesn't mean that is limiting you are given a point a to point b. But it is up to you to get there, how you get there is your choice.
You can choose any class you want pick any skill you want. But it is up to you in the end to decide how to do it.
Warcraft 3 works exactly the same, Starcraft 2 does as well. Just because you can't pick your character's face or actions does not mean it is limiting. There are hundreds of other choices you can make that may not have incidents later on from your choice but it does affect the way you play.
I mean is final fantasy 6 worse because you can choose your main characters name, but not their choices? The character may have your name, but he doesn't act because of you, he acts because he is a character.
Is Gordon Freeman worse because you can't decide his name and his choices? But at the same time you can explore and use the world around? Is that game worse because of that?
The answer is no, Those are great games, because they thought outside this box that you are given in games. A designer is given a box a tools and he can do whatever he wants with that boxs of tools but he can't use all the tools, but he can use some tools in creative ways.
LordofHats wrote: I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).
Well he said it so I didn't have to. If you want to be told or shown a story, then you might as well rad a book or watch a movie.
That doesn't mean a game is less of a game, and should be a movie.
When I sit down I want to play a game that invites me into a story. I don't want to be an important character, I merely want to see a story, and live in that world but not as the hero, but as the heroes conscious thought.
It is this relationship between the player and the player character.
That are you really in control or are you just merely watching their actions and you are along for the ride? They may do different things but point a and point b are still the same results. Just how you got to point B is still your choice as a player.
I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).
The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).
The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.
But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?
It is interactive, but it should push the boundaries and I think it can show the character and the story better.
JRPGs do this quite often and it is often successful.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).
The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.
But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?
It is interactive, but it should push the boundaries and I think it can show the character and the story better.
JRPGs do this quite often and it is often successful.
No you can not exploit interactivity to it's fullest with a fixed game.
Asherian Command wrote: But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?
Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.
EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.
It really depends on the story really, the realism of the game and the time period.
I really don't mind playing a female character in a game (i usually play a female character whenever it is possible, i do not understand how a macho guy would choose an oiled male chiseled like a greek god and watch its behind the whole game (if it is 3rd person), come out of the closet already!).
But just making the option there to change gender for the sake of playing without it adding to game is moot IMHO.
Some games wouldn't work Duke Nuke 'm , Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Deus Ex if it would be a female lead would have no impact on the story i think.
Asherian Command wrote: But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?
Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.
EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.
That's my philosophy regarding games as well.
Games, as a medium, are best when the player is given choices. When the player has no choices to make, it's not really much of a game.
Asherian Command wrote: But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?
Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.
EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.
Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.
I have explained this several times.
A fixed character is one who you can't change, but that doesn't mean the character is limited in any way. You will still have access to skill trees and specializations.
Asherian Command wrote: Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.
Being able to change more about the character is better than being able to change less.
I make no exceptions to this claim. There is no game that I cannot imagine being better if I could customize more about the character.
You are really not budging on this at all.
Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set. You still wouldn't like the game because it doesn't give you the full customization of being able to control your character?
Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.
Yeah, but why should character's be fixed in that way? Shepard was a better character because while the character's role in the ME story was fixed but how that role could be played out came with variety. Sure pretty much every choice you make is in the grand scheme of things rather token* but the experience was much better because the player was given the ability to take the role in their own direction.
If anything, in this sense I consider JRPG's to just be lagging behind. They often tell good stories, and have good characters, but some of the best ones I've played (Star Ocean and Fire Emblem) stand out to me because I could interact with the character's personalities as more than a mere observer. Probably why I've never really been able to get into Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Dragon Quest. Those games are hours and hours of decent (or not) combat and long cut scenes. At least when Metal Gear bombards me with long cutscenes they have all the flare and madness of Quintin Tarantino
*Made worse so by the god child, literally in a machine, who renders all of them utterly meaningless but we're not here to discuss ME3 failures But then we're just getting into the metaphysical mind feth of what choices we make are ever meaningful in the grand scheme of things
Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.
Yeah, but why should character's be fixed in that way? Shepard was a better character because while the character's role in the ME story was fixed but how that role could be played out came with variety. Sure pretty much every choice you make is in the grand scheme of things rather token* but the experience was much better because the player was given the ability to take the role in their own direction.
If anything, in this sense I consider JRPG's to just be lagging behind. They often tell good stories, and have good characters, but some of the best ones I've played (Star Ocean and Fire Emblem) stand out to me because I could interact with the character's personalities as more than a mere observer. Probably why I've never really been able to get into Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Dragon Quest. Those games are hours and hours of decent (or not) combat and long cut scenes. At least when Metal Gear bombards me with long cutscenes they have all the flare and madness of Quintin Tarantino
*Made worse so by the god child, literally in a machine, who renders all of them utterly meaningless but we're not here to discuss ME3 failures But then we're just getting into the metaphysical mind feth of what choices we make are ever meaningful in the grand scheme of things
Eh. To each their own again. I personally think a game where you can see the personality of the character through their actions and being able to basically interact with the story. But I like the idea of the point a to point c approach. Where everything you do between those points is up to you.
It just doesn't effect the ending, there may be subtle differences but it is still the same ending. I.E. Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, adventure games in general.
See Link is an interesting example, because Link never says anything. He has the emotional range of a bad Shakespearian actor (the only expressions he ever has are 'joy' 'shock' and 'anger'). It's unique as an approach, because it leaves the player to pretty much fill in the blanks of Link's character (hence why his name is so apt). Link isn't a fixed character. He's hardly a character at all. He's a player avatar, there to stand in for the player as they go through the adventure and experience it themselves.
I've always felt that key to why Zelda as a series has had such stay power (rose tinted glasses alone can't really explain it's constant unending success). Most of Nintendo's characters are like that. Mario, Link, Samus. Probably the classic character with the most personality on their end is Fox, and Samus that one time in the game that shall not be named.
LordofHats wrote: See Link is an interesting example, because Link never says anything. He has the emotional range of a bad Shakespearian actor (the only expressions he ever has are 'joy' 'shock' and 'anger'). It's unique as an approach, because it leaves the player to pretty much fill in the blanks of Link's character (hence why his name is so apt). Link isn't a fixed character. He's hardly a character at all. He's a player avatar, there to stand in for the player as they go through the adventure and experience it themselves.
I've always felt that key to why Zelda as a series has had such stay power (rose tinted glasses alone can't really explain it's constant unending success). Most of Nintendo's characters are like that. Mario, Link, Samus. Probably the classic character with the most personality on their end is Fox, and Samus that one time in the game that shall not be named.
I would disagree completely.
Just because they are silent does not mean they are not a fixed character.
Samus actually has a personality she is curious. She only uses her body language. You can have an entire story without dialogue.
Asherian Command wrote: Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set.
"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black" was one of the reasons why Ford lost market share to other companies.
Asherian Command wrote: Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set.
"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black" was one of the reasons why Ford lost market share to other companies.
What? You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.
Is that wrong to do?
No. You all keep pushing for more customization.
It matters on the game itself. What is its message?
What is the point of the game.
If the game is skyrim esque then yes.
But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.
I mean human beings don't have to talk.
A silent protagonist done right can be a great character.
The first rule of characters is that if they can be summed up in a few sentences with vague words like curious, they're not very deep. Yes, you can tell a story with no dialogue, but you're either telling a very simple story, or you're telling one where the protagonist is ultimately irrelevant. They're just a stand in to invite the player to react to what that character is seeing. Any personality or traits, you associate with Samus in earlier games, is ultimate something we as players read into her using a very limited and vague set of ques.
Really the issue in Other M, has nothing to do with Samus having a pre-established character so much as in Other M, her character sucks. Did you even watch that video? There are only vague and limited things that are shown to us about Samus (like Link's limited emotional displays), but they're vague. Being just a few steps above a blank state isn't the same thing as having a well defined character. They're ques hinting at a personality not personality itself. That's what I'm saying. Those ques are there to invite us to define the character ourselves on our own terms, not the terms the developer strictly defined.
Also lol at anime Link XD It's like someone never played the games but watched lots of 80's TV and assumed it would just work out
Asherian Command wrote: You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.
So I can't install air conditioning? What about power doors? Etc etc etc.
You keep talking about it as if writers are ultimately the only thing that matters. They aren't. Games are more than just writing. Games are more than just the visual scenes that get put through. Ultimately, what defines a game is what the player can do.
Asherian Command wrote: But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.
You can still have character customization and create a character that can be put through this story. And more than likely, the players will do it better than any writer would.
The first rule of characters is that if they can be summed up in a few sentences with vague words like curious, they're not very deep. Yes, you can tell a story with no dialogue, but you're either telling a very simple story, or you're telling one where the protagonist is ultimately irrelevant. They're just a stand in to invite the player to react to what that character is seeing. Any personality or traits, you associate with Samus in earlier games, is ultimate something we as players read into her using a very limited and vague set of ques.
Really the issue in Other M, has nothing to do with Samus having a pre-established character so much as in Other M, her character sucks. Did you even watch that video? There are only vague and limited things that are shown to us about Samus (like Link's limited emotional displays), but they're vague. Being just a few steps above a blank state isn't the same thing as having a well defined character. They're ques hinting at a personality not personality itself. That's what I'm saying. Those ques are there to invite us to define the character ourselves on our own terms, not the terms the developer strictly defined.
Also lol at anime Link XD It's like someone never played the games but watched lots of 80's TV and assumed it would just work out
But that is still a fixed character. That is a character. That is a character that you put your feelings onto. And is not a blank slate.
Samus Aran has never been a blank slate and she still has a personality even though we see limited things about her.
Asherian Command wrote: You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.
So I can't install air conditioning? What about power doors?
Is that wrong to do?
Yes.
Asherian Command wrote: But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.
You can still have character customization and create a character that can be put through this story. And more than likely, the players will do it better than any writer would.
I could agree with that. But I don't think we should give them a lot of choices. Big plot points should happen regardless of the player's interaction, but I draw the line at being able to name your character and have them act like the player. They may be influenced but they should not act like the player.
We're not talking about books. We're talking about games. Writers make gakky games. So do movie directors. The skillset needed for writing and directing is not sufficient for making a good game.
We're not talking about books. We're talking about games. Writers make gakky games. So do movie directors. The skillset needed for writing and directing is not sufficient for making a good game.
I disagree. Samus was never a blank slate character.
Blank slate is fill in personality and character here.
I think that you just insulted me when you called me not a game designer when I am in-fact a game designer. I just think certain ways are better than others. Its an ideology.
I think certain paths work.
I think mechanics as metaphor a great way to get a point across.
I am a writer and a game designer. I work with all the people involved and get a product out. Even with my limited experience in it.
I think a great story comes after the mechanics and everything has been completed and then we create the story afterwards.
The Process of making a game is very much different from the way hollywood or books do it.
The story comes last. Dialogue is written during this time as well. We have two months to complete it. And thats not a very long time.
So what happens usually is that in the beginning we start with a vision, once all the programming is done and so is the artwork and character modelling then we use that world and make a story.
A character who barely exists beyond a name and appearance is not a blank slate, but they're not filled with personality either. A character that is purposely designed to be filled by the player can't really be described accurately as having a fixed character. The character is fluid, and will be interpreted differently between players. Naturally, humans talk about these things, so specific threads come up to dominate that perception, but it's still just a perception of the character. The video you linked pretty much states this outright.
There is a lot of wiggle room between "blank slate" and "fixed." It's not one or the other, there's a whole field of in between. Really very few characters are complete blank slates, honestly I doubt that would work as a player needs some kind of que from a character to make them think that character is a person. If Link never reacted to anything, it would just get kind of creepy and not very inviting
Really how characters are handled comes down to exactly what the developer is trying to do (and namely how they're spending their budget, cause money ain't forever). Bioware likes taking the almost exact middle ground, making characters that can be defined by the player but also are very fixed in many ways. Nintendo often falls back on its player avatars with their subtle reactions. Square tends to pull out all stops, going fully into creating a character and handing them to the player and saying "have fun." Halo just puts a guy in armor and write him a bunch of one liners.
A character who barely exists beyond a name and appearance is not a blank slate, but they're not filled with personality either. A character that is purposely designed to be filled by the player can't really be described accurately as having a fixed character. The character is fluid, and will be interpreted differently between players. Naturally, humans talk about these things, so specific threads come up to dominate that perception, but it's still just a perception of the character. The video you linked pretty much states this outright.
There is a lot of wiggle room between "blank slate" and "fixed." It's not one or the other, there's a whole field of in between. Really very few characters are complete blank slates, honestly I doubt that would work as a player needs some kind of que from a character to make them think that character is a person. If Link never reacted to anything, it would just get kind of creepy and not very inviting
Really how characters are handled comes down to exactly what the developer is trying to do (and namely how they're spending their budget, cause money ain't forever). Bioware likes taking the almost exact middle ground, making characters that can be defined by the player but also are very fixed in many ways. Nintendo often falls back on its player avatars with their subtle reactions. Square tends to pull out all stops, going fully into creating a character and handing them to the player and saying "have fun." Halo just puts a guy in armor and write him a bunch of one liners.
It's not this;
It's this;
I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.
That I think is stupid. The middle ground is usually the best way to go. Not going full out and say design your own character! Like the game Home. Which is very much I have no idea, and the story and narrative are determined by the players actions.
Centrism for centrism's sake is not wisdom and should never be confused as such.
Okay enough will your bull.
I take a broader stance than you. You are specific you want this to be this.
But lets look at it again. Those choices are illusions, you do not choose the character, you are merely playing the story as the designers created. How you do that is up to you, but those choices happen either way. You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.
There is a big difference.
She is not a classic example of the blank slate.
A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.
In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.
But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.
For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.
Asherian Command wrote: I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.
That's not necessarily what she's getting at. It's honestly kind of surprising how few games with strong story actually take the Bioware approach. They're growing, but especially in RPG's, I feel the Bioware approach is superior to the others. More fixed definition characters better serve their roll in action games, or games where the role you play is secondary to some other interaction. In RPG's, the 'role' is the game and the genre is best served by allowing as much freedom in that roll as can be managed.
She was very much in the middle ground, but not a true blank slate.
She's most definitely not middle ground. Up until Metroid Fusion, she was about as close to tabula rasa as you can get without actually being tabula rasa. There were only a few things to hint at her underlying character, namely her badassness, showing mercy to the baby Metroid, and some subtle characterizations in Fusion that hinted she actually has a life outside her armor, but nothing really all that well defined (most people really define her in the terms of the mid 90's Metroid Manga, not really using anything from the games). Other M... I think we're all best served just pretending that didn't happen.
Really, characters like Samus and Link are best served in the kind of games they're in. Adventure games. The focus on such games is the adventure, and having a sweeping deep emotional story just kind of gets in the way of that (not that it can't be done, but at that point you're edging more into the territory of what I'd call an action game, where the focus of the game is on the actions of the character, Uncharted being a great example).
But then I've always felt the action game is kind of to video games as the taco is to Mexican food. We all love tacos, but they're kind of lazy.
Asherian Command wrote: I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.
That's not necessarily what she's getting at. It's honestly kind of surprising how few games with strong story actually take the Bioware approach. They're growing, but especially in RPG's, I feel the Bioware approach is superior to the others. More fixed definition characters better serve their roll in action games, or games where the role you play is secondary to some other interaction. In RPG's, the 'role' is the game and the genre is best served by allowing as much freedom in that roll as can be managed.
She was very much in the middle ground, but not a true blank slate.
She's most definitely not middle ground. Up until Metroid Fusion, she was about as close to tabula rasa as you can get without actually being tabula rasa. There were only a few things to hint at her underlying character, namely her badassness, showing mercy to the baby Metroid, and some subtle characterizations in Fusion that hinted she actually has a life outside her armor, but nothing really all that well defined (most people really define her in the terms of the mid 90's Metroid Manga, not really using anything from the games). Other M... I think we're all best served just pretending that didn't happen.
Really, characters like Samus and Link are best served in the kind of games they're in. Adventure games. The focus on such games is the adventure, and having a sweeping deep emotional story just kind of gets in the way of that (not that it can't be done, but at that point you're edging more into the territory of what I'd call an action game, where the focus of the game is on the actions of the character, Uncharted being a great example).
' Yes finally some agreeance with people -.-
But on a correction ORPGs work better with blank slates.
Games like Mass Effect are better as a middle ground character. That I agree with.
But there are times when a fixed character is superior to both these types.
Such as in horror games, or message games or games that tell a story and has a deep underlying message.
But then I've always felt the action game is kind of to video games as the taco is to Mexican food. We all love tacos, but they're kind of lazy.
Please note that doesn't mean it is lazy. There could be hard work in that.
For example This is a game with fixed characters but allows multiple choices. Or the illusion of choices in the game. The User in this game is you but the dialogue is fixed and gives this illusion you are in control. http://die.clay.io/
The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all. A game designer that tells the player "feth you, you don't get to choose anything" is a gakky game designer who should be fired and blacklisted from the industry for trying to make a movie instead of a game.
Asherian Command wrote: You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.
False.
There is a big difference between the way I play Samus Aran and the way the next person does.
She is the most commonly used example of the temrm.
Asherian Command wrote: A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.
All of the arguments you made can be applied to Skyrim.
Let me demonstrate:
You don't choose the character-- you're always a convict about to be executed who has the secret power of shouting really loud, and you're merely playing their story as the designers created. You're playing the dovahkiin. How you go about playing the story is up to you, but that story happens either way. You are the variant that is needed, but you do not make the dovahkiin a character-- they're always the dovahkiin. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.
This would be just one of more than a dozen times you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread.
Asherian Command wrote: A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.
In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.
But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.
For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.
Isn't Skyrim not a true blank slate either due to being shoehorned in as the dragonborn? Wouldn't it sort of be more like a hybrid between a blank slate and established character type due to the way the main story is structured. A better example would probably be Morrowind where you're less shoved into the story line. Meaning to streamline they're sort of shifting more and more towards the established type?
Asherian Command wrote: A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.
In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.
But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.
For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.
Isn't Skyrim not a true blank slate either due to being shoehorned in as the dragonborn? Wouldn't it sort of be more like a hybrid between a blank slate and established character type due to the way the main story is structured. A better example would probably be Morrowind where you're less shoved into the story line. Meaning to streamline they're sort of shifting more and more towards the established type?
I think it is less a hybrid, because yes you still have to kill the main enemy, but you are still undefinable element you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable, but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.
Well, define hard work. I hear those poor bastards at Acti-Blizz are just suffering making the same game for the tenth year in a row. And those poor Assassin's Creed devs. So hard releasing last years game with a few minor updates every 12 months
I'm not saying no effort goes into it. I'm saying that if I told someone "Make me a game, any game!" and they handed me an action game, I'd look them in the eye and say "I say you can make any game you want and you're giving me another action game? Don't want to try something a little more creative there buddy? I mean, I said any game. Go wild man, take some risks!"
The action game is like the action movie. It's the easiest kind of game to put together and market. It's 'safe', like a taco. No one ever had a bad party by hiring a caterer to bring them a whole gak ton of tacos.
The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all. A game designer that tells the player "feth you, you don't get to choose anything" is a gakky game designer who should be fired and blacklisted from the industry for trying to make a movie instead of a game.
Asherian Command wrote: You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.
False.
There is a big difference between the way I play Samus Aran and the way the next person does.
She is the most commonly used example of the temrm.
Asherian Command wrote: A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.
All of the arguments you made can be applied to Skyrim.
Let me demonstrate:
You don't choose the character-- you're always a convict about to be executed who has the secret power of shouting really loud, and you're merely playing their story as the designers created. You're playing the dovahkiin. How you go about playing the story is up to you, but that story happens either way. You are the variant that is needed, but you do not make the dovahkiin a character-- they're always the dovahkiin. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.
This would be just one of more than a dozen times you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread.
But samus is not a blank slate yet again. We can choose those actions.
Yes the dovahkiin is a character but he is still a blank slate, he/she has no personality, the character can be filled in anyway possible.
Your just grasping at straws that have relevance when they don't.
Limiting the player's choices is not a bad thing. Limiting all choices and all actions the player can take is bad. Getting shoehorned into fighting only in hallways is a bad design decision.
I am saying a character can be any three, but that does not mean a blank slate is superior. A fixed character is superior in many ways and is a tool to be used.
Characters are tools for the designer to use to encourage the player.
I am not giving you a set path but the major events will always remain the same. But the character is still defined by their actions that they take in the game.
Giving this illusion of choice is important but there is also this idea that blank slate characters are superior which completely false. And thats where we disagree. I agree certain times they are superior in terms of ORPGs being the best example.
But Samus Aran I will say is not a blank slate, she is still a character.
Asherian Command wrote: you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable
Just like in Metroid.
Asherian Command wrote: but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.
Nope, Morrowind you still have a predefined character role just as much as in Skyrim and Metroid, so according to your (incorrect) definition of the term, that's not a real blank slate character.
LordofHats wrote: Well, define hard work. I hear those poor bastards at Acti-Blizz are just suffering making the same game for the tenth year in a row. And those poor Assassin's Creed devs. So hard releasing last years game with a few minor updates every 12 months
I'm not saying no effort goes into it. I'm saying that if I told someone "Make me a game, any game!" and they handed me an action game, I'd look them in the eye and say "I say you can make any game you want and you're giving me another action game? Don't want to try something a little more creative there buddy? I mean, I said any game. Go wild man, take some risks!"
The action game is like the action movie. It's the easiest kind of game to put together and market. It's 'safe', like a taco. No one ever had a bad party by hiring a caterer to bring them a whole gak ton of tacos.
Yes but I don't think that happens all the time. I mean look at the game series Warcraft 1-3. The end and beginning results are the same.
And no major decision is effected by you as the player. The characters are fixed. They are customizable to a limited degree.
Asherian Command wrote: you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable
Just like in Metroid.
Asherian Command wrote: but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.
Nope, Morrowind you still have a predefined character role just as much as in Skyrim and Metroid, so according to your (incorrect) definition of the term, that's not a real blank slate character.
Wrong.
Because Samus has acted around other characters. Fusion with other hunters involved she interacts with them. And those actions define her.
And yes like metriod but at the same time no.
Because in the end you can choose who ever you want to be in skyrim, in skyrim you are given more than just a fixed route, its an ORPG, your character can be customized to your liking.
Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.
Skyrim you can go any path you wish, you can join the empire or the stormcloaks, that is a major decision. And that changes bit and pieces.
Really the only characters I can think of in games that are true blank slates are those of an MMORPG and maybe Fallout 3. The player character serves no purpose but to be defined by their player. Outside of that, true blank slates as I said, are probably too bland to entice a player's interest. The Skyrim character will always be the Dragonborn, the Morrowind character the Nerevarine, and the Oblivion character the Champion of Cyrodil (and they're all prisoners... Who are apparently cool with saving an Empire that wanted to imprison them for some reason...). The Fallout 3 guy though as far as I remember is just Fallout 3 guy.
LordofHats wrote: Really the only characters I can think of in games that are true blank slates are those of an MMORPG and maybe Fallout 3. The player character serves no purpose but to be defined by their player. Outside of that, true blank slates as I said, are probably too bland to entice a player's interest. The Skyrim character will always be the Dragonborn, the Morrowind character the Nerevarine, and the Oblivion character the Champion of Cyrodil (and they're all prisoners... Who are apparently cool with saving an Empire that wanted to imprison them for some reason...). The Fallout 3 guy though as far as I remember is just Fallout 3 guy.
That I can agree with,
But I don't think that makes them superior. Blank Slates are in no way superior to any type of character.
No you don't. You're always the dovahkiin. You can't be anything else other than the dovahkiin. Just like in Metroid, you can't be anything else but a bounty hunter.
Asherian Command wrote: Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.
No she won't. You can pick up abilities in a wide variety of orders, and you can make different decisions on how to deal with the situation in front of you just as you can in Skyrim.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Uh? What? Why?
There is a nugget of insight here. Square intend to exploit Lara's gender. (http://kotaku.com/5917400/youll-want-to-protect-the-new-less-curvy-lara-croft) Also I said it once and no one disagreed with me. New lara has very little in the way of interesting. The fact that she is a woman is one of the most inserting facts about her. (Second only to her tendency to die violently.)
No you don't. You're always the dovahkiin. You can't be anything else other than the dovahkiin. Just like in Metroid, you can't be anything else but a bounty hunter.
Asherian Command wrote: Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.
No she won't. You can pick up abilities in a wide variety of orders, and you can make different decisions on how to deal with the situation in front of you just as you can in Skyrim.
Just like in Metroid, where you can explore a lot of places and are not confined to just a single hallway.
Yet again you are grasping at straws. You keep saying nope. Not listening.
Your arguments are flawed beyond a doubt.
There is alot of problems
Metriod Fusion, Echoes all have her interacting with other characters. They don't just tell do this for me. They actually talk to you and she reacts. You can't decide not to do it. Skyrim you can kill them and leave and not do that quest.
Metriod prime you will always face the same bosses at the same point, you will always get that same armor, your armor is not customizable, the character will always make the same decisions because she is the hero, and she does what is right. And she never hurts civilians. She is there to beat up bad guys.
Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions
The underlying question of all characters is not what they do but why they do it. Samus has never given us much indication for her motivations. What little we can tell, she probably really hates Ridely cause he wrecked her parents, but is revenge all there is to her? The Chozo were a peaceful people, who valued knowledge above all else. Why then is their last legacy a human woman decked out in weaponry? Why did they create Samus? Does she know? Is she moving to some higher purpose left to her by her adoptive family?
We don't really know. It's the mystery of Samus that makes her appealing, and that's a mystery that doesn't exist in fixed characters. What she does, in the strictest sense is clear. She kicks butt and takes names, but why? Why is she so often alone, yet seemingly completely willing to help others? We can create all kinds of answers but the games don't really provide them for us so much as leave us bread crumbs to try and piece together.
Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions
The underlying question of all characters is not what they do but why they do it. Samus has never given us much indication for her motivations. What little we can tell, she probably really hates Ridely cause he wrecked her parents, but is revenge all there is to her? The Chozo were a peaceful people, who valued knowledge above all else. Why then is their last legacy a human woman decked out in weaponry? Why did they create Samus? Does she know? Is she moving to some higher purpose left to her by her adoptive family?
We don't really know. It's the mystery of Samus that makes her appealing, and that's a mystery that doesn't exist in fixed characters. What she does, in the strictest sense is clear. She kicks butt and takes names, but why? Why is she so often alone, yet seemingly completely willing to help others? We can create all kinds of answers but the games don't really provide them for us so much as leave us bread crumbs to try and piece together.
Though mystery still doesn't mean it is a fixed character.
A fixed Character can be undefined in their path.
A fixed character still has many things. A characters motivations may be undefined and we may never truly know why they do things, that does mean they are any less of a fixed character or less of a person.
I mean a character can always be mysterious but that does not mean that the character itself is a blank slate because they do not have those defined. Her motivations we can see are for good. Not just because she stumbles upon it.
For someone whining about me supposedly not reading your posts, you're adamantly refusing to read mine.
A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.
nomotog wrote: A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.
Thank god someone picked that up.
The Dovahlikiin has no history apart from being a prisoner.
Games usually get around having a background by having the stupidest cliche of all time.... Amnesia....
Now this works only if done right. (Hint hint Knights of the Old Republic did this perfectly)
Your own lack of clarity, coherence, consistency, and cogency in your posts is not my problem, but yours. I'm not obligated to clarify your posts foryou, or to give your posts more coherence than you give them, or to stop you from contradicting yourself, or to compensate you for your lack of logical cogency.
I indicated I was talking about Metroid. I clarified that I am not talking about later games. I then re-clarified that I am talking specifically about Metroid, the NES game. There is no reason to assume I am or was talking about anything else, and you making those assumptions just means you shouldn't be taken seriously.
Ash, it looks like you have very narrow definition of a blank slate, one that I'm not sure is really applicable for most games.
Some people like narrative games where they follow along for the story. I loved FF6. But there has been more and more push for sandbox games. Where the player's actions drive the story. Like Minecraft.
Developers can create narrative games. It's good. They can be great. But some people are annoyed when most are from the same pov. Which this thread is about. While I don't agree that being able to create an unique character is always better than being assigned one (and everyone can we avoid all these absolutes? It makes discussion contentious. ) it definitely can avoid the constant issue of being stuck in the "default pov". It gives the player choice (while it might not affect game mechanics, it does affect aesthetic) which IMHO is a good thing.
nomotog wrote: A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.
Thank god someone picked that up.
The Dovahlikiin has no history apart from being a prisoner.
Games usually get around having a background by having the stupidest cliche of all time.... Amnesia....
Now this works only if done right. (Hint hint Knights of the Old Republic did this perfectly)
I don't know if I would call Dovahlikiin a blank slate. That is normally reserved for characters who don't get defined. Well Dovahlikiin is defined by the player's choice. They are more a customizable character not a blank slate.
Your own lack of clarity, coherence, consistency, and cogency in your posts is not my problem, but yours. I'm not obligated to clarify your posts foryou, or to give your posts more coherence than you give them, or to stop you from contradicting yourself, or to compensate you for your lack of logical cogency.
I indicated I was talking about Metroid. I clarified that I am not talking about later games. I then re-clarified that I am talking specifically about Metroid, the NES game. There is no reason to assume I am or was talking about anything else, and you making those assumptions just means you shouldn't be taken seriously.
If you only talk about the very early metroid games, then samuse is mostly a blankly blank blank slate. The thing about a blank slate is that they always build up characterization as they roll along. A character that starts as a blank slate might get expanded on latter. Like for example the characters in borderlands. (One even turned out to be transexual. Kind of.)
AdeptSister wrote: Ash, it looks like you have very narrow definition of a blank slate, one that I'm not sure is really applicable for most games.
Some people like narrative games where they follow along for the story. I loved FF6. But there has been more and more push for sandbox games. Where the player's actions drive the story. Like Minecraft.
Developers can create narrative games. It's good. They can be great. But some people are annoyed when most are from the same pov. Which this thread is about. While I don't agree that being able to create an unique character is always better than being assigned one (and everyone can we avoid all these absolutes? It makes discussion contentious. ) it definitely can avoid the constant issue of being stuck in the "default pov". It gives the player choice (while it might not affect game mechanics, it does affect aesthetic) which IMHO is a good thing.
I think its the only/one of the few definitions I am very narrow on.
I personally see the sandbox games taking over. And slowly becoming the dominant things in games. (Which it kind of is becoming, how sad that is actually.)
Melissia wrote: According to your definition, your example of Skyrim is not a blank slate.
The character has no background history, no personality, and changes each and everytime someone plays that character.
The player determines all actions.
Samus Aran is not an example of this because of her background history, and personality. And her personality and ways of going about things do not change.
But with such a narrow definition of blank slate, who in gaming qualifies as one? What did one know of Mario by just playing SMB? Or Samus and just the original Metroid? Mega Man? Further characterization came from outside those original games. I would classify these example (in the original games) as blank slates.
So... would you guys consider the Nameless One to be a blank slate? I would say almost by definition he may be the only character that truly is.
NO I wouldn't consider the nameless one to be a true blank slate, he is somewhere in between blank slate and middle ground.
AdeptSister wrote: But with such a narrow definition of blank slate, who in gaming qualifies as one? What did one know of Mario by just playing SMB? Or Samus and just the original Metroid? Mega Man? Further characterization came from outside those original games. I would classify these example (in the original games) as blank slates.
In the original game Yes I agree with that but overtime they are expanded into something bigger
I feel like we have at least two different definitions of what a 'blank slate' is here.
Yes we do.
I define my world around me to better fit me. I do not like standard definitions, unless for arguments sake. In this case blank slate means no background and no history, and the characters determines everything.
In terms of gameplay and mechanics thats what it means in gaming.
For books and reading it means something else.
See the problem is that you can't use universal definitions it doesn't work and can't fit everything.
I mean I can't call Dear Esther a game, I don't even think it should be consider it, and its not an insult or a problem, I would call it an virtual interactive experience. Because there are many things that make dear esther a true game. And thats not a bad thing.
Having a blank character is not bad. And it never has been, But I don't like it being the standard for game characters currently.
This all started out because I think there should strong female characters in games. And not a choose your own character path.
For games to move anywhere in this representation of women they have to have more strong able women in main character roles in action games and across the board. They shouldn't be the default but neither should the white guy be the default. We need to mix it up a little and have a variety in games.
And then the experience will grow as a whole. And games will become better because of that.
Melissia wrote: According to your definition, your example of Skyrim is not a blank slate.
The character has no background history, no personality, and changes each and everytime someone plays that character.
The player determines all actions.
Samus Aran is not an example of this because of her background history, and personality. And her personality and ways of going about things do not change.
I feel like we have at least two different definitions of what a 'blank slate' is here.
So... would you guys consider the Nameless One to be a blank slate? I would say almost by definition he may be the only character that truly is.
Not by the end of the game.
No? I mean doesn't the nameless one have a long reaching past before you play them? Also by the end of the game they end up well defined based on your choices.
So... would you guys consider the Nameless One to be a blank slate? I would say almost by definition he may be the only character that truly is.
From Planescape Torment?
Well I guess at the beginning of the game he is. But then as you go through and find characters who knew you from previous lives and discover what effects you had previously had on the worlds around you, you discover that there's another thousand layers underneath the slate you're currently writing on.
He's certainly no more a blank slate character than Metroid. Hell, in the first Metroid, you knew less about Samus Aran than you know about The Nameless One in Planescape: Torment, considering both at the start of the game.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is the PC from Nethack a blanck state? Also why are we keeping this off-topic discussion so heated ?
Because this a tangent from when I said the female character should be fixed to have a more expounded effect on gaming. And I think that would be the best interest.
Others say a blank slate would be better, but I disagree. I do not want it to be an option. I want it to be mandatory in some games that you have to play as the girl.
And it goes beyond being just htis decision the player makes. If we are going to have customizable genders it should affect your game. And it should recognize it other than changing pronouns.
Personally, I think having “blank state character” which have their gender customizable and having characters with set genders that are split equally between male and female is the way to go. Is that not right to someone?
Pretty much all of you hit upon the point though. Are you still a blank slate even if you seemed to be a blank slate at the beginning, but went through experiences even as of beginning the game?
Even if you argue that ANY character, hell, let's talk about Minecraft Guy. Minecraft Guy simply cannot have a backstory prior to you starting the game. You wake up somewhere on a world, and then you start breaking things to make tools. You're now Minecraft Guy, Toolmaker and Builder. Do your (the players) actions inside the game define you (the avatar), thus invalidating the condition of a blank slate, or, as an utter puppet with no persona beyond being victim to heteronomous force inflicted upon him by the player, are you (the avatar) always a tabula rasa regardless?
Basically this is a tangent based off of Asherian's view that women should always justify their existence whereas he never requires the same justification from men.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I think having “blank state character” which have their gender customizable and having characters with set genders that are split equally between male and female is the way to go. Is that not right to someone?
But that doesn't change any representation of the female character.
You still need an equal representation yes, but the thing is that most people will still play as a male character.
The box art will show a male character. Not the female character.
That doesn't work at all it will not change the games industry.
If you have a strong female character as the playable character you change the industry. We need a well developed character that is not customizable, someone like duke nukuem but in female form or someone like the call of duty games except its with a woman as the main playable character. DONE RIGHT.
Melissia wrote: Basically this is a tangent based off of Asherian's view that women should always justify their existence whereas he never requires the same justification from men.
-.-
Comments like these are why I do not read your comments fully.
I think there should be a justification that the character and gender exists. It needs to have more meaning than being able to pick your gender. And say yeah I am female, and that doesn't do anything to change the game.
People should react differently, because of different societal pressures affect people differently.
They should have confounded disagreements. If I am a female and I hear someone cat calling me, you beat I want to kick his ass. But I want that to happen, I want them to address that. Not just theres the hero, (Fill in gender pronoun here) is a great person!
Shouldn't there be more of an effect of being female in the game other than just a change of pronouns?!?!?
Melissia wrote: He's certainly no more a blank slate character than Metroid. Hell, in the first Metroid, you knew less about Samus Aran than you know about The Nameless One in Planescape: Torment, considering both at the start of the game.
But that's the interesting part about TNO. He doesn't know he's not a blank slate, so from the main character's point of view, he is. He doesn't remember anything about his past, and he still doesn't know anything about himself until after you at least get Morte to read the note on his back.
Contrast with Metroid/Skyrim/Whatever, where presumably there were events that occurred in the person's life to get them to that point and shape them, and they're aware of them, but you aren't.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I think having “blank state character” which have their gender customizable and having characters with set genders that are split equally between male and female is the way to go. Is that not right to someone?
But that doesn't change any representation of the female character.
You still need an equal representation yes, but the thing is that most people will still play as a male character.
The box art will show a male character. Not the female character.
That doesn't work at all it will not change the games industry.
If you have a strong female character as the playable character you change the industry. We need a well developed character that is not customizable, someone like duke nukuem but in female form or someone like the call of duty games except its with a woman as the main playable character. DONE RIGHT.
Have a reversible front cover like Mass Effect 3. So people who wanted Femshep on the cover could have her and those who wanted Maleshep could have him. Front cover problem solved.
Not necessarily. You can do dual box. You can show both. You can show only the female version.
I mean, I am pretty sure that what I described would make me, and Melissia, and about anyone happy. So, you may feel it will not change the industry, but it will definitely fulfill the goal we are aiming for.
Not necessarily. You can do dual box. You can show both. You can show only the female version.
I mean, I am pretty sure that what I described would make me, and Melissia, and about anyone happy. So, you may feel it will not change the industry, but it will definitely fulfill the goal we are aiming for.
Problem with that. Where would the female be placed on the front or on the back.
I want it on the front and the male on the back.
Ohhh radicallllll
There should be more reactions to it than just you playing as a chick, characters should react different to you being female. Other than you being able to bang men or turn lesibain.
Have a reversible front cover like Mass Effect 3. So people who wanted Femshep on the cover could have her and those who wanted Maleshep could have him. Front cover problem solved.
That won't change anything. People would only be confused by that fact the official box art should be showing a woman.
The cinematic of the game should show a woman not a guy.
That is the problem with the industry.
They are more willing to show a man than a woman on the front page.
They usually hide that fact.
If you want more representation start showing more women in male roles in cinematics.
daedalus wrote: Pretty much all of you hit upon the point though. Are you still a blank slate even if you seemed to be a blank slate at the beginning, but went through experiences even as of beginning the game?
Even if you argue that ANY character, hell, let's talk about Minecraft Guy. Minecraft Guy simply cannot have a backstory prior to you starting the game. You wake up somewhere on a world, and then you start breaking things to make tools. You're now Minecraft Guy, Toolmaker and Builder. Do your (the players) actions inside the game define you (the avatar), thus invalidating the condition of a blank slate, or, as an utter puppet with no persona beyond being victim to heteronomous force inflicted upon him by the player, are you (the avatar) always a tabula rasa regardless?
We use blank slat to talk about when the dev leaves the character undefined. One of the rules of RP no player character can avoid character development. It's guaranteed. Like death, taxes or a new CoD game. The player will always characterize the character they play.
daedalus wrote: Pretty much all of you hit upon the point though. Are you still a blank slate even if you seemed to be a blank slate at the beginning, but went through experiences even as of beginning the game?
Even if you argue that ANY character, hell, let's talk about Minecraft Guy. Minecraft Guy simply cannot have a backstory prior to you starting the game. You wake up somewhere on a world, and then you start breaking things to make tools. You're now Minecraft Guy, Toolmaker and Builder. Do your (the players) actions inside the game define you (the avatar), thus invalidating the condition of a blank slate, or, as an utter puppet with no persona beyond being victim to heteronomous force inflicted upon him by the player, are you (the avatar) always a tabula rasa regardless?
We use blank slat to talk about when the dev leaves the character undefined. One of the rules of RP no player character can avoid character development. It's guaranteed. Like death, taxes or a new CoD game. The player will always characterize the character they play.
The character starts as a blank slate. a Character is one that does not require the player. They will always be a character even without the player. The player does not make the character, the character makes the character
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I think having “blank state character” which have their gender customizable and having characters with set genders that are split equally between male and female is the way to go. Is that not right to someone?
But that doesn't change any representation of the female character.
You still need an equal representation yes, but the thing is that most people will still play as a male character.
The box art will show a male character. Not the female character.
That doesn't work at all it will not change the games industry.
If you have a strong female character as the playable character you change the industry. We need a well developed character that is not customizable, someone like duke nukuem but in female form or someone like the call of duty games except its with a woman as the main playable character. DONE RIGHT.
Have a reversible front cover like Mass Effect 3. So people who wanted Femshep on the cover could have her and those who wanted Maleshep could have him. Front cover problem solved.
Oh fun story here. When I went to gamestop to pick up mass effect. Every cover was femshep. I know they come with maleshep on the outside, so I guess someone went through and flipped them all.
Or just use cutscene using the game engine that use your actual character. Or have the cinematic be first person view. Or any of the dozens of other possible solutions .
Or just use cutscene using the game engine that use your actual character. Or have the cinematic be first person view. Or any of the dozens of other possible solutions .
You can't show the actual character, most cutscenes are pre-rendered. You can't do that sadly, if you want a cinematic like blizzards or in a similar vein you can't put random character x into it.
You can do an ingame cinematic but then again those run into problems
first person view does not work in cinematic world. You can hide the characters face but yet again that is hard to do and inconvenient
And yes you can have the two on the front of the box art. AS Long as both are neutral poses..
Asherian Command wrote: You can't show the actual character, most cutscenes are pre-rendered. You can't do that sadly, if you want a cinematic like blizzards or in a similar vein you can't put random character x into it.
Blizzard is actually a good example of using both pre-rendered cinematics and in-game cutscene using the game engine.
Well, depends. Sometime it can work. Sometime you can use some other device to not show the character. Sometime there will not even be a cinematic to begin with.
I think it is fairly possible to have both games with blank state customizable characters where you decide the gender and games with fixed-gender characters.
I think there should be a justification that the character and gender exists. It needs to have more meaning than being able to pick your gender. And say yeah I am female, and that doesn't do anything to change the game.
People should react differently, because of different societal pressures affect people differently.
They should have confounded disagreements. If I am a female and I hear someone cat calling me, you beat I want to kick his ass. But I want that to happen, I want them to address that. Not just theres the hero, (Fill in gender pronoun here) is a great person!
Shouldn't there be more of an effect of being female in the game other than just a change of pronouns?!?!?
This is a very strong point. I regularly have to create worlds (part of being the main DM in my RPG group) and one of the setting details I have to decide on are power imbalances between races and gender. Believable characters mean that they have to react to societial pressures. A properly constructed gameworld should address the males/females in the PC group just as much as the orcs/elves in the PC group.
This of course... can be very poorly done if not fully thought out.
I think there should be a justification that the character and gender exists. It needs to have more meaning than being able to pick your gender. And say yeah I am female, and that doesn't do anything to change the game.
People should react differently, because of different societal pressures affect people differently.
They should have confounded disagreements. If I am a female and I hear someone cat calling me, you beat I want to kick his ass. But I want that to happen, I want them to address that. Not just theres the hero, (Fill in gender pronoun here) is a great person!
Shouldn't there be more of an effect of being female in the game other than just a change of pronouns?!?!?
This is a very strong point. I regularly have to create worlds (part of being the main DM in my RPG group) and one of the setting details I have to decide on are power imbalances between races and gender. Believable characters mean that they have to react to societial pressures. A properly constructed gameworld should address the males/females in the PC group just as much as the orcs/elves in the PC group.
This of course... can be very poorly done if not fully thought out.
I made his same argument at some point as well, but I'm going to reverse a little and say that "it depends". If you want something rooted somewhat in the real world, then yes, and you should probably strive for some strain of believability. If you're going for dark and gritty, yeah, oppression could exist in the forms of many -isms, not that everyone would need to subscribe to such things, and there should be a least a few people fiercely opposed to it.
Otherwise, for a fantastical enough world, I don't think it would be hard to attain some sort of otherworld things where the genders ARE truly equal, or even some sort of matriarchy at work.
Asherian Command wrote: And say yeah I am female, and that doesn't do anything to change the game.
If it doesn't change anything, why do you object so hard as to spend thirty pages rambling on about how much you don't want any game to have it?
Apparently, to you, it DOES change something, and it changes so much that you are willing to fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, because you're still saying "it doesn't matter" and using that as an excuse to exclude women.
And yes, that's what you're doing-- making excuses to exclude women. For this entire thread. "WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE, IT DOESN'T MATTER!" If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have objected to the proposed change to begin with.
I think there should be a justification that the character and gender exists. It needs to have more meaning than being able to pick your gender. And say yeah I am female, and that doesn't do anything to change the game.
People should react differently, because of different societal pressures affect people differently.
They should have confounded disagreements. If I am a female and I hear someone cat calling me, you beat I want to kick his ass. But I want that to happen, I want them to address that. Not just theres the hero, (Fill in gender pronoun here) is a great person!
Shouldn't there be more of an effect of being female in the game other than just a change of pronouns?!?!?
This is a very strong point. I regularly have to create worlds (part of being the main DM in my RPG group) and one of the setting details I have to decide on are power imbalances between races and gender. Believable characters mean that they have to react to societial pressures. A properly constructed gameworld should address the males/females in the PC group just as much as the orcs/elves in the PC group.
This of course... can be very poorly done if not fully thought out.
I made his same argument at some point as well, but I'm going to reverse a little and say that "it depends". If you want something rooted somewhat in the real world, then yes, and you should probably strive for some strain of believability. If you're going for dark and gritty, yeah, oppression could exist in the forms of many -isms, not that everyone would need to subscribe to such things, and there should be a least a few people fiercely opposed to it.
Otherwise, for a fantastical enough world, I don't think it would be hard to attain some sort of otherworld things where the genders ARE truly equal, or even some sort of matriarchy at work.
Except that doesn't happen. No matter what we do, people will not have that egilitarian view, so in order to mirror real life experiences I think for the best interest of gaming they should bring that up. There should be some characters that share different views. Where some people cat call, because not everyone is perfect.
It should raise that question it is a very subtle but big change that should be implemented.
Meanwhile people like Melissia are calling me Misgoynist because I exclude females from games unless they have an effect in the game world. I want games to address the problems that females have, I think we should do more than just add the feature to be male or female.
That is just step 1 of many steps that should be taken. Just leaving it at that is just short sighted and doesn't help with representation. If woman want representation then we need to accurately represent them not as just puppets.
This whole idea of me saying its not enough just to add only a gender option is very dull and ill thought out. It doesn't help the issue.
It makes it worse.
We need equal representation.
If it doesn't change anything, why do you object so hard as to spend thirty pages rambling on about how much you don't want any game to have it?
Apparently, to you, it DOES change something, and it changes so much that you are willing to fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, because you're still saying "it doesn't matter" and using that as an excuse to exclude women.
And yes, that's what you're doing-- making excuses to exclude women. For this entire thread. "WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE, IT DOESN'T MATTER!" If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have objected to the proposed change to begin with.
You know what.
I am done trying to debate this topic. If you refuse to see my logic then so be it. Because I do not have to deal with someone who thinks the world should bow down before her thoughts.
I am sorry but this is just insulting to say.
Think before you act is a phrase that should be repeated constantly.
Woman in games are ill-represented, and I have said that many times, my stance is that if a woman in a game is added and it adds nothing productive in the game world, you may as well put a fething puppet with lipstick on there and you would get the same result.
That is a huge problem. We need to change that other than saying that you can be female?
So what? So what I can be female? What does that add to the game? If I am a woman do you really think a brawny man is going to treat my like a male guy? No not exactly. If at all they won't treat me the same.
Take for example Garrus and FemSherpherd, he hits on you. Constantly. The other woman are indifferent towards you.
I think that accurately represents parts of our culture. The societal pressures we place on woman are different than that of a man. Not addressing this is a complete over sight in games. Just being able to change your gender either they be male or female should raise up the societal pressure. A man will be talked down to by a woman for trying to hit on her.
So your a male character and you try to get this one female character to like you. I think they should just reject you, especially if they are the first person you talk to. It should mimic real life. That is the goal of designer and animation is to ensure that it feels almost real but at the same time it is not real, and you know it to be. But you are so absorbed you cannot tell.
They need to implement so that societal pressures are openly talked about maturely.
I think the biggest misrepresentation in gaming, is how woman are treated. They are treated like everyone else. I find that false. There should be notable differences between genders. Because it happens, some characters might treat you the same, like the big characters should treat you as equals, but some random dude is not going to treat the same.
This would add life to the world you have created for the player this would give it depth that would of been completely unseen before in game.
You're asking women to justify our existence in games, while never ONCE demanding men justify their existence. That I'm willing to call you out on your misogynistic double standard doesn't mean I can't see your logic. I see your logic, and I think it's CRAP.
Let me turn your "logic" around on you: So what if I can be a guy? What does that add to the game? Nothing . Therefor, there's no reason for the character to be male.
Take Final Fantasy 7. There is no benefit to Final Fantasy 7 that Cloud Strife is male rather than female. There is nothing that the game can do in FF7 with a male Cloud that could not be done with a female Cloud. It doesn't discuss "men's issues" or anything male-specific for Cloud's character There's nothing that him being male adds to the game. So using your logic, he shouldn't be male.
If you're tired of your double standard being called out, you should own up to it stop pushing the fething double standard.
You're asking women to justify our existence in games, while never ONCE demanding men justify their existence. That I'm willing to call you out on your misogynistic double standard doesn't mean I can't see your logic. I see your logic, and I think it's CRAP.
Let me turn your "logic" around on you: So what if I can be a guy? What does that add to the game? Nothing . Therefor, there's no reason for the character to be male.
Take Final Fantasy 7. There is no benefit to Final Fantasy 7 that Cloud Strife is male rather than female. There is nothing that the game can do in FF7 with a male Cloud that could not be done with a female Cloud. It doesn't discuss "men's issues" or anything male-specific for Cloud's character There's nothing that him being male adds to the game. So using your logic, he shouldn't be male.
Probably because I think Men are automatically in because the Designers are usually male and they usually throw in a male because thats who they can identify as.
I am saying they should go the extra mile.
They can simply share a narrative through mechanics.
IF you fail to see that logic I say that is your own fault.
I made his same argument at some point as well, but I'm going to reverse a little and say that "it depends". If you want something rooted somewhat in the real world, then yes, and you should probably strive for some strain of believability. If you're going for dark and gritty, yeah, oppression could exist in the forms of many -isms, not that everyone would need to subscribe to such things, and there should be a least a few people fiercely opposed to it.
Otherwise, for a fantastical enough world, I don't think it would be hard to attain some sort of otherworld things where the genders ARE truly equal, or even some sort of matriarchy at work.
By simply having characters that oppose the status quo set by the universe is actually addressing the issue the world-builder is setting forward. If females are being oppressed in a setting, then having a group that fiercely opposes it would be addressing the gender issue (on top of creating drama, a relatable struggle, and a hook for the players if they choose to be a part of it)
Even in a fantastical world, I'd argue that players (and DM's) are still colored by our human experiences in the real world. IMO, a good world-builder will be able to take their player's experiences and personalities and create a frame for an outrageous world. Alice in Wonderland, for example, was considered pretty wacky, which is the point. We're so used to trying to create logical reasons for certain things existing or acting a particular way, and Wonderland opposes those thought processes.
I'm not saying that a fantastical world can't be done well, I just believe that the distinction between a well constructed setting, and a VERY well constructed setting, is being able blend and address our own human experiences into the setting / narrative.
If you refuse to see how assuming women should have to justify our existence while men should not is a massive double standard, frankly, you're too blind to your own misogyny to have anything resembling logic to begin with.
You said it yourself-- you assume male is default, and you have no objections to that. You've never raised an objection, in fact, you enforce it by saying women should only exist if we can justify our existence.
Asherian Command wrote: So what? So what I can be female? What does that add to the game? If I am a woman do you really think a brawny man is going to treat my like a male guy? No not exactly. If at all they won't treat me the same.
If your game involves just running around killing tons of demons/aliens, like in
Spoiler:
or in
Spoiler:
or in
Spoiler:
or in
Spoiler:
or in tons of other games, how does it matter?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Probably because I think Men are automatically in because the Designers are usually male and they usually throw in a male because thats who they can identify as.
And you do not see the problem with that? Namely that for the very same reason, it makes it harder for female player to identify with the character?
Asherian Command wrote: So what? So what I can be female? What does that add to the game? If I am a woman do you really think a brawny man is going to treat my like a male guy? No not exactly. If at all they won't treat me the same.
If your game involves just running around killing tons of demons/aliens, like in
or in
or in
or in
or in tons of other games, how does it matter?
WE are talking about RPGs or open world games.
There it doesn't matter you can be a female, but they should at the very least recognize you as a female.
Spoiler:
And you do not see the problem with that? Namely that for the very same reason, it makes it harder for female player to identify with the character?
Does no one read my comments? And you know think?
Do you just respond and say oh Misogynist!
Misogynist! Look he's a misogynist because he thinks it is misrepresentation to have women in the game and not to have other characters identify the female as a female.
Or wait is he pointing out the fact that it happens in this society and he is merely thinking overall and not approaching it in a sexist manner. Maybe he is pointing out the fact that human beings react to different genders and that should be the case in all games. Ever since most designers are male that lead teams and they usually write male characters first and think about females second. Maybe he is pointing that out?
To be honest? In a game world, there is not a single situation that men and women cannot both experience. Given magic or technology, even motherhood-- the only thing that men and women cannot mutually experience or simulate in the real workd given modern technology (and I'm fairly certain we're working on that)-- could be simulated enough that there's no reasonable difference.
If you want games to take on social issues more, you're going about it in a really backwards ass way. By demanding that men be default and women only exist if we can justify our existence, you're just arguing for the continuation of the status quo.
Melissia wrote: There is no benefit to Final Fantasy 7 that Cloud Strife is male rather than female.
Completely disagree. Like it or not, manhood implicates different meaning than womanhood. Cloud tries (and fails) to "be a man" in a conventional sense. That is a big part of his character.
If gender was actually so interchangeable then there would be no point in arguing that there should be more women characters because all it would amount to is "female skins." This in turn is about as significant as arguing that devs should use the color orange more often.
Melissia wrote: To be honest? In a game world, there is not a single situation that men and women cannot both experience. Given magic or technology, even motherhood-- the only thing that men and women cannot mutually experience or simulate in the real workd given modern technology (and I'm fairly certain we're working on that)-- could be simulated enough that there's no reasonable difference.
If you want games to take on social issues more, you're going about it in a really backwards ass way. By demanding that men be default and women only exist if we can justify our existence, you're just arguing for the continuation of the status quo.
No I am arguing for change, so that way it promotes it through good behavior. Showing who is more admirable and more heroic. If we show someone bad who is a misgoynist or evil and cast them into a bad light, and show this is bad don't do that. It would slowly start to change peoples minds to do good instead of be against women.
It would make people think.
It would make people think about how they treat women, because how poorly they are being treated. That right then would make a world of a difference. It wouldn't make people want to do that.
But at some point in the game I would switch the roles, make it so men would be treated like women, you know a one time event.
Make it creepy and atmosphereic and boom you got a point to point out to the general public and have fourth wall bending.
It should be a point that is hammered home onto players. You can't just say lets add a gender customization, because what else does that add other than a feature, it doesn't say anything it's just a feature thrown in. It doesn't help with representation it was thrown in without a second thought, and uses them same features as a male.
Melissia wrote: There is no benefit to Final Fantasy 7 that Cloud Strife is male rather than female.
Completely disagree. Like or not, manhood implicates different meaning than womanhood. Cloud tries (and fails) to "be a man" in a conventional sense. That is a big part of his character.
While I never got this insinuation at all when I played FF7, you're kind of agreeing with the point I was making in that post, that Asherian's argument was crap, because the argument you responded to was just a parody of his flipped around.
Except... you're not. You're still working on the assumption of male default, women only sometimes.
Whether or not you intend to, that's the argument you're pushing forth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: You can't just say lets add a gender customization, because what else does that add other than a feature, it doesn't say anything it's just a feature thrown in. It doesn't help with representation it was thrown in without a second thought, and uses them same features as a male.
Also? Yes I fething can.
I enjoy games more just playing as a woman character even if there is no substantial story change. Therefor, I can demand it, because I play games for MY enjoyment. Not for yours.
Melissia wrote: you're kind of agreeing with the point I was making in that post, that Asherian's argument was crap, because the argument you responded to was just a parody of his flipped around
Suits me.
But to be clear, I am saying that whether a character is a man or a woman or something else can be very important.
To me, FemShep is not really that positive of a development.
Melissia wrote: There is no benefit to Final Fantasy 7 that Cloud Strife is male rather than female.
Completely disagree. Like or not, manhood implicates different meaning than womanhood. Cloud tries (and fails) to "be a man" in a conventional sense. That is a big part of his character.
While I never got this insinuation at all when I played FF7, you're kind of agreeing with the point I was making in that post, that Asherian's argument was crap, because the argument you responded to was just a parody of his flipped around.
Except... you're not. You're still working on the assumption of male default, women only sometimes.
Whether or not you intend to, that's the argument you're pushing forth.
No its not you always get caught up like two words, and don't read the whole picture.
Read it like you would a whole canvas. You absorb the whole canvas. What do you see?
What is his point?
My points are irregular and I raise up several points and counter arguments.
I am merely saying that if you make females and males so interchangeable there is no point to having either. That is my whole point. There is no point in saying justifying males. Why can't we have transgender folks?
Why can't we have that? Why can't we have more representation of women, i think they should all be justifiable and they should address the gender and societal pressures and how they react to a situation.
Also? Yes I fething can.
I enjoy games more just playing as a woman character even if there is no substantial story change. Therefor, I can demand it, because I play games for MY enjoyment. Not for yours.
But its not the step in the right direction it doesn't show people in the right light. Its just a throw away. saying oh we added a female skin that you can play as?
What does that add to it? Nothing its just a throw away. It doesn't help the game it doesn't help the image of the game. It doesn't help gaming as a whole.
I am looking at it long term and what it says about games.
Manchu wrote: To me, FemShep is not really that positive of a development.
I think FemShep is a positive aspect. Because FemShep is better than there being no option at all and all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"-- the very attitude that Asherian is advocating for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I am merely saying that if you make females and males so interchangeable there is no point to having either.
Asherian Command wrote: I am merely saying that if you make females and males so interchangeable there is no point to having either.
This is closer to what I am arguing, at least regarding character-driven games like Red Dead Redemption.
In games where the player "generates" the character (e.g., Skyrim), however, I think being able to choose to play a woman character is not only important but pretty much should be standard.
Arkham City made it creepy to play Catwoman. I don't think that made it a better game.
Some people play games for fantasy. Do I really wish to play a game that reminds me of the ick that some have to deal with IRL? Being able to play as a woman in a game can be just cosmetic. And that's ok.
Manchu wrote: To me, FemShep is not really that positive of a development.
I think FemShep is a positive aspect. Because FemShep is better than there being no option at all and all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"-- the very attitude that Asherian is advocating for.
She is a positive development but its not like it is a huge push. It is in the right direction but it doesn't help the cause or gamers as a whole.
IF you want to add something like a female skin thats fine, but you need to address them like a female would be.
Woman are talked to differently and that has to be shown. You can't have Fill in pronoun here and just expect it to work. It doesn't help. I felt awkward when I played Femshepherd because they were only treating me like a man. Not as a woman.
AdeptSister wrote: Arkham City made it creepy to play Catwoman. I don't think that made it a better game.
Some people play games for fantasy. Do I really wish to play a game that reminds me of the ick that some have to deal with IRL? Being able to play as a woman in a game can be just cosmetic. And that's ok.
Why not? I didn't find it distasteful. Lets also remind ourselves those are criminals, the worst of the worst.
Thats not sexist. That is a criminal saying those things. Is it wrong for the designer to make you feel creeped out?
To make you think? No. Its not!
Games are not supposed to always be an escapism fantasy.
I think people need to learn that sooner than later.
Melissia wrote: all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"
Whether or not you can play a female-skinned Shepherd has nothing to do with whether there can be any other female characters. As I have argued before, hiring a woman to read a script written for a man is not the same thing as writing a female character. Ideally, Mass Effect would have been playable by two characters rather than a reskinnable male character. I am sure that kind of expense would simply bounce off the minds of EA execs who already believe women are just men with boobs and vaginas instead of penises anyway.
Asherian Command wrote: I felt awkward when I played Femshepherd because they were only treating me like a man. Not as a woman.
I rather liked it. It was quite empowering compared to the norm.
I would agree, but there are certain things that didn't make sense as a guy to hear another guy say to a girl. Would you address a female in perfect ways. That seems a little off to me. Like something is going on.
That didn't seem right and it actually threw me out of the experience.
Melissia wrote: all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"
Whether or not you can play a female-skinned Shepherd has nothing to do with whether there can be any other female characters. As I have argued before, hiring a woman to read a script written for a man is not the same thing as writing a female character. Ideally, Mass Effect would have been playable by two characters rather than a reskinnable male character. I am sure that kind of expense would simply bounce off the minds of EA execs who already believe women are just men with boobs and vaginas instead of penises anyway.
Hahha couldn't of said it any better.
They need to be two different people. Shepherd would be different than a male shepherd. That is not saying the femshepherd would be a different person, but they would react differently to situations. Genders react differently to certain situations. And they act differently.
A male ENTJ and a female ENTJ do not act the same way. They react to certain situations different. It is just their genders playing a role as well as societal pressures.
I just was playing as FemShep for the first time in ME1, and while "accurate," having to deal with the creep Harkin seriously challenged my Paragon rating...
AdeptSister wrote: I just was playing as FemShep for the first time in ME1, and while "accurate," having to deal with the creep Harkin seriously challenged my Paragon rating...
I think everyone experienced that, even as a male shepherd I wanted to kick him in the nads.
Melissia wrote: all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"
Whether or not you can play a female-skinned Shepherd has nothing to do with whether there can be any other female characters. As I have argued before, hiring a woman to read a script written for a man is not the same thing as writing a female character. Ideally, Mass Effect would have been playable by two characters rather than a reskinnable male character
I'm not really sure I would have enjoyed the game more if I was forced to deal with the same misogynistic gak I have to deal with on a day to day basis in my video games.
Certainly, those are always the most uncomfortable and unenjoyable and, frankly, distasteful parts of a lot of other games I've played.
Melissia wrote: all the characters being male because "you have to justify women existing otherwise assume male"
Whether or not you can play a female-skinned Shepherd has nothing to do with whether there can be any other female characters. As I have argued before, hiring a woman to read a script written for a man is not the same thing as writing a female character. Ideally, Mass Effect would have been playable by two characters rather than a reskinnable male character
I'm not really sure I would have enjoyed the game more if I was forced to deal with the same misogynistic gak I have to deal with on a day to day basis in my video games.
Certainly, those are always the most uncomfortable and unenjoyable and, frankly, distasteful parts of a lot of other games I've played.
It doesn't always have to be a negative connotation.
Could be a good thing sometimes. And sometimes the guys are treated crappily thats what should happen.
And you can show the differences how the different sexes are interacted without getting creepy/icky/annoying. Because if you make one experience inherently more hostile than another, than you built in an "easy" versus "hard" mode without explicitly stating it.
Manchu wrote: As I have argued before, hiring a woman to read a script written for a man is not the same thing as writing a female character. Ideally, Mass Effect would have been playable by two characters rather than a reskinnable male character.
I have no idea what would have needed to be changed. Can you provide an example?
I'm not arguing that ManShep needed more changes to be FemShep but that there should have been an entirely different female lead character with her own script.
AdeptSister wrote: And you can show the differences how the different sexes are interacted without getting creepy/icky/annoying. Because if you make one experience inherently more hostile than another, than you built in an "easy" versus "hard" mode without explicitly stating it.
You just have to be clear with you audience.
I have not suggested that.
I am saying they should tell the difference and react differently.
Why does everyone think that as a negative.
Both genders have issues and problems and they should both be addressed. But not in all games.
AdeptSister wrote: Arkham City made it creepy to play Catwoman. I don't think that made it a better game.
Some people play games for fantasy. Do I really wish to play a game that reminds me of the ick that some have to deal with IRL? Being able to play as a woman in a game can be just cosmetic. And that's ok.
Why not? I didn't find it distasteful. Lets also remind ourselves those are criminals, the worst of the worst.
Thats not sexist. That is a criminal saying those things. Is it wrong for the designer to make you feel creeped out?
To make you think? No. Its not!
Games are not supposed to always be an escapism fantasy.
I think people need to learn that sooner than later.
Yet the "worse of the worse" never threatened Batman with sexual violence...Because...reasons.
If being a superhero is not suppose to be an escapist fantasy, then what is?
I would guess NPC trying to flirt with you or throwing gendered insults at you. That is the only difference I could see that could came from playing a female character.
Melissia wrote: I can't think of a single example in video games where it is NOT negative or creepy.
Huh? Could you explain what you are referring to?
That's sort of what I'm trying to get Asherian to talk about, because I can't really think of any examples of the sort of thing he's mentioning aside from very creepy and uncomfortable gak like a male character offering a female character favors for sex, or rape threats, or uncomfortable creepy catcalls, or uncomfortable creepy undesired flirts, or what not.
I'm not arguing that ManShep needed more changes to be FemShep but that there should have been an entirely different female lead character with her own script.
Okay, but that is not an example of the differences between the scripts. What would those difference be?
Melissia wrote: I can't think of a single example in video games where it is NOT negative or creepy.
Huh? Could you explain what you are referring to?
That's sort of what I'm trying to get Asherian to talk about, because I can't really think of any examples of the sort of thing he's mentioning aside from very creepy and uncomfortable gak like a male character offering a female character favors for sex, or rape threats, or uncomfortable creepy catcalls, or uncomfortable creepy undesired flirts, or what not.
Melissia wrote: That's sort of what I'm trying to get Asherian to talk about, because I can't really think of any examples of the sort of thing he's mentioning aside from very creepy and uncomfortable gak like a male character offering a female character favors for sex, or rape threats, or uncomfortable creepy catcalls, or uncomfortable creepy undesired flirts, or what not.
What about a situation where the PC encounters a woman who is mistrustful of them if they are male, but more accepting and willing to cooperate were they female?
I guess? But then that can easily be done very creepily or very obnoxiously (especially if the writer has anti-feminist vibes), which describes two of the three examples of that I can remember off the top of my head (creepy in that one references rape, obnoxious in that one had the woman be a straw feminist).
Melissia wrote: I guess? But then that can easily be done very creepily or very obnoxiously (especially if the writer has anti-feminist vibes).
Yeah, but any story can serve as a cheap platform for the writer's personal views, be they good or bad. I'm pretty sure it could be done without needing to be overtly creepy or obnoxious.
Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
Melissia wrote: That's sort of what I'm trying to get Asherian to talk about, because I can't really think of any examples of the sort of thing he's mentioning aside from very creepy and uncomfortable gak like a male character offering a female character favors for sex, or rape threats, or uncomfortable creepy catcalls, or uncomfortable creepy undesired flirts, or what not.
What about a situation where the PC encounters a woman who is mistrustful of them if they are male, but more accepting and willing to cooperate were they female?
Good point
That would still feel a bit… artificial, though, I think. Especially if the game include a charisma score that should be used for this kind of stuff .
Sometimes people don't trust others for their gender. Everyone always thinks I am saying of cat calls. I am thinking more of the lines of different characters react differently.
Some maybe rude, but not all of them. Some will be shy to the other gender. Some people are more comfortable around their gender and some are not.
Different strokes for different people.
That wouldn't be obnoxious that would be quite realistic for a game to portray.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: That would still feel a bit… artificial, though, I think. Especially if the game include a charisma score that should be used for this kind of stuff .
Maybe. It might not be easy to pull it off without feeling forced, but I know people, male and female, for some who dislike their own gender and only associate with the opposite, and others who dislike the opposite and only associate with their own. People are strange and externally inconsistent and have bizarre quirks like that stuff.
daedalus wrote: Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that games which have superbly obnoxious characters (FFX and FFXIII spring to mind) I often put down and refuse to play ever again because I can't stand dealing with their crap.
*relives imagination of Lightning punching Hope, and everyone beating the gak out of Tidus*
Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
Of course they can exist. No one is arguing in absolutes. But it's like any other trope: if it happens nearly every time, in gets annoying. Like Melissa said, this happens a good amount in games when you decide to play as a female character. It doesn't have to be so constant unless that is a theme the developer wants to knowingly do.
It's cheap heat: like you know this guy is bad guy because he is cartoony sexist/homophobe/racist. It's a tool, but it shouldn't be a crutch.
Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
Of course they can exist. No one is arguing in absolutes. But it's like any other trope: if it happens nearly every time, in gets annoying. Like Melissa said, this happens a good amount in games when you decide to play as a female character. It doesn't have to be so constant unless that is a theme the developer wants to knowingly do.
It's cheap heat: like you know this guy is bad guy because he is cartoony sexist/homophobe/racist. It's a tool, but it shouldn't be a crutch.
I have said many times it should not be used all the time but it should at least be acknowledged more than it currently is.
I mean cat calling would be extremely useful in a horror game to a set a mood.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would guess NPC trying to flirt with you or throwing gendered insults at you. That is the only difference I could see that could came from playing a female character.
We can take the 40k world. A very pious man will never be part of the Adeptus Sororitas no matter much he may adore and wish to be a part of them.
In Dune, the Bene Gesserit are an extremely powerful sisterhood that manipulate their universe through religious engineering. They have extraordinary powers including prescience and ancestorial memory. The only way to be a male version of them is if the Bene Gesserit wills it.
In Fallout, being a female gives you seduction opportunities that are otherwise unavailable to the male PC, and vice versa.
A lot of the differences are going to built into the setting. Especially if we want to deviate away from real-life reasons why women are treating differently.
Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
Of course they can exist. No one is arguing in absolutes. But it's like any other trope: if it happens nearly every time, in gets annoying. Like Melissa said, this happens a good amount in games when you decide to play as a female character. It doesn't have to be so constant unless that is a theme the developer wants to knowingly do.
It's cheap heat: like you know this guy is bad guy because he is cartoony sexist/homophobe/racist. It's a tool, but it shouldn't be a crutch.
I have said many times it should not be used all the time but it should at least be acknowledged more than it currently is.
I mean cat calling would be extremely useful in a horror game to a set a mood.
The issue is a lot of times the designer doesn't realize it. Or does because of "realism." You have to be careful as a writer or designer.
Side question: Should there not be personalities you find obnoxious in a game? (not that I'm suggesting that the above example SHOULD be an obnoxious one; simply a question in general.)
Of course they can exist. No one is arguing in absolutes. But it's like any other trope: if it happens nearly every time, in gets annoying. Like Melissa said, this happens a good amount in games when you decide to play as a female character. It doesn't have to be so constant unless that is a theme the developer wants to knowingly do.
It's cheap heat: like you know this guy is bad guy because he is cartoony sexist/homophobe/racist. It's a tool, but it shouldn't be a crutch.
I have said many times it should not be used all the time but it should at least be acknowledged more than it currently is.
I mean cat calling would be extremely useful in a horror game to a set a mood.
The issue is a lot of times the designer doesn't realize it. Or does because of "realism." You have to be careful as a writer or designer.
I agree it is hard to pull it off. It can be distasteful.
But if used properly it can be effective, it can hurt you, and that is the main point to show what it is like to be in someone elses gender.
That could be extremely powerful tool. And could drive down characterization further if the character responds to that criticism or that cat calling.
In my book a character cat callers her, She breaks his nose and almost kills him. Even though they were good friends. She doesn't take no from no one.
And she is not some background character, she is a strong central resilient woman. She is a hard woman, because her father is the captain of the guard, and only had a single daughter, so he treated her like a son. But that doesn't stop her from being drop dead gorgeous, but that is not her character.
She fights against that beauty and she merely is beautiful because she doesn't care what she looks like, she only does things because she wants, she follows orders, and she is a ranger. And no she does not wear skin tight leather, she wears leather, but it is armor.. it is not meant to show off her figure it is meant to protect her from harm.
And yet I have another female who follows a similar vein but is a manipulative jerk. She does what ever she wants and gets it. She doesn't take crap, but she is smart enough to tell how to do certain things.
That is characterization for characters. And I wrote those characters in two days. They are more fleshed out because of my experiences.
Designers often forget that in order to be a writer, you need to experience, you need to see people. Because there are men and woman of every type of personality and have certain ways of doing things.
Characters will evolve into realistic human beings as long as you address societal pressures. You show other women with different experiences. That are not as tough as these other women.
Ash, the issue is that so many are not careful with that tool. We are not saying to completely remove that tool, just that one needs to be used cautiously.
We mentioned multiple times that the cosmetic option of playing a woman was something that there is a market for. A simple skin is not inherently worse than deeper characterization. Especially with the industry's history of problematic characterizations.
Asherian Command wrote: Sometimes people don't trust others for their gender. Everyone always thinks I am saying of cat calls. I am thinking more of the lines of different characters react differently.
Some maybe rude, but not all of them. Some will be shy to the other gender. Some people are more comfortable around their gender and some are not.
Different strokes for different people.
That wouldn't be obnoxious that would be quite realistic for a game to portray.
Yeah, but what about, say, the career you choose? This should have at least the same amount of influence. You will get character that despise or fear magic users, other that scorn those that use ranged weapons… Yet tons of game do not build these distinction within them, and nobody complains about it.
Asherian Command wrote: But if used properly it can be effective, it can hurt you, and that is the main point to show what it is like to be in someone elses gender.
And therefore if you are someone of the same gender as the character, it can remind you of annoying things from real life, the kind of stuff you play video games to escape from.
LA LA. Anyway I am done with this thread, as It is not fruitless to explain my positions...
But on that note.
Hybrid-
You are getting far too specific.
Melissia-
Stop attacking people and thinking your opinion is a goldmine of knowledge. You can be wrong sometimes, stop nitpicking and take what someone says literally and do not misrepresent what they are saying.
LordOfHats-
Great Discussion, I look forward to your posts, they raise up excellent points in a non-aggressive way.
Manchu-
Completely agree. Though personally if you are going to include both genders, you might as well include transgender folk as well.
Everyone else who keep interjecting into the thread randomly-
Read my posts, critically analyze what I am saying. Do not jump on a band wagon. There is a reason why there is a large outcry about major news publications on the internet. Also look up the representations of women in most games, do not automatically assume it to be true in a male dominated culture.
You must also include point and click adventure games.
And finally.
Melissia -
I'm not either, and he gets pissy with me any time I bring it up.
Watch as I dance around the issue lalalala.
Stop hanging up on a few words. And I take pisses regularly thank you. But I do not piss on people, that is rude.
See what I did there? I took your comment literally. Something this thread needs to stop doing. :/
All of those I know have male PC, but I would be glad to discover new ones.
I know there's been "click on all the listed items in the room before the time runs out" games with female protagonists, but that's not really waht I'd call a point and click adventure myself :/
Oh, I thought you were speaking about the “old-school” (?) point and click games that are mentioned at 3:05. I barely know anything about hidden objects games. That was interesting! Thanks.
Final Journey, Resonance, Broken Age, Geheimakte (Secret Files?) Tunguska, Dark Eye: Memoria, Edna bricht aus, Cat Lady, Gray Matter, A New Beginning....please.
Sigvatr wrote: Final Journey, Resonance, Broken Age, Geheimakte (Secret Files?) Tunguska, Dark Eye: Memoria, Edna bricht aus, Cat Lady, Gray Matter, A New Beginning....please.
The only one I knew was Broken Age, which I got through the Humble Bundle. I has both a male and a female PC. And still not Act II. I heard about the Tunguska incident, that was a damn weird event!
Melissia wrote: Was never a big point and click adventure game fan, myself. Only one I can remember owning and liking was the Myst series.
Shivers was pretty good too if you can find a copy. Same vein as Myst, except you could also be killed by things. My only complaint was that the imagery was really cool until it got to the things that could hurt you, which were just cartoony.
LA LA. Anyway I am done with this thread, as It is not fruitless to explain my positions...
Probably because every time you've tried you've contradicted a previous statement.
Don't even get me started.
Ash, I think you might have a point. I just really can't figure out for the life of me what it is. I don't mean that to sound snide; I just have a genuinely difficult time understanding your posts sometimes.
I mean, consider in your above: " as It is not fruitless to explain my positions." Contextually speaking, I know that you meant either "it is fruitless" or "it is not fruitful", but we ended up getting the inverse there. It's a simple typo that I'm sure I've been more than guilty of before, but you DO tend to have a lot of them. Now consider 40 pages plus the other threads of the opportunity for that to happen and not get caught through context, and it's easy to understand why people are getting confused.
Melissia wrote: Was never a big point and click adventure game fan, myself. Only one I can remember owning and liking was the Myst series.
Shivers was pretty good too if you can find a copy. Same vein as Myst, except you could also be killed by things. My only complaint was that the imagery was really cool until it got to the things that could hurt you, which were just cartoony.
LA LA. Anyway I am done with this thread, as It is not fruitless to explain my positions...
Probably because every time you've tried you've contradicted a previous statement.
Don't even get me started.
Ash, I think you might have a point. I just really can't figure out for the life of me what it is. I don't mean that to sound snide; I just have a genuinely difficult time understanding your posts sometimes.
I mean, consider in your above: " as It is not fruitless to explain my positions." Contextually speaking, I know that you meant either "it is fruitless" or "it is not fruitful", but we ended up getting the inverse there. It's a simple typo that I'm sure I've been more than guilty of before, but you DO tend to have a lot of them. Now consider 40 pages plus the other threads of the opportunity for that to happen and not get caught through context, and it's easy to understand why people are getting confused.
Yes I make typos. Typos are fun. And stupid at the same time....
I mean in 4 pages, where people are commenting on your post, and sending you feedback or critiquing or interacting with you. And you are the only one defending your position and people are jumping onto the argument. Yes I make mistakes because there are so many people swarming me.
If you go back you can see what I mean.
Plus lets not forget I am also involved in the gamergate issue and I have been for several weeks. And the exhaustion has started to pile up and up. and up... And up.
nomotog wrote: My rule is that if I am the only one defending my position , then I stop and rethink my position because I may just be wrong.
OR you know I am actually educated in the field. And people don't know what they are actually talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: My rule is that if I am the only one defending my position , then I stop and rethink my position because I may just be wrong.
OR you know I am actually educated in the field. And people don't know what they are actually talking about because they have not studied game mechanics.
People should read what I Have read.
Talk to designers.
I mean there are certain things that I think that should be addressed. Such as genders being playable. IF you make a game you need to address that there are different ways people react to genders.
And anyone saying why don't people in games just have people reacting to those in careers. That is basically second nature in games now. You can see it quite often in mass effect and in call of duty.
Do not think it doesn't help. It does it adds to the narrative and characterization even further.
Either way, we're seeing an increase in the number of games that allow for genders to be swapped, and that is good for the gaming community. It's just that having that feature shouldn't be a stopping point, but simply the next step to a more immersive gaming world.
Either way, we're seeing an increase in the number of games that allow for genders to be swapped, and that is good for the gaming community. It's just that having that feature shouldn't be a stopping point, but simply the next step to a better gaming world.
correct.
Justifying the reason for adding it.
It is not the misogynist view of saying that I believe the woman gender should be justified while the male is allowed in.
I am stating that the view of most game designers is that adding a woman gender is sort of second nature for ORPGs or RPGS. You need to justify the reason why you added, it other than to appease the crowd, there needs to be a reason for that feature. You know what I think it should be justified by? Because you want to see equality in the games industry.
Asherian Command wrote: It is not the misogynist view of saying that I believe the woman gender should be justified while the male is allowed in.
If you don't believe that, then you should stop advocating for it. Because you've BEEN advocating it constantly. And you're STILL advocating it-- you still don't even MENTION requiring developers to justify the existence of men, while you constantly attack anyone who wants female characters DEMANDING that they justify themselves. All you've done for more than forty pages is demand women characters follow a stricter standard than men characters.
misogynist or not, you are kind of showing a element of the problem with your line of thinking. It's the male as default the women are special issue. Women don't want to be special. (Well not anymore then normal. Everyone wants to be a little special.) Saying something like you need to justified a female character plays right into this idea and this idea leads to issues down the road. Like how we have a sever shortage of female characters in games.
Now the issue of gender select is a different issue though that plays around with other elements. I am not sure if your trying to say that female characters need to be justified or if gender select needs to be justified.
nomotog wrote: misogynist or not, you are kind of showing a element of the problem with your line of thinking. It's the male as default the women are special issue. Women don't want to be special. (Well not anymore then normal. Everyone wants to be a little special.) Saying something like you need to justified a female character plays right into this idea and this idea leads to issues down the road. Like how we have a sever shortage of female characters in games.
Now the issue of gender select is a different issue though that plays around with other elements. I am not sure if your trying to say that female characters need to be justified or if gender select needs to be justified.
The Gender select needs to be justified.
It is a severe problem if you think I am acting misogynistic.
And I have not been doing this for 40 pages XD. I came up a while ago. But I didn't talk that much.
nomotog wrote: misogynist or not, you are kind of showing a element of the problem with your line of thinking. It's the male as default the women are special issue. Women don't want to be special. (Well not anymore then normal. Everyone wants to be a little special.) Saying something like you need to justified a female character plays right into this idea and this idea leads to issues down the road. Like how we have a sever shortage of female characters in games.
Now the issue of gender select is a different issue though that plays around with other elements. I am not sure if your trying to say that female characters need to be justified or if gender select needs to be justified.
The Gender select needs to be justified.
It is a severe problem if you think I am acting misogynistic.
And I have not been doing this for 40 pages XD. I came up a while ago. But I didn't talk that much.
Gender select fits in some games, but not others. It kind of depends on what kind of game it is and what it is trying to do... Ya I think I already say this before actually. This maybe a full circle. Though this time I think I will phrase my thinking backwards. A defined character should be justified. If it is important to the story for the MC to be male, then you can use a male. (ZP mentioned in an extra punctuation how James Sutherland's character really revolves around him being a man.) If you can't justfie why a a particular trait is required for a character, then you might as well let it be customized or left undefined.
nomotog wrote: misogynist or not, you are kind of showing a element of the problem with your line of thinking. It's the male as default the women are special issue. Women don't want to be special. (Well not anymore then normal. Everyone wants to be a little special.) Saying something like you need to justified a female character plays right into this idea and this idea leads to issues down the road. Like how we have a sever shortage of female characters in games.
Now the issue of gender select is a different issue though that plays around with other elements. I am not sure if your trying to say that female characters need to be justified or if gender select needs to be justified.
The Gender select needs to be justified.
It is a severe problem if you think I am acting misogynistic.
And I have not been doing this for 40 pages XD. I came up a while ago. But I didn't talk that much.
Gender select fits in some games, but not others. It kind of depends on what kind of game it is and what it is trying to do... Ya I think I already say this before actually. This maybe a full circle. Though this time I think I will phrase my thinking backwards. A defined character should be justified. If it is important to the story for the MC to be male, then you can use a male. (ZP mentioned in an extra punctuation how James Sutherland's character really revolves around him being a man.) If you can't justfie why a a particular trait is required for a character, then you might as well let it be customized or left undefined.
Correct.
You cannot have a man in a womans role. (Such as the role of a mother)
nomotog wrote: misogynist or not, you are kind of showing a element of the problem with your line of thinking. It's the male as default the women are special issue. Women don't want to be special. (Well not anymore then normal. Everyone wants to be a little special.) Saying something like you need to justified a female character plays right into this idea and this idea leads to issues down the road. Like how we have a sever shortage of female characters in games.
Now the issue of gender select is a different issue though that plays around with other elements. I am not sure if your trying to say that female characters need to be justified or if gender select needs to be justified.
The Gender select needs to be justified.
It is a severe problem if you think I am acting misogynistic.
And I have not been doing this for 40 pages XD. I came up a while ago. But I didn't talk that much.
Gender select fits in some games, but not others. It kind of depends on what kind of game it is and what it is trying to do... Ya I think I already say this before actually. This maybe a full circle. Though this time I think I will phrase my thinking backwards. A defined character should be justified. If it is important to the story for the MC to be male, then you can use a male. (ZP mentioned in an extra punctuation how James Sutherland's character really revolves around him being a man.) If you can't justfie why a a particular trait is required for a character, then you might as well let it be customized or left undefined.
Correct.
You cannot have a man in a womans role. (Such as the role of a mother)
I wouldn't say that conclusively. The idea is that you would have to justify why you couldn't use a man in a mother's roll and I think you would have a hard time doing that. The male mom is kind of established trope. Take pinocchio for example.
Asserting that men cannot be kind, nurturing, protective, caring, and loving (all traits associated with being "motherly") and therefor those roles can only be played by women is rather bizarre, and unfounded by reality.
^True but you will always be missing a female leading person that a son or daughter will always need a female figure in their life they can identify with.
Asherian Command wrote: ^True but you will always be missing a female leading person that a son or daughter will always need a female figure in their life they can identify with.
Asherian Command wrote: ^True but you will always be missing a female leading person that a son or daughter will always need a female figure in their life they can identify with.
You will never find me an advocate of gender essentialism or other kinds of fundamentalist crap, so no, I don't think that will be missing. A single father can provide a wonderful childhood to their son or daughter, just as a single mother can, or a lesbian or gay couple, or a straight couple. The loving care a parent provides is more important than the parent's gender.
Asherian Command wrote: ^True but you will always be missing a female leading person that a son or daughter will always need a female figure in their life they can identify with.
Asherian Command wrote: ^True but you will always be missing a female leading person that a son or daughter will always need a female figure in their life they can identify with.
This is going to depend on the setting I believe.
And the character.
But I think you really can't replace certain gender roles with males.
You can't have certain genders play as the loving mother.
It would not work as much as a female playing that role.
Melissia wrote: You will never find me an advocate of gender essentialism or other kinds of fundamentalist crap, so no, I don't think that will be missing. A single father can provide a wonderful childhood to their son or daughter, just as a single mother can, or a lesbian or gay couple, or a straight couple. The loving care a parent provides is more important than the parent's gender.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Uh? What? Why?
Because she is a girl, yes trope, guys wouldn't care about a guy stranded on an island with no skills, just deal with it (far cry 3).
It is because Lara is a "weak" girl that through her harsh experiences becomes the Tomb raider we all know today.
(One thing about the game that disturbed me was the overly graphic death scenes if Lara died, on another note playing
shadows of the damned most of the mutilated bodies in hell were women? WTF).
Jehan-reznor wrote: Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Uh? What? Why?
Because she is a girl, yes trope, guys wouldn't care about a guy stranded on an island with no skills, just deal with it (far cry 3). It is because Lara is a "weak" girl that through her harsh experiences becomes the Tomb raider we all know today. (One thing about the game that disturbed me was the overly graphic death scenes if Lara died, on another note playing shadows of the damned most of the mutilated bodies in hell were women? WTF).
Jehan-reznor wrote: Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Uh? What? Why?
Because she is a girl, yes trope, guys wouldn't care about a guy stranded on an island with no skills, just deal with it (far cry 3).
It is because Lara is a "weak" girl that through her harsh experiences becomes the Tomb raider we all know today.
(One thing about the game that disturbed me was the overly graphic death scenes if Lara died, on another note playing
shadows of the damned most of the mutilated bodies in hell were women? WTF).
Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the "gamergate" crap out of this thread. Already had something like four threads on that chaotic, spiteful mess closed, and even after that there's still a thread running in Off Topic. No need to let it infest this thread, too.
Melissia wrote: Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the "gamergate" crap out of this thread. Already had something like four threads on that chaotic, spiteful mess closed, and even after that there's still a thread running in Off Topic.
I know I just merely saying not to post articles to kotaku and polygon. Every other site I am fine.
Melissia wrote: Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the "gamergate" crap out of this thread. Already had something like four threads on that chaotic, spiteful mess closed, and even after that there's still a thread running in Off Topic. No need to let it infest this thread, too.
I find some of the points she makes valid for this topic.
Melissia wrote: Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the "gamergate" crap out of this thread. Already had something like four threads on that chaotic, spiteful mess closed, and even after that there's still a thread running in Off Topic. No need to let it infest this thread, too.
I find some of the points she makes valid for this topic.
Perhaps it would be better to put them in your own words, such that we can have a discussion and not a link war.
Mn, some of it, yeah. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she's come to a lot of the time, however, and the facts of the matter don't really support her assertion that "gamers don't care about your [...] gender", given the results of scientific studies (one of which is discussed in a link in my signature, in fact) have shown that women gamers are far more likely to be harassed and insulted than men are-- anywhere from seven to nearly a hundred times more likely, in fact, depending on the study. Even the lowest end of that scale is pretty significant.
We don't really need to link to all kinds of pages and people. I mean this thread is mostly about what you (The general you.) think. Not what other people think.
Melissia wrote: Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the "gamergate" crap out of this thread. Already had something like four threads on that chaotic, spiteful mess closed, and even after that there's still a thread running in Off Topic. No need to let it infest this thread, too.
I find some of the points she makes valid for this topic.
Perhaps it would be better to put them in your own words, such that we can have a discussion and not a link war.
Nah she is not from kotaku, but the article he linked was.
It was original posted on the other thread called gamer gate.
And we all agreed with her.
Mn, some of it, yeah. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she's come to a lot of the time, however, and the facts of the matter don't really support her assertion that "gamers don't care about your [...] gender", given the results of scientific studies have shown that women gamers are far more likely to be harassed and insulted than men are-- anywhere from seven to nearly a hundred times more likely, in fact.
Please fact check that.
Because 75% of all percentages are made up on the spot.
Melissia wrote: Mn, some of it, yeah. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she's come to a lot of the time, however, and the facts of the matter don't really support her assertion that "gamers don't care about your [...] gender", given the results of scientific studies (one of which is discussed in a link in my signature, in fact) have shown that women gamers are far more likely to be harassed and insulted than men are-- anywhere from seven to nearly a hundred times more likely, in fact, depending on the study. Even the lowest end of that scale is pretty significant.
I agree with the harassment, i played a lot of FPS's and how dudes react when there is a girl in the lobby is just frightening. Living in Japan where girls play as much games as guys it is more civil when playing online games.
Melissia wrote: Mn, some of it, yeah. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she's come to a lot of the time, however, and the facts of the matter don't really support her assertion that "gamers don't care about your [...] gender", given the results of scientific studies (one of which is discussed in a link in my signature, in fact) have shown that women gamers are far more likely to be harassed and insulted than men are-- anywhere from seven to nearly a hundred times more likely, in fact, depending on the study. Even the lowest end of that scale is pretty significant.
I agree with the harassment, i played a lot of FPS's and how dudes react when there is a girl in the lobby is just frightening. Living in Japan where girls play as much games as guys it is more civil when playing online games.
The problem though with studies is that they only record certain situations and call it harassment. If I call someone a swear word or a five letter word, and they are my friend, and they are girl thats not harassment.
But I agree it happens I am denying it does, but studies can be wrong, we need to take it with a grain of salt.
I take them more seriously than I do an unproven claim that the harassment doesn't happen disproportionately to people with feminine handles and/or voices. Not only does the study mash up with my own personal experience, it's corroborated by multiple other studies.
Melissia wrote: I take them more seriously than I do an unproven claim that the harassment doesn't happen disproportionately to people with feminine handles and/or voices. Not only does the study mash up with my own personal experience, it's corroborated by multiple other studies.
*Sigh*
You know, the last time someone told me that, they were telling me that more males commit crime than women. And had hundreds of 'studies' proving that people like me are responsible for more murders than any other.
I think we should take it with a grain of salt.
But I agree it does happen, its a terrible thing.
Lets go back on topic and talk about the problems in games about how women are misrepresented.
Melissia wrote: Mn, some of it, yeah. I do not agree with some of the conclusions she's come to a lot of the time, however, and the facts of the matter don't really support her assertion that "gamers don't care about your [...] gender", given the results of scientific studies (one of which is discussed in a link in my signature, in fact) have shown that women gamers are far more likely to be harassed and insulted than men are-- anywhere from seven to nearly a hundred times more likely, in fact, depending on the study. Even the lowest end of that scale is pretty significant.
I agree with the harassment, i played a lot of FPS's and how dudes react when there is a girl in the lobby is just frightening. Living in Japan where girls play as much games as guys it is more civil when playing online games.
The problem though with studies is that they only record certain situations and call it harassment. If I call someone a swear word or a five letter word, and they are my friend, and they are girl thats not harassment.
But I agree it happens I am denying it does, but studies can be wrong, we need to take it with a grain of salt.
Well i can only say what i encountered and it is usual sexual harassment, i got some friend request because they would only play with friends because the lobbies were too toxic.
Look at videos of Msheartattack on ytube to get an idea, she plays with it, but a lot of females would be offended.
Just in case, unless a study is peer-reviewed, it's worth as much as toilet paper.
I could literally make something up and publish it without problems, calling it a "study". I could purposefully mispresent information or I could publish extremely poorly researched information.
That's why each non-reviewed study is utterly worthless: everyone could do it. Peer-Reviews are far from being perfect, fosho, but they are worlds ahead of not peer-reviewed studies.
Apart from that general reminder: in this very case, I find it extremely ironic that Melissa, who uses the "study's" "results" to make broad claims on all video games, links to an article that literally says:
Now, it’s important to remember that this study is reflective of one isolated gaming environment, not of video games as a whole. As the authors note, “Caution should be shown when generalizing the findings of this study to other games or genres.”
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well i can only say what i encountered and it is usual sexual harassment, i got some friend request because they would only play with friends because the lobbies were too toxic.
Look at videos of Msheartattack on ytube to get an idea, she plays with it, but a lot of females would be offended.
I know that I've seen numerous examples of those as well... not just women, but men who found the harassment to be sucking the life and fun out of the game.
Sigvatr wrote: Just in case, unless a study is peer-reviewed, it's worth as much as toilet paper.
I could literally make something up and publish it without problems, calling it a "study". I could purposefully mispresent information or I could publish extremely poorly researched information.
That's why each non-reviewed study is utterly worthless: everyone could do it. Peer-Reviews are far from being perfect, fosho, but they are worlds ahead of not peer-reviewed studies.
Apart from that general reminder: in this very case, I find it extremely ironic that Melissa, who uses the "study's" "results" to make broad claims on all video games, links to an article that literally says:
Now, it’s important to remember that this study is reflective of one isolated gaming environment, not of video games as a whole. As the authors note, “Caution should be shown when generalizing the findings of this study to other games or genres.”
OH dear god someone in this thread did not read everything.
*Sigh* But we all agree that gaming harassment happens, right? And a it can be directed at women in a noxious manner? That it can get hostile right quick. Multiple sources have documented it, talked about and affirmed it. While I understand that you don't think the "studies" are valid (though they mirror what a lot of people have witnessed), we all agreed that women can experience totally environment (which can full of sexualized language) than guys do. Right? Because if we are not starting with a similar view of reality, then where do we go from here?
AdeptSister wrote: *Sigh* But we all agree that gaming harassment happens, right? And a it can be directed at women in a noxious manner? That it can get hostile right quick. Multiple sources have documented it, talked about and affirmed it. While I understand that you don't think the "studies" are valid (though they mirror what a lot of people have witnessed), we all agreed that women can experience totally environment (which can full of sexualized language) than guys do. Right? Because if we are not starting with a similar view of reality, then where do we go from here?
It f
I have said that.
I agree it happens. I've said that twice.
Women in games are not treated equally but then again so are minorities. If you say you are black you will get attacked by others.
If you say your australia like I Have, a bunch of Scots will attack you because their team lost to you in rugby.
I think harassment happens to everyone, but more to women and people of different skin colors.
Asherian Command wrote: Women in games are not treated equally but then again so are minorities. If you say you are black you will get attacked by others.
That's not really a defense of gamer culture, so much as it is a condemnation of it.
Asherian Command wrote: Women in games are not treated equally but then again so are minorities. If you say you are black you will get attacked by others.
That's not really a defense of gamer culture, so much as it is a condemnation of it.
So, back on topic, how does a game designers work to create a game that is more inclusive? The simplest and most common solution seems avoid having characters all together (ala most puzzle games). We also have mentioned customizable PCs.
But if you want to have a story with women characters, what are the pitfalls one should be cautious of?
So, back on topic, how does a game designers work to create a game that is more inclusive? The simplest and most common solution seems avoid having characters all together (ala most puzzle games). We also have mentioned customizable PCs.
But if you want to have a story with women characters, what are the pitfalls one should be cautious of?
Just using her as eye candy and having her only impact on the game being her getting kidnapped would be two to start at.
If she does get kidnapped, have her escape on her own if it is something that a male character (even the player character) could do.
So, back on topic, how does a game designers work to create a game that is more inclusive? The simplest and most common solution seems avoid having characters all together (ala most puzzle games). We also have mentioned customizable PCs.
But if you want to have a story with women characters, what are the pitfalls one should be cautious of?
Just using her as eye candy and having her only impact on the game being her getting kidnapped would be two to start at.
If she does get kidnapped, have her escape on her own if it is something that a male character (even the player character) could do.
shouldn't the first step be to define the game?
MMO's are great about having fully customizable PC's and all characters get to do everything in the game.
with MMO's you can RP what ever you want, and there are probably mods to help you out.
If it's a story driven game, first tell the story, then work out if sex matters. and removing it entirely by going first person is a great compromise. Because now it's through the eyes of the one playing the game. No programming for a fully customizable avatar.
AdeptSister wrote: So, back on topic, how does a game designers work to create a game that is more inclusive?
The best way is by not starting with the "male as default" assumption. This is difficult for many male writers, especially since some publishers push for it to be company policy.
If you don't trust your own decisions regarding gender inclusion, simply flipping a coin to determine what a character's gender is after determining all other aspects of the character will allow a wide variety of characters to be created while not pigeonholing in to stereotypical people based off of their gender (or race, for that matter). It isn't an ideal solution, but it is an unbiased one, and can produce some very interesting results.
AdeptSister wrote: The simplest and most common solution seems avoid having characters all together
Avoiding a problem is not really a solution, so much as it is refusing to solve the problem in the first place. This is usually fine for puzzle games, but not really necessarily fine for other genres.
For most games, customizable PCs are the real solution here. Even in RPGs, it's generally better that way.
AdeptSister wrote: But if you want to have a story with women characters, what are the pitfalls one should be cautious of?
One pitfall is the story focusing on the fact that she is a woman to the exclusion of all other traits. Women are human beings first and foremost-- and as such, women characters shouldn't be pidgeonholed in to "womens issues", especially not to the point of excluding women from having any other concerns. This is especially true if you define "womens issues" narrowly like many people do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: If it's a story driven game, first tell the story, then work out if sex matters. and removing it entirely by going first person is a great compromise.
Most first person games do not "remove sex entirely", because voice acting, hand shape/texture/hairiness all give away gender even within first person view-- and this is doubly true if NPCs refer to the player using gendered pronouns. Removing these things, or trying to make them gender-neutral, can be tricky in the best of times.
Melissia wrote: Saying "gamers are not only misogynist, but also racist" is not neutral.
If gamers insult eveyone equally then how is it not neutral?
When I play dota and some black feminist woman floods the voice chat with her political views I am going to respond approriately:
Spoiler:
Edited this away because it will get me banned
"Pick shadow shaman and buy wards"
What did you expect?
I don't care about your race, sex, sexuality or political views when I need someone to buy wards. If you bring those things into the match the best you can hope for is being muted.
Sigvatr wrote: Apart from that general reminder: in this very case, I find it extremely ironic that Melissa, who uses the "study's" "results" to make broad claims on all video games, links to an article that literally says:
Now, it’s important to remember that this study is reflective of one isolated gaming environment, not of video games as a whole. As the authors note, “Caution should be shown when generalizing the findings of this study to other games or genres.”
So, which games are better and which games are worse? Also, I was a bit disappointed that even though people systematically mistake me for a woman on the phone when they do not know me, the same does not happen on voice chat, apparently. I would have liked it better the other way around, for sure!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Avoiding a problem is not really a solution, so much as it is refusing to solve the problem in the first place. This is usually fine for puzzle games, but not really necessarily fine for other genres.
And even within puzzle games, you can get pretty nice female characters. Have you played Ittle Dew? I quite enjoyed it .
Melissia wrote: Most first person games do not "remove sex entirely", because voice acting, hand shape/texture/hairiness all give away gender even within first person view-- and this is doubly true if NPCs refer to the player using gendered pronouns. Removing these things, or trying to make them gender-neutral, can be tricky in the best of times.
A bunch of FPS only shows the weapon, not the hand. And dialogues are quite unnecessary for old-school shooters. There is still the issue of voice acting. Not sure how to deal with it.
Also, "I hate everyone" doesn't make you suddenly not be a bigot. Being homophobic as well as racist and misogynistic doesn't somehow cause all of them to cancel out, that's just plain nonsense.
Melissia wrote: Also, "I hate everyone" doesn't make you suddenly not be a bigot. Being homophobic as well as racist and misogynistic doesn't somehow cause all of them to cancel out, that's just plain nonsense.
Not really;
If someone said "I hate everyone", he actually can't be a racist, bigot, or homophobic; Racism is hatred based on skin color, bigotry is based on gender, and Homophobism is based on sexual orientation. If you hate everyone equally, it doesn't matter what that person's gender, skin color, or sexual preference is.
Melissia wrote: Also, "I hate everyone" doesn't make you suddenly not be a bigot. Being homophobic as well as racist and misogynistic doesn't somehow cause all of them to cancel out, that's just plain nonsense.
Not really;
If someone said "I hate everyone", he actually can't be a racist, bigot, or homophobic; Racism is hatred based on skin color, bigotry is based on gender, and Homophobism is based on sexual orientation. If you hate everyone equally, it doesn't matter what that person's gender, skin color, or sexual preference is.
Mind you, it's still a stupid way to live.
Nobody lives that way though. It applies to exactly 0 people. The only people who say this are teenagers and groty neckbeards who feel clever because they ran into the word "misanthrope", in an online dictionary and want to avoid facing their own social shortcomings.
Melissia wrote: Also, "I hate everyone" doesn't make you suddenly not be a bigot. Being homophobic as well as racist and misogynistic doesn't somehow cause all of them to cancel out, that's just plain nonsense.
Not really;
If someone said "I hate everyone", he actually can't be a racist, bigot, or homophobic; Racism is hatred based on skin color, bigotry is based on gender, and Homophobism is based on sexual orientation. If you hate everyone equally, it doesn't matter what that person's gender, skin color, or sexual preference is.
Mind you, it's still a stupid way to live.
Nobody lives that way though. It applies to exactly 0 people. The only people who say this are teenagers and groty neckbeards who feel clever because they ran into the word "misanthrope", in an online dictionary and want to avoid facing their own social shortcomings.
Melissia wrote: Also, "I hate everyone" doesn't make you suddenly not be a bigot. Being homophobic as well as racist and misogynistic doesn't somehow cause all of them to cancel out, that's just plain nonsense.
Yeah, it just kind of makes you mean-spirited, even MORE of a bigot (since you're effectively bigoted against humanity) and perhaps even a little pitiable, if anyone could stand to pity such a person.
Such a person would also not be posting online, and probably hide away in a cabin somewhere far away from people.
So, back on topic, how does a game designers work to create a game that is more inclusive? The simplest and most common solution seems avoid having characters all together (ala most puzzle games). We also have mentioned customizable PCs.
But if you want to have a story with women characters, what are the pitfalls one should be cautious of?
The work by including several characters. They make specific events that people can relate to.
That is actually quite false. Puzzle games are very interesting market, it is not something you play to get your mind off things. IT is probably one of the hardest games in general to create. Due to how complicated programming for the programmer can be for a puzzle game.
One should be aware of the following:
Making them appear weak
Making them foreign to audience.
Making them to inhuman
Making them too perfect or too flawed. (Yes that is possible)
Making them robotic will disconnect the audience
Something that should be done:
flowing dialogue,
The character should be relatable by making them real,
Having emotion and moments of strength and weakness can make for a stronger character, But you don't always have to have moments of weakness to make the character better.
I personally would like to say that the best way to do these things is to storyboard, but people here want to hear what actually can change it, but acting out certain scenes might make that scene stronger,
Criticism is something that needs to be looked at.
I personally also think that in order for the character to be meaningful it can't be fully customizable, the face cannot change but their choices can be chosen. If you want to see progression you need to have a triple A title where the female characters are not sexy looking but are strong and confident. Similar vein like Lara Croft but is a fantasy character, who is gender neutral.
Asherian Command wrote:I personally also think that in order for the character to be meaningful it can't be fully customizable, the face cannot change but their choices can be chosen.
I never really understood what supposedly makes a character less meaningful just because you influence his or her looks. Isn't this an admission of stigmatisation?
Unless the setting enforces specific limitations, I don't see why the player has to be handicapped this way. Though I suppose it might just be a matter of preferences - some people might enjoy premade characters, whilst personally I believe it reduces the level of participation and how you can influence your story experience.
For clarification Ash, I was not saying that puzzle games were simple, but you can avoid the issue in that genre by avoiding characterization entirely (Like Melissa, stated ignoring the problem).
And to be fair, you can have sexy characters. Sexy and sexualized are not the same thing. It comes down to the character's agency. Bayonetta IMO does this well.
Lynata wrote: Oh gods, 30 new pages ... what did I miss?
Asherian Command wrote:I personally also think that in order for the character to be meaningful it can't be fully customizable, the face cannot change but their choices can be chosen.
I never really understood what supposedly makes a character less meaningful just because you influence his or her looks. Isn't this an admission of stigmatisation?
Unless the setting enforces specific limitations, I don't see why the player has to be handicapped this way. Though I suppose it might just be a matter of preferences - some people might enjoy premade characters, whilst personally I believe it reduces the level of participation and how you can influence your story experience.
I think premade characters have a lot of thought put into them unlike a player character.
Shepherd could be considered one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: For clarification Ash, I was not saying that puzzle games were simple, but you can avoid the issue in that genre by avoiding characterization entirely (Like Melissa, stated ignoring the problem).
And to be fair, you can have sexy characters. Sexy and sexualized are not the same thing. It comes down to the character's agency. Bayonetta IMO does this well.
Agreed. Just oversexualized characters ar estupid.
You have a harder time fully realizing a unlimited number of characters then you would one. The trick is that the bar is very low. Even non customized characters get away with very little characterization. Then there is how different kinds of customization have different effects on characterization. Visual customization is a very minor impact on a character well the ability to make choices in the story line has a huge impact on the characterization.
Asherian Command wrote:Shepherd could be considered one.
Hmm? Because you don't get to decide his/her career and species?
Maybe we're just talking past each other - to clarify, when I'm referring to character customisation, I generally just mean gender and appearance. More factors (species, backgrounds, personality traits, preferences) are always nice, but not what I'd consider a minimum for a character to classify as "custom/customised".
When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
Asherian Command wrote:Shepherd could be considered one.
Hmm? Because you don't get to decide his/her career and species?
Maybe we're just talking past each other - to clarify, when I'm referring to character customisation, I generally just mean gender and appearance. More factors (species, backgrounds, personality traits, preferences) are always nice, but not what I'd consider a minimum for a character to classify as "custom/customised".
When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
Shepherds entire personality is determined by the designer. Thats my bit.
Asherian Command wrote:Shepherd could be considered one.
Hmm? Because you don't get to decide his/her career and species?
Maybe we're just talking past each other - to clarify, when I'm referring to character customisation, I generally just mean gender and appearance. More factors (species, backgrounds, personality traits, preferences) are always nice, but not what I'd consider a minimum for a character to classify as "custom/customised".
When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
Shepherds entire personality is determined by the designer. Thats my bit.
in an mmo not as much.
No it's not. Shepherds personality is picked by the player. Are they snarky, serous, crazy, it's more the payers choice.
No it's not. Shepherds personality is picked by the player. Are they snarky, serous, crazy, it's more the payers choice.
The player takes a path that is strictly pre-determined by the designer. Shepherd, as a character, is a blank slate that's getting filled by the player's choices. He (the player) takes "his" actions as he cannot choose to do any themselves.
...and then there are terrible plot holes. Kai Leng says hi.
No it's not. Shepherds personality is picked by the player. Are they snarky, serous, crazy, it's more the payers choice.
The player takes a path that is strictly pre-determined by the designer. Shepherd, as a character, is a blank slate that's getting filled by the player's choices. He (the player) takes "his" actions as he cannot choose to do any themselves.
Choosing from three prefabricated responses to a sentence isn't the same as developing a personality?!
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
No it's not. Shepherds personality is picked by the player. Are they snarky, serous, crazy, it's more the payers choice.
The player takes a path that is strictly pre-determined by the designer. Shepherd, as a character, is a blank slate that's getting filled by the player's choices. He (the player) takes "his" actions as he cannot choose to do any themselves.
Choosing from three prefabricated responses to a sentence isn't the same as developing a personality?!
Heh. Imagine if real life were like that.
It's more then just 3 choices and that's it. It's often 3 or more choices about everything. That gives you a lot of chances to bend and shape Shepard into a different character. Not to mention the subtext you attach to each and every choice. You know why your Shepard did this or did that and that informs their personality in addition to the direct action they took.
It's more then just 3 choices and that's it. It's often 3 or more choices about everything. That gives you a lot of chances to bend and shape Shepard into a different character. Not to mention the subtext you attach to each and every choice. You know why your Shepard did this or did that and that informs their personality in addition to the direct action they took.
I guess. All I can think of is the number of times I've thought to myself, "man, all these choices aren't what I'd say here."
Of course, only one choice for what gets said isn't exactly better. I guess I'm just saying that between three responses generally consisting of something similar to "donkey-cave/snarky", "uptight/serious", and "angry/crazy", there's only so many personalities you can express, no matter how many times you get to choose from them.
But then, as this thread continues, I'm beginning to wonder if I actually even LIKE games.
It's more then just 3 choices and that's it. It's often 3 or more choices about everything. That gives you a lot of chances to bend and shape Shepard into a different character. Not to mention the subtext you attach to each and every choice. You know why your Shepard did this or did that and that informs their personality in addition to the direct action they took.
I guess. All I can think of is the number of times I've thought to myself, "man, all these choices aren't what I'd say here."
Of course, only one choice for what gets said isn't exactly better. I guess I'm just saying that between three responses generally consisting of something similar to "donkey-cave/snarky", "uptight/serious", and "angry/crazy", there's only so many personalities you can express, no matter how many times you get to choose from them.
But then, as this thread continues, I'm beginning to wonder if I actually even LIKE games.
I always had a response that covered what I was thinking, but I may have been the odd one out in that case. It wasn't really a choice of donkey-cave, uptight, angry. The smart thing about mass effect is that your responses mostly boiled down to agree, disagree, in between, or odd ball.
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
You still cannot go beyond what the designers allowed you to do anyway, though. But that said, I can spend literally hours designing a character in some games!
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
You still cannot go beyond what the designers allowed you to do anyway, though. But that said, I can spend literally hours designing a character in some games!
When City of Heroes/Villain shut down, someone released the chargen system with mods that unlocked all items for everyone.
For many people, that was enough to continue providing hundreds of hours of play.
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
You still cannot go beyond what the designers allowed you to do anyway, though. But that said, I can spend literally hours designing a character in some games!
This is important. Anything that a user generates with a set of tools as narrowly defined as a character generator, owes a non-trivial portion of the credit to the designers. Everything the player creates is possible because a designer gave thought to it being available. Trying to claim oneself above, beyond and superior to the creators by virtue of how you've assembled their assets is hyperbolic self-aggrandizing.
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
You still cannot go beyond what the designers allowed you to do anyway, though. But that said, I can spend literally hours designing a character in some games!
In real life, you are stuck wearing the clothes at market, but that doesn't invalidate the choice you have in your chosen style. The artist may have added in that cute hair option, but they didn't really picture you pairing it with those shoes and that top.
Melissia wrote: When City of Heroes/Villain shut down, someone released the chargen system with mods that unlocked all items for everyone.
If that happens with DCUO… woah! The possibilities .
Chongara wrote: This is important. Anything that a user generates with a set of tools as narrowly defined as a character generate, owes a non-trivial portion of the credit to the designers. Everything the player creates is possible because a designer gave thought to it being available. Trying to claim oneself above, beyond and superior to the creators by virtue of how you've assembled their assets is hyperbolic self-aggrandizing.
Indeed. If the designer wanted you to play a generic white male, he or she would have only given you the option to play a generic white male. You can still be creative, and make things the designer have not expected, due to the high possible number of combinations possibles. Just like you can make tons of very different words with only 26 letters .
It's more then just 3 choices and that's it. It's often 3 or more choices about everything. That gives you a lot of chances to bend and shape Shepard into a different character. Not to mention the subtext you attach to each and every choice. You know why your Shepard did this or did that and that informs their personality in addition to the direct action they took.
I guess. All I can think of is the number of times I've thought to myself, "man, all these choices aren't what I'd say here."
Of course, only one choice for what gets said isn't exactly better. I guess I'm just saying that between three responses generally consisting of something similar to "donkey-cave/snarky", "uptight/serious", and "angry/crazy", there's only so many personalities you can express, no matter how many times you get to choose from them.
But then, as this thread continues, I'm beginning to wonder if I actually even LIKE games.
It's more then just 3 choices and that's it. It's often 3 or more choices about everything. That gives you a lot of chances to bend and shape Shepard into a different character. Not to mention the subtext you attach to each and every choice. You know why your Shepard did this or did that and that informs their personality in addition to the direct action they took.
I guess. All I can think of is the number of times I've thought to myself, "man, all these choices aren't what I'd say here."
Of course, only one choice for what gets said isn't exactly better. I guess I'm just saying that between three responses generally consisting of something similar to "donkey-cave/snarky", "uptight/serious", and "angry/crazy", there's only so many personalities you can express, no matter how many times you get to choose from them.
But then, as this thread continues, I'm beginning to wonder if I actually even LIKE games.
Im in the same boat. A few months ago I actually stopped and thought about video games and realized how much I didnt really like video games. I used to play video games 20-30 hours a week, now I barely get 10 hours a week and im much happier.
I too felt all video games are too limited and AI offered little challenge. Players online are jerks much of the time and well like you, I felt most of my options where limited and not me or what I would do.
So I stick to a small selection of games that suit my taste and leave it at that. And even those games dont quite do it. Wargames do it better because unlike video games, I can change it up how I want and there arent any crappy AI to do the same few things each time haha.
Chongara wrote:Anything that a user generates with a set of tools as narrowly defined as a character generator, owes a non-trivial portion of the credit to the designers. Everything the player creates is possible because a designer gave thought to it being available. Trying to claim oneself above, beyond and superior to the creators by virtue of how you've assembled their assets is hyperbolic self-aggrandizing.
You're mixing something up. I'm not claiming myself above the people who created these tools I work with.
I'm claiming myself above those creators who have ultimate influence on a game (in that they can have tools made according to their specs), yet still fail to come up with something that looks as varied as my characters, created within a much more limited framework.
I am certainly not saying "all designers suck", as I have seen a lot of premade characters that break with the standard. But when I'm looking at the apparent majority of videogame protagonists, I can safely say that my creations have a little more variety, which is insofar remarkable in that unlike them I'm not getting paid to design characters.
Then again, maybe that's the problem. How much of the status quo is really lack of creativity, and how much is company policy and/or lack of enthusiasm? Considering certain interviews, I'm willing to bet the latter is the greater problem. And one that transcends character creation or gender representation.
Lynata wrote: When I'm looking at the average premade character's appearance, and compare them to the ones I create ... I think I'm going out on a limb and say that I do put more thought into them than the designers of Generic White Male Space Marine #417.
+9001 to this post. Quite frankly, any character I create is more imaginative than game devs are going to write ninety nine percent of the time anyway.
You still cannot go beyond what the designers allowed you to do anyway, though. But that said, I can spend literally hours designing a character in some games!
In real life, you are stuck wearing the clothes at market, but that doesn't invalidate the choice you have in your chosen style. The artist may have added in that cute hair option, but they didn't really picture you pairing it with those shoes and that top.
Applying this analogy to games, the artist might not have pictured you pairing those things but the QA department probably did to make sure it didn't lead to graphical bugs or even potential game crashing bugs.
I guess my suspension of disbelief is finally gotten to the point that I find it intolerable to play something and then hit some wall in the game that just reminds me that I'm on rails, no matter how well concealed they are. Even massively wide open games like Skyrim have bounds. I used to like to explore games to the point of hitting those walls. I had a copy of Link's Awakening that I had managed to run the missions out of order on, even neglecting to collect a lot of the "essential" items. I did pretty much the same thing to Super Metroid by exploiting the wall jump and weird combos of the few powers I did pick up. That used to be my drive.
Now, I can't seem to unsee the things that just remind me I'm playing a game. It's just cliched tropes of "You need a better item to get here", "the invisible wall", "unavoidable cutscene", and "binary conversation in an infinite world". They're jarring when they hit, and sometimes it just makes me want to walk away and read a book or paint a mini. I actually spend about 10 minutes working on making the coolest looking guy I could in skyrim, and would have spent more time until it occurred to me that no one else would see it, and the only way I could even see it myself was when I had moved the camera to an angle where it would be impossible to actually be playing the game. Maybe the fact that I can't get myself immersed in games anymore is the reason why I don't care if I'm playing a male, female, transexual, or featureless white cube. Even if I get to choose from any of those, or even a myriad of other still more absurd choices, it doesn't matter because I'm not that person, nor am I controlling that person, I'm juggling a hitbox wearing that person like a mask. So I play a woman named Steve when presented with the option, because it matters not at all. I don't even know why Steve. I guess it was just the first completely mundane regular sounding name I thought of at the time. The Stanley Parable really does a good job articulating what I'm trying to convey, I think.
I still play multiplayer games, but I play them with a close set of friends I've had since college, and it's more about an excuse to socialize over vent than it is anything else. I can't think of the last single player game I actually tried to play, let alone completed. Couldn't get myself to finish Dark Souls. I played Transistor for a while, but it quickly became repetitive and completely gamelike. The story was kind of interesting though. I might go back and play it again at some point.
Anyway, I'm done ranting at this point, but you asked.
I guess my suspension of disbelief is finally gotten to the point that I find it intolerable to play something and then hit some wall in the game that just reminds me that I'm on rails, no matter how well concealed they are. Even massively wide open games like Skyrim have bounds. I used to like to explore games to the point of hitting those walls. I had a copy of Link's Awakening that I had managed to run the missions out of order on, even neglecting to collect a lot of the "essential" items. I did pretty much the same thing to Super Metroid by exploiting the wall jump and weird combos of the few powers I did pick up. That used to be my drive.
Now, I can't seem to unsee the things that just remind me I'm playing a game. It's just cliched tropes of "You need a better item to get here", "the invisible wall", "unavoidable cutscene", and "binary conversation in an infinite world". They're jarring when they hit, and sometimes it just makes me want to walk away and read a book or paint a mini. I actually spend about 10 minutes working on making the coolest looking guy I could in skyrim, and would have spent more time until it occurred to me that no one else would see it, and the only way I could even see it myself was when I had moved the camera to an angle where it would be impossible to actually be playing the game. Maybe the fact that I can't get myself immersed in games anymore is the reason why I don't care if I'm playing a male, female, transexual, or featureless white cube. Even if I get to choose from any of those, or even a myriad of other still more absurd choices, it doesn't matter because I'm not that person, nor am I controlling that person, I'm juggling a hitbox wearing that person like a mask. So I play a woman named Steve when presented with the option, because it matters not at all. I don't even know why Steve. I guess it was just the first completely mundane regular sounding name I thought of at the time. The Stanley Parable really does a good job articulating what I'm trying to convey, I think.
I still play multiplayer games, but I play them with a close set of friends I've had since college, and it's more about an excuse to socialize over vent than it is anything else. I can't think of the last single player game I actually tried to play, let alone completed. Couldn't get myself to finish Dark Souls. I played Transistor for a while, but it quickly became repetitive and completely gamelike. The story was kind of interesting though. I might go back and play it again at some point.
Anyway, I'm done ranting at this point, but you asked.
I've actually felt very similiar on occassion, and I wonder if it has to do how graphics have better than ever before. It's like we're running into the uncanny valley, where now games are now so graphicall expansive, we're now noticing the little details that don't seem to fit in. Invisible Walls, spotty hit detection, pop-in texturing, etc, are all more glaring because the games worlds are getting more immersive.
In an older style game like Might & Magic or Ultima, an invisible wall was just a quirk of the RPG, where in something like skyrim/gta/whatever, they now take you out of the experience.
Melissia wrote: You realize that skyrim had a third person camera, right?
Not trying to diminish your experiences, just asking.
Absolutely. You had to spin it around to see the front part of your character though, which made doing stuff and looking at your character not exactly things you could do at the same time.
So other than "admiring myself in the mirror" moments, the character creation effort was pretty much pointless.
Really I think it comes down to the fact that the character's appearance being alterable doesn't really detract from them, even if it doesn't engage you like it does others. While design and appearance are big in shaping the first impressions of a character as well as how you perceive their actions, there's leeway there. Take the armor customization in Halo. Damn awesome, and frankly I can't say Noble Six was hurt by his/her armor being alterable.
You can just use a default character if that doesn't matter to you. I typically used the default Shepards simple cause I didn't care much about changing the appearances male or female (I also just found the face maker in ME to be wonky and I never managed to quite get it to work like I wanted in any iteration of the series). While I've never been in on the hype of FemShep, I do think default FemShep was a damn fine looking lady. Felt no real need to alter that.
MrDwhitey wrote: Every time I make a character different from default, I deliberately make an inhuman monster.
Every single time.
Please bro. I play a Predator in Skyrim;
Spoiler:
Cause if a steroid pumped muscle man is worth hunting, so is a giant ice breathing lizard
The character creator I really love is the one in STO. The 'Alien' race builder is amazing. In need of some updates (like allowing proper Cardassians or Jem'Hadar) but it allows some pretty insane options.Bioware's editors have just never worked for me. The defaults look nice and smooth, but then you change one thing and the face just starts looking wrong and it's a real hassle to put it back together in a way that I like.
MrDwhitey wrote: Every time I make a character different from default, I deliberately make an inhuman monster.
Every single time.
Please bro. I play a Predator in Skyrim;
Spoiler:
Cause if a steroid pumped muscle man is worth hunting, so is a giant ice breathing lizard
The character creator I really love is the one in STO. The 'Alien' race builder is amazing. In need of some updates (like allowing proper Cardassians or Jem'Hadar) but it allows some pretty insane options.Bioware's editors have just never worked for me. The defaults look nice and smooth, but then you change one thing and the face just starts looking wrong and it's a real hassle to put it back together in a way that I like.
I just started playing skyrim this morning. The beginning was crappy, but now its kind of awesome.
I honestly found everything 'Dragon'* related in Skyrim to be the worst part of the game (though I did like the Greybeards). It would have been infinitely better focusing those resources into the Civil War storyline, which could have used a little more detail and love to really bring it fully into its own. Oh well. We have mods to fix that for us
*One shotting Alduin the destroyer of worlds with an Iron dagger was pretty funny that one time I did it.
MrDwhitey wrote: Every time I make a character different from default, I deliberately make an inhuman monster.
Every single time.
Saints Row 3-4 are great for this. I had more fun making things I would no longer classify as human in those games than anything else. The bone structure of one thing I made made caves in his face. His cheeks where so sucked in and the cheek bones so stuck out and curved he literally had caves on his face. His nose suffered the same fate.
Its just a pity nobody got scared of you or treated you differently because of your horrid sick phase.
LordofHats wrote: I honestly found everything 'Dragon'* related in Skyrim to be the worst part of the game (though I did like the Greybeards). It would have been infinitely better focusing those resources into the Civil War storyline, which could have used a little more detail and love to really bring it fully into its own. Oh well. We have mods to fix that for us
*One shotting Alduin the destroyer of worlds with an Iron dagger was pretty funny that one time I did it.
The vampire dlc was just as much fun. Though man they are hard as balls.
What i dislike in some games is the illogical things the character does, for example Max Payne
Spoiler
Spoiler:
He is supposed to be this bad ass experienced ex-cop, but several times the game forces me into a cut scene where the people he was supposed to protect got killed, after the second time i was so pissed, i stopped playing it
On the other hand your choice for choosing a male or female Shepard has no effect on the story-line even the choices you make don't do gak.
LordofHats wrote: Really I think it comes down to the fact that the character's appearance being alterable doesn't really detract from them, even if it doesn't engage you like it does others. While design and appearance are big in shaping the first impressions of a character as well as how you perceive their actions, there's leeway there. Take the armor customization in Halo. Damn awesome, and frankly I can't say Noble Six was hurt by his/her armor being alterable.
You can just use a default character if that doesn't matter to you. I typically used the default Shepards simple cause I didn't care much about changing the appearances male or female (I also just found the face maker in ME to be wonky and I never managed to quite get it to work like I wanted in any iteration of the series). While I've never been in on the hype of FemShep, I do think default FemShep was a damn fine looking lady. Felt no real need to alter that.
They also got tweaked every so slightly between games when imported. In ME1 my Shepard looked pretty good, I hadn't rotated the view enough so his lips looked kind of odd from the side but otherwise fine. I swear by ME3 despite my best efforts he looked like some kind of deranged gorilla man.
LordofHats wrote: Really I think it comes down to the fact that the character's appearance being alterable doesn't really detract from them, even if it doesn't engage you like it does others. While design and appearance are big in shaping the first impressions of a character as well as how you perceive their actions, there's leeway there. Take the armor customization in Halo. Damn awesome, and frankly I can't say Noble Six was hurt by his/her armor being alterable.
You can just use a default character if that doesn't matter to you. I typically used the default Shepards simple cause I didn't care much about changing the appearances male or female (I also just found the face maker in ME to be wonky and I never managed to quite get it to work like I wanted in any iteration of the series). While I've never been in on the hype of FemShep, I do think default FemShep was a damn fine looking lady. Felt no real need to alter that.
They also got tweaked every so slightly between games when imported. In ME1 my Shepard looked pretty good, I hadn't rotated the view enough so his lips looked kind of odd from the side but otherwise fine. I swear by ME3 despite my best efforts he looked like some kind of deranged gorilla man.
Hahaha.
Oh god.
But anyway lets get back on topic on females in games. K? k.
Swastakowey wrote: Saints Row 3-4 are great for this. I had more fun making things I would no longer classify as human in those games than anything else. The bone structure of one thing I made made caves in his face. His cheeks where so sucked in and the cheek bones so stuck out and curved he literally had caves on his face. His nose suffered the same fate.
My Saint Row IV character had the face of a troll from Warcraft.
Dshrike wrote:I've actually felt very similiar on occassion, and I wonder if it has to do how graphics have better than ever before. It's like we're running into the uncanny valley, where now games are now so graphicall expansive, we're now noticing the little details that don't seem to fit in. Invisible Walls, spotty hit detection, pop-in texturing, etc, are all more glaring because the games worlds are getting more immersive.
I'd say a goodRPG's world is always immersive, it's just that back then there was more focus on options or the writing rather than graphics, causing more stuff to happen in your brain whilst nowadays you're being spoon-fed what you are supposed to think/imagine. It's part of why I like Shadowrun Returns a lot, as it compensates its oldschool graphics with excellent novel-quality writing. Conversely, I still have a soft spot for games like Ultima Online just because it allowed you to do all sorts of crazy stuff and the game world wasn't segregated into instanced zones.
Though I don't really mind being railroaded if it's done well, meaning that you still have some freedom and the borders aren't as obvious, so that you don't stumble into them all the time. I know they're there if I'd go looking for them, but why should I? Better to kick back and enjoy the movie, so to say.
The only problems I had with graphics was a couple years ago when the gaming industry was in that weird phase where games looked good enough to override your own imagination of the characters, but not good enough to actually look awesome. Case in point: NWN2. To this day I swear that NWN1 looked better, even though it had older graphics!
LordofHats wrote:While I've never been in on the hype of FemShep, I do think default FemShep was a damn fine looking lady. Felt no real need to alter that.
Have to agree here. I actually liked this design so much that I went back and "conformed" to those looks when I replayed ME1 and ME2 before tackling 3, rather than re-playing my original designs.
LordofHats wrote:The character creator I really love is the one in STO. The 'Alien' race builder is amazing. In need of some updates (like allowing proper Cardassians or Jem'Hadar) but it allows some pretty insane options.Bioware's editors have just never worked for me. The defaults look nice and smooth, but then you change one thing and the face just starts looking wrong and it's a real hassle to put it back together in a way that I like.
Aye, Cryptic is extremely big on customisation. Still not as extreme as APB, but close! The only subjectively "bad" thing is how they also allow all sorts of changes to uniforms and ships, which gets weird quickly as that doesn't really fits to Starfleet etc. Too many skimpy-clothed cheerleaders and MU Terran Empire troops on ESD, lol.
Where it fits, however, is Champions Online. You've got even more options there and can create all sorts of stuff from fish-headed giants to steel-winged robots to brains in a jar. And because the setting is superheroes, anything goes without looking out of place.
Even better, you can mix and match your powers, recolour them or give them different effects. One of the more recent patches even added the option to add "auras" to your character where you glow, have lightning run across your body, are on fire or covered in a sheet of ice etc. And you can choose whether it's permanent or only in combat. Awesome.
LordofHats wrote:I honestly found everything 'Dragon'* related in Skyrim to be the worst part of the game (though I did like the Greybeards).
Personally, I think dragons are overrated. They've become the centerpiece of way too many games, so much so that they displace more interesting and older stuff. When I was still playing WoW it bothered me immensely that you couldn't walk two meters without stumbling over a quest involving dragons. /hyperbole
Personally, I think dragons are overrated. They've become the centerpiece of way too many games, so much so that they displace more interesting and older stuff. When I was still playing WoW it bothered me immensely that you couldn't walk two meters without stumbling over a quest involving dragons. /hyperbole
Agreed. thats why the creatures in my book the mainstay are Loch Ness Monsters or really creepy creatures called Nucklavee or Wyverns, or any other creature from my world. XD
There are so many creatures to choose from.
I think undead are done poorly and i've never seen Revenants done right either. Its kind of sad really.
I think that should be a separate thread as its own. I think female creatures are a lot more common than you think. How many spider queens have we faced?
I don't think a variety of enemies is too different in some games, in skyrim.
My nephew fits that cliche when he plays minecraft . He's more interested in blowing up villages with stacks and stacks of tnt than he is in building a city out of their village. But then again you can count his age on just your fingers so....
Lynata wrote: RPG's world is always immersive, it's just that back then there was more focus on options or the writing rather than graphics, causing more stuff to happen in your brain whilst nowadays you're being spoon-fed what you are supposed to think/imagine. It's part of why I like Shadowrun Returns a lot, as it compensates its oldschool graphics with excellent novel-quality writing. Conversely, I still have a soft spot for games like Ultima Online just because it allowed you to do all sorts of crazy stuff and the game world wasn't segregated into instanced zones.
Though I don't really mind being railroaded if it's done well, meaning that you still have some freedom and the borders aren't as obvious, so that you don't stumble into them all the time. I know they're there if I'd go looking for them, but why should I? Better to kick back and enjoy the movie, so to say.
The only problems I had with graphics was a couple years ago when the gaming industry was in that weird phase where games looked good enough to override your own imagination of the characters, but not good enough to actually look awesome. Case in point: NWN2. To this day I swear that NWN1 looked better, even though it had older graphics!
You're right. I suppose my choice of "more immersive" regarding graphics wasn't quite the right set of words. I agree though. One of the major things that stuck out to me about the NWN2 graphics were the animations. They felt very stiff. While the NWN1 animations were also stiff (and a bit slide-y) the graphic fidelity wasn't so great so it didn't distract too much.
But then we're just getting into the metaphysical mind feth of what choices we make are ever meaningful in the grand scheme of things 
.
from no one. 
