CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit.
For science reasons.
If you think this is cloth rather than armor, boobsocks then.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.
Checked pictures of actual female jet pilots and astronauts, none of them wore boob-plate or boob-socks. Maybe because to get proper support, they just use some bra underneath their uniform .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit. For science reasons.
If you think this is cloth rather than armor, boobsocks then.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.
Checked pictures of actual female jet pilots and astronauts, none of them wore boob-plate or boob-socks. Maybe because to get proper support, they just use some bra underneath their uniform .
If you are flying space. The sheer force you would be exerted to when turning around would simply rip you in half.
Spoiler:
Funny thing when she is cloaking her helmet comes down and covers her face.
Lets not forget that the ghosts also are wearing skin tight clothing.
But with advanced technology suits become more slimmer and less bulky. The more advanced the slimmer the uniform or suit. Its just how things progress. Especially for pilots.
Just going to grab off points that sprang out, quoting would be a mess.
>> Women are more intelligent than men
Too broad and thus incorrect. Men and women have cognitive differences due to a different brain structure, such as men being better at spatial awareness and women being better at episodic memory, to name one example for both. All of those are parts of intelligence but as you cannot rationalize those and say which has the largest impact on the overall "intelligence", making the bland "women are more intelligent than men" statement should be considered wrong.
>> Men and women are equal from a biologic / neurologic point of view!
No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.
Depends. It can be both. If used to gain an advantage, it's rational. It can also be irrational, however, when sexism is used to suppress emotional problems. Men might be sexist towards women because of jealousy, women could be sexist towards men because of suppressed anger. There's a lot of reasons. But sexism can be both irrational and rational. Same as racism.
Too broad and thus incorrect. Men and women have cognitive differences due to a different brain structure, such as men being better at spatial awareness and women being better at episodic memory, to name one example for both. All of those are parts of intelligence but as you cannot rationalize those and say which has the largest impact on the overall "intelligence", making the bland "women are more intelligent than men" statement should be considered wrong.
Agreed.
No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.
This is a good start to get a general idea:
Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.
Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.
Apparently it is not 'correct'
See my previous statement. Melissia knows a lot about video games and I highly respect her for it, but she is unable to discuss this special matter for reasons stated above. But alas, that's the advantage of scientific facts: it doesn't matter whether someone likes them or not, they're there
Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.
Apparently it is not 'correct'
See my previous statement. Melissia knows a lot about video games and I highly respect her for it, but she is unable to discuss this special matter for reasons stated above. But alas, that's the advantage of scientific facts: it doesn't matter whether someone likes them or not, they're there
I actually study video games and their effects on people. We have to learn how games effect people XD
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.
They do affect behavior in the slightest
I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media. They might stimulate that bloodthirsty part of the human psyche though.
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.
They do affect behavior in the slightest
I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might give ideas though.
Well that might of been because they drank from lead.
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.
They do affect behavior in the slightest
I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might give ideas though.
Well that might of been because they drank from lead.
Hah, good point. Yes, lead pipes may not have been a clever choice of metal for plumbing.
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.
They do affect behavior in the slightest
I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might stimulate that bloodthirsty part of the human psyche though.
Aren't the Romans famed for their violent form of entertainment?
Do you think prolonged gameplay sessions can exacerbate pre-existing social and mental conditions? like that comic that I see brought up sometimes in these threads
Heck, do you think they can have any effect at all on a persons personality? I thought books/movies/stories could do that but I guess games are the exception or none of them actually have any effect.
Asherian Command wrote: To clarify I don't think games have adverse effects on people. Unlike certain people that I know of. *Cough* my sister *cough*
Do you think prolonged gameplay sessions can exacerbate pre-existing social and mental conditions?
Heck, do you think they can have any effect at all on a persons personality? I thought books/movies/stories could do that but I guess games are the exception or none of them actually have any effect.
I don't think they can, as research has been inconclusive on all matters.
I mean you can be brainwashed in a certain way but that is incredibly different than just normally playing a game.
If you have a prexisting condition it might increase the chances of behavior problems. But we don't know because we have only tested it in the lab and not in normal settings as the laboratory will sometimes cause the effects to be exaggerated to the 9th degree.
I think they could only under extreme circumstances. like if the person is extremely depressed and is prone to be manipulated it might be. But highlight the word might. Because that is only a theory and has not been proven.
Games can teach, but I don't think they can change you.
Its like when someone blamed a book because their son read it and became a serial killer. I am pretty sure her son was already a serial killer the book just gave them confidence and reinforced their idea.
But that didn't change anything whether the book was there or not, its not like as if it a drug affecting your brain.
Games can have an effect on people. Just like movies, books, ect. That is kind of the point. I mean no one writes a book with the hope that the reader will gain nothing from the experience.
Well, I guess words and images just don't have the impact that people who speak and draw to a high level would like to think they have. Education/Information examples aside.
Apparently they don't actually do anything more than reinforce your existing personality.
nomotog wrote: Games can have an effect on people. Just like movies, books, ect. That is kind of the point. I mean no one writes a book with the hope that the reader will gain nothing from the experience.
That is not what I am saying, but that is not changing behavior. You can learn stuff but I don't think it will make you want to kill people. We have cognitive abilities that protect us from that.
Depending on were you are society doesn't see men and women as equal. Often men and women are more equal in the eyes of biology then in the eyes of society.
nomotog wrote: Depending on were you are society doesn't see men and women as equal. Often men and women are more equal in the eyes of biology then of society.
Thats also false as there have been plently of examples showing that women are better at somethings, and men are not. Biologically women have to bear childern which is a disadvantage. (And also an advantage)
But it is an advantage men do not get pregnant.
LordofHats wrote:And? It's kind of outlandish to proclaim young males only wanted to play white men considering the popularity of Tomb Raider, Metroid, etc etc.
I'm not suggesting that female characters are bad, in fact I'd be more than pleased to see all male characters in all games be genderflipped by Tsunako or Takeuchi or Ume-sensei. But of course, that's quite the opposite of what feminists want. They want all games which supposedly cater to a tiny minority of people that play games for the sake of scoring political points. Characters should be informed by the vision their creators have in mind when making the game, and given the disposition of most creators (relatively young, male, gamers themselves), that's going to naturally tend towards pandering to the audience and market of the gaming industry.
As outlandish as claiming this group will lose interest if other kinds of protagonists are created.
There's room for all kinds of protagonists, but I think that propagandizing games in the way that feminists want is definitely going to turn away the majority of the audience.
Framing this as an issue of advancing feminist values is a complete misnomer. Nothing about including more dynamic females in lead and supporting roles is all that obstructive. To the contrary, most developers seem amicable to broadening horizons. Why wouldn't they be? If you're just retreading the same ground as everyone else, then your job is pretty boring. It's publishers who aren't interested because publishers don't care about creation (just profiting from it).
The issue isn't with female leads or dynamic female characters, it's with the very sterile and unlikeable kinds of female leads that those who call for change desire, and the arbitrary equality they seek to enforce on fictional universes.
Crystal-Maze wrote:The problem here is that games designers, and you apparently, assume the male to be the default.
Given the premise of most games involves violent, and often military conflict as a core feature, that's not really unreasonable. Even then, though, developers who aren't so concerned about realism are perfectly justified in making women the lead characters in violent conflicts, and some of my favorite games are exactly like that. What's problematic is when female characters are forced into prominent roles when they clearly shouldn't be, or when the behavior of female characters if modified from what the creator intended, to suit the political positions of an active and hostile minority.
Its not a question of whether the story calls specifically for a woman (otherwise we default to a man), but a question of 'why on earth shouldn't it have a woman in it?'.
I think that's entirely the wrong approach to take. Every character should be defined well enough so that their sex isn't just an arbitrary characteristic which can be swapped out to meet quotas, or else you're dealing with some pretty shallow characters.
Its a fictional game; if your imagination can stretch to whip-blades, laser guns and zombies, but not to women wanting to use the guns or fight the zombies, I think there is something very wrong with your imagination.
I don't think many people are going to cite Zoey from Left 4 Dead as an example of an unwelcome female character. I don't think many gamers at all are upset by that kind of portrayal of women in their games.
It's feminists who are.
The story doesn't have to change. It just needs more women in it.
Well that would change the story, but I'm all onboard for a 100% female cast in most circumstances, so long as they're not the hollow, unlikable political caricatures that feminists want them to be.
Maybe they could even be wearing clothes.
Attacking an aesthetic on the basis that it's unrealistic or undignified is simply not going to fly in an entertainment media.
As a gamer, I am truly interested in feminist ideals permeating the games that I play. Would it really hurt to include a playable female character?
If that's all that was being asked, then I'd be the biggest supporter of being "truly interested in feminist ideals permeating the games that I play." Unfortunately, it's not. Feminists want more women of a particular type to be present in games. A particular type that I find utterly distasteful and am completely uninterested in.
The problem with saying that the market is 'male and young' is that it creates a catch 22 in favour of the status quo. All of the main characters are men, so you attract a male audience. Then if women don't want to play the games with a male character, you point and say 'obviously only men want to play, lets make more male main characters'. But if women do play the games with male main characters, you get to point and say 'we're attracting a female audience, lets change nothing'.
I'll leave this here. 50% of games purchased by women. 48% played by women. Average game player is 31. There is your 'Overwhelmingly young, male audence'.
If you seriously believe that as many women play games as men, you're crazy. I imagine these stats are grossly inflated by casual and mobile gaming, and even then, this study probably got its data from simply surveying a small, unrepresentative sample. There's absolutely no way that women purchase or play as many games as men, full stop.
LordofHats wrote:If a character is good, they will garner interest, whether they be man, woman, hero, villain, murderer, rapist, etc. So long as it is interesting it will fly. What's between their legs is really a ludicrously minor issue to have blown up as much as it is. Some women asking for more women in games isn't going to ruin anyone else's fun times.
Again, if that's ALL it were, then this would be a non-issue.
Vertrucio wrote:Also, publishers only think that their market is male and young. The reality is that the game playing and buying public is actually made up more of 20-30+ year olds. Also, the gap between male and female players is dwindling. But part of the reason there is a gap at all is what we're talking about. If you talk about different gaming markets, there's actually a huge number of female game players that play casual games. Those might never be converted to the type that will play or at least try an in depth game, but we'll never know if the market doesn't change it's portrayal of women that drives away women from even trying.
You assume that I have any interst in supporting the expansion of the market's audience. That sort of thing runs quite directly contrary to anyone interested in games as they are, because the reason that they can be made in the way they are now with the resources that they have now is because there's a particular kind of demand. An expansion of the target demographic waters down pretty much everything I, and I imagine most other games, want from games. What you get when you appeal to the whole population is casual and social gaming, and I certainly don't want more resources headed to that sort of gaming than towards the complex and more "hardcore" games that I actually play and like.
It's a common defensive reaction to think that feminism is a negative pressure. Reality is, that pressure is just eyes being opened. It's like your avatar. Japanese animation, while often lauded for unique portrayals of women, is just as much a cesspool of the worst portrayals of, well, any group of people in existence.
Feminism wants to destroy a lot of what I like about games and replace it with things I very strongly dislike. Of course it's a negative pressure.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Kali wrote: If nobody stands up for creative freedoms
The convenient, hypocrite excuse.
Kali wrote: As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way. It's not only a matter of how gaming isn't equal in its pandering, but also why it shouldn't be. After all, we all want creators to make things that we like and I'm just one among countless others who are interested in defending and promoting the community and market to incentivize that productive behavior.
The truth.
It is funny how you did not even notice how you were contradicting yourself.
It's not a contradiction, as developers should have the freedom to make whatever they want, but what I'm personally interested in incentivizing them to make are products that I personally like. I won't protest outside their offices for making a game I don't like, but I would protest outside the offices of their publisher if the game was denied publication because it didn't meet the demands of political factions like feminists.
So, what do you believe:
- If the story explicitly require a male character (because of that segment when he cannot use his hands and have to write his name in the snow ), then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character (because she will become pregnant during the game ) then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make him a man, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character , then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, toss a coin to see if you are going to make it a man or a woman, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character, then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make her a woman, that is fine for you.
I strongly suspect it is the first solution.
Uh, none of the above. All characters should be created as their creators intend them, whether they're male or female or intersex or robots or whatever else.
Also please provide example of why a story would have to be modified if the character's gender is changed.
Any, since the characters are at least half of what makes the story what it is.
Again, if that's ALL it were, then this would be a non-issue.
Except it is all it is. Everything else you said exists purely in your imagination or the imaginations of people who don't actually pay attention to what most feminists are saying.
Because two people represent all feminists everywhere.
I laughed at the idea that Sarkeesian was actually achieving her goal earlier in this thread, and I still laugh at it. Anyone perceiving her as some kind of great threat to video games hasn't been paying attention to how little progress she's made. Quinn's never even said much about feminism, or about changing the industry for that matter. She just complains about how mean everyone is to her.
LordofHats wrote: Because two people represent all feminists everywhere.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. Most feminists aren't gamers and/or aren't interested in gaming. They don't exert pressure on the industry because they don't make up its target audience and they don't make political/social waves to change it. Pressure on the industry comes from the type of feminists that rally behind Sarkeesian and Quinn - tumblrites who are so estranged from reality and sense that even the average feminist balks at their suggestions. Even though their numbers are small, their online footprint and subsequent impact on internet media is disproportionately large, and as a result they've managed to put themselves at the heart of this controversy and largely control the flow of the conversation on the issue.
LordofHats wrote: So you don't actually know anything about feminism? Gee. Color me surprised
If you are seriously going to cling to this ridiculous notion that women are avid gamers, put some warrants behind it. I find it absurd that anyone can seriously believe that.
LordofHats wrote: Because two people represent all feminists everywhere.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. Most feminists aren't gamers and/or aren't interested in gaming. They don't exert pressure on the industry because they don't make up its target audience and they don't make political/social waves to change it. Pressure on the industry comes from the type of feminists that rally behind Sarkeesian and Quinn - tumblrites who are so estranged from reality and sense that even the average feminist balks at their suggestions. Even though their numbers are small, their online footprint and subsequent impact on internet media is disproportionately large, and as a result they've managed to put themselves at the heart of this controversy and largely control the flow of the conversation on the issue.
That is why I wanted a gamer directed conversation like what we have here. If we don't want the tumbler people to control the conversation about gaming then we need talk about it. If you neglect the issue, then you abandon responsibility and someone else will pick up the slack. Basically if you don't address it someone else will.
Kali wrote: If you are seriously going to cling to this ridiculous notion that women are avid gamers, put some warrants behind it. I find it absurd that anyone can seriously believe that.
If you're going to seriously cling to the ridiculous notion that there's no such thin as a woman who plays video games, put some warrants behind it. I find it absurd that anyone seriously believes that.
There's at least 3 women who've participated in this thread (two of them among the most active of participants).
LordofHats wrote:If you're going to seriously cling to the ridiculous notion that there's no such thin as a woman who plays video games, put some warrants behind it. I find it absurd that anyone seriously believes that.
My position is supported by the status quo, as that's what publishers and developers believe. As a result, the burden of proof falls on you and your extraordinary claims.
Kali wrote: My position is supported by the status quo,
No your position falls on your assumptions about the status quo.
As a result, the burden of proof falls on you and your extraordinary claims.
If I've learned anything from the internet, is that I can provide all the proof in the world, and people who've displayed certain levels of ignorance will never believe it. Google is your friend. Take some initiative and challenge your own assumptions instead of demanding I do it for you. I have better things to do with my time than trying to teach a horse to drink
Asherian Command wrote: There is a difference between teaching an idea, and changing someones behavior.
Except there are a whole lot of idea that will change someone's behavior.
Kali wrote: What's problematic is when female characters are forced into prominent roles when they clearly shouldn't be
When exactly female characters should not be into prominent roles? When racist gender segregation say they should not, or what?
Kali wrote: Every character should be defined well enough so that their sex isn't just an arbitrary characteristic which can be swapped out to meet quotas, or else you're dealing with some pretty shallow characters.
What would make sex not an arbitrary characteristic?
Kali wrote: I don't think many people are going to cite Zoey from Left 4 Dead as an example of an unwelcome female character.
Can you cite any female character as an example of an unwelcome female character?
Kali wrote: Attacking an aesthetic on the basis that it's unrealistic or undignified is simply not going to fly in an entertainment media.
Yeah. Totally okay to include blackface in your video game, nobody will care about it .
Kali wrote: Feminism wants to destroy a lot of what I like about games and replace it with things I very strongly dislike.
Yeah, like what? You keep on saying this kind of things, but can you give precise examples?
Kali wrote: It's not a contradiction, as developers should have the freedom to make whatever they want, but what I'm personally interested in incentivizing them to make are products that I personally like.
Do you mean, incentivizing just like feminists do? But when it is them, it is bad, because they are incentivizing the bad things!
Kali wrote: Any, since the characters are at least half of what makes the story what it is.
So, changing the hair color of Snake would totally change the story of Metal Gear? That is a very… weak argument to make.
Doesn't matter, because they're not the ones exerting pressure on the gaming community. These ones are:
I want to tell you that putting the image of someone who as far as I know never said anything about female representation in games, totally did not make you look like an absolute idiot. I would like to emphasize that. This shows how strong your arguments are!
Melissia wrote: Right, because I have the millions of dollars needed to make a big budget game. Because that's the kind of game we're referring to here-- most indie games do not get the kind of market share or impact that games by multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar producers get (indie games are also more likely to be creative, but have less budget to use to expand on their creativity). Your objections are meaningless.
I'm curious, would you have a problem with EA releasing a Legends Football League lingerie football game using the madden engine?
No male characters in the game (female refs, female fans) exactly the same as gameplay as madden, big budget, marketing out the wazoo. Just women competing against women, no males involved.
Would you support or oppose this game? I'm going to have to insist on a binary here (no 'just add women to madden!' response) considering the National Women's Football Association has been defunct for the last few years, and there are no female players in the NFL
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just posed the question to my dirty leftie wife (her words ) she said she'd play that game. Didn't even get to finish listing the criteria
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit.
For science reasons.
If you think this is cloth rather than armor, boobsocks then.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.
Checked pictures of actual female jet pilots and astronauts, none of them wore boob-plate or boob-socks. Maybe because to get proper support, they just use some bra underneath their uniform .
Kali wrote: Most feminists aren't gamers and/or aren't interested in gaming.
Irrelevant.
I'm a feminist. I not only probably play more games more often than you do, I have probably done so for longer than you have (longer than you've been alive, in fact, if you count Atari and arcade games)
What specifically do you want to see changed, then?
I've explained this numerous times in this thread.
But if you insist on me reiterating (can't blame you with something like seventy pages to read through), I want games to stop lazily defaulting to male when writing characters (I have offered solutions on how to do this in an unbiased manner, in fact); I also desire for games to allow for more customization of the player character, especially (but not exclusively) RPGs and multiplayer-only or multiplayer-heavy games like most first-person shooters, two genres I'm more heavily invested in (but there's no reason that this could not be expanded to other genres; the RTS genre, for example, would need to do little more than to change pronouns when referring to "the commander", similar to how Stronghold 2's greeting changes to "Greetings, Lady Mel" when I enter my name at the start).
That's the topic I have focused on in this thread, and the topic that I find most important. The sexualization/sexuality in games topic I find to be a secondary (but still important) concern; certainly I believe developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have; the woman should be defined by what badass/good/evil/etc thing she does, not what she looks like-- that's just lazy and boring. A good step in that is to stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game, but that alone won't do everything that needs to be done.
I also desire for games to allow for more customization of the player character, especially (but not exclusively) RPGs and multiplayer-only or multiplayer-heavy games like most first-person shooters, two genres I'm more heavily invested in (but there's no reason that this could not be expanded to other genres; the RTS genre, for example, would need to do little more than to change pronouns when referring to "the commander", similar to how Stronghold 2's greeting changes to "Greetings, Lady Mel" when I enter my name at the start).
I disagree. I don't want all games to have that. There should always be games that are not completely customizable. I think it doesn't work all the time. But agree with the second bit. Customization is well in good but I don't think it will change the problem.
Probably allowing for the same storyline just in different genders is a good idea. Just writing that might take longer.
I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
While I certainly believe that all games having more customization would in fact make the gaming industry better, the post you responded to did not actually advocate that.
Melissia wrote: If you refuse to read nuance, VorpalBunny, then you aren't going to like what I have to say, and you have nothing to contribute to this thread anyway.
It was an honest question. It's a shame you feel that way
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Largely because a lot folks would see your post and somehow interpret the words to mean this:
AdeptSister(Interpreted) wrote: I demand all games star only unappealing women. Anyone who wants to play games about something other than hypermasculine women are so embarrassing. They shouldn't play due to their attraction to women. I'm angry there are men in audience. I demand personalization of PCs in every game with the only options being minoirties.
I would love to get to the time when "Man" starts being used as a four letter word. Being a good person and a man is mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for no men or ask for your hobby to be more exclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does never allowing any sexualization and knowing how much smarter I than you really hurt your fee-fees so much?
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Largely because a lot folks would see your post and somehow interpret the words to mean this:
AdeptSister(Interpreted) wrote: I demand all games star only unappealing women. Anyone who wants to play games about something other than hypermasculine women are so embarrassing. They shouldn't play due to their attraction to women. I'm angry there are men in audience. I demand personalization of PCs in every game with the only options being minoirties.
I would love to get to the time when "Man" starts being used as a four letter word. Being a good person and a man is mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for no men new or ask for your hobby to be more exclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does never allowing any sexualization and knowing how smarter I than you really hurt your fee-fees so much?
Made better by how the last 72 pages have proved it
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Largely because a lot folks would see your post and somehow interpret the words to mean this:
AdeptSister(Interpreted) wrote: I demand all games star only unappealing women. Anyone who wants to play games about something other than hypermasculine women are so embarrassing. They shouldn't play due to their attraction to women. I'm angry there are men in audience. I demand personalization of PCs in every game with the only options being minoirties.
I would love to get to the time when "Man" starts being used as a four letter word. Being a good person and a man is mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for no men or ask for your hobby to be more exclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does never allowing any sexualization and knowing how much smarter I than you really hurt your fee-fees so much?
Melissia wrote: Right, because I have the millions of dollars needed to make a big budget game. Because that's the kind of game we're referring to here-- most indie games do not get the kind of market share or impact that games by multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar producers get (indie games are also more likely to be creative, but have less budget to use to expand on their creativity). Your objections are meaningless.
Demanding that other people spend their time and their money satisfying your requirements is completely reasonable. Right.
And they weren't objections, offering an alternative to mass bitching is simply that, an alternative. See it how you will.
Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
Because that's objectifying women, and that's bad. Always.
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
I think it actually functions as armour.
But really, I have a much bigger problem with boob windows in armour than boob plate.
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
Because that's objectifying women, and that's bad. Always.
You're wearing armour, so its going to be a fight-setting. The Romans started off the ornate chest armour thing (my history is not the best), emphasising the muscles. This made their officers look more strong, imposing and scary. This is useful.
This does not equate to boob plate in women. Boob plate makes female characters look sexy. This is not particularly useful in a fight. Especially if there are arrows or bullets around (it directs them towards the heart) - unless the pec armour is huge, the extent to which this happens would be much less with pec armour.
Of course, the pec armour still creates an unrealistic standard of masculinity. We could start a campaign right now asking for more realistic male action heroes who are mildly overweight?
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
Because that's objectifying women, and that's bad. Always.
You're wearing armour, so its going to be a fight-setting. The Romans started off the ornate chest armour thing (my history is not the best), emphasising the muscles. This made their officers look more strong, imposing and scary. This is useful.
This does not equate to boob plate in women. Boob plate makes female characters look sexy. This is not particularly useful in a fight. Especially if there are arrows or bullets around (it directs them towards the heart) - unless the pec armour is huge, the extent to which this happens would be much less with pec armour.
Of course, the pec armour still creates an unrealistic standard of masculinity. We could start a campaign right now asking for more realistic male action heroes who are mildly overweight?
The campaign must be for equality for all, not just one sex. I demand beer gut armor, love-handled cloaks, and double-chin shoulder guards.
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
I think it looks ugly and dumb. Yes, even when it's roman
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankenberry wrote: The campaign must be for equality for all, not just one sex.
Then start your own damn movement instead of piggybacking off the feminist movement. Because that would indicate you're serious instead of just trying to place all the burden on women in order to belittle us and be a lazy, privileged white dude.
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Well you have the choice of not playing that types of games, just like I choose to not play games that requires Origin.
Being inclusive isn't being vilified from what ive observed, its what comes next that is the hypocritical double standard that people react to, Its the claims of wanting equality but then demanding special treatment for female characters in the next breath, finally culminating in total oppression of female charactisation in appearance, personality followed by the constant denial of the gaming industry is improving. And this is the same pattern every single time this issue crops up.
Like all media gaming is not exempt from exaggeration, just like the worst soap show imaginable to the humblest of documentaries they are all exaggerated to make them more intresting.
^This is really an attractive woman. I find this more attractive than the one below.. The one above seems realistic and more well.... Beautiful and attractive.
Spoiler:
I think that is fair, but getting rid of all of it is kind of eh.... Not realistic.
I complain of the people who want to push their ideology and that there is only one way to think which is what I currently see.
There are multiple ways of thinking and just ignoring it won't help.
(I'm mostly looking at third wave feminists) Melissia you are not a third wave feminist. You don't hate men, you don't go on tumblr and get insulted by stuff, you don't want certain things that they want....
Frankenberry wrote: Demanding that other people spend their time and their money satisfying your requirements is completely reasonable. Right.
Yeah, usually that is something companies try to do, satisfy their customers requirements .
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
That is not the equivalent. The equivalent is nipple armor. It is pretty ridiculous, but also very rare. Since it is not prevalent at all, it is not really a problem.
Frankenberry wrote: Demanding that other people spend their time and their money satisfying your requirements is completely reasonable. Right.
Yeah, usually that is something companies try to do, satisfy their customers requirements .
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
That is not the equivalent. The equivalent is nipple armor. It is pretty ridiculous, but also very rare. Since it is not prevalent at all, it is not really a problem.
Batman and Robin Movies George in the Jungle Thor Captain America The Avengers Iron Man Thor the DarkWorld Basically any scene where the male takes off his shirt is pandering to the female audience.
They do exist and they exist in film. Some games also do this. And I say there should be more of them.
Sexualization is a good thing, because repressing sexual wants or needs is a horrible thing to do to male or female bodies.
I've always thought that sexulization is fine, but objectifying or limiting a person based on sexulazation is the bad part. It's perfectly fine for someone to be sexy, as long as that is not their only quality.
Asherian Command wrote: Batman and Robin Movies
George in the Jungle
Thor
Captain America
The Avengers
Iron Man
Thor the DarkWorld
As far as I can say, only the first one has an example of nipple armor. But OH DAMN WHAT A NIPPLE ARMOR IT IS!
That was pretty awesome.
Asherian Command wrote: Basically any scene where the male takes off his shirt is pandering to the female audience.
Any blockbuster. Wrong cops have both male and female character taking off their shirts with neither being meant as titillating for the audience, for instance. Yes, I watch weird movies, and I am fully assuming of it .
Asherian Command wrote: Sexualization is a good thing, because repressing sexual wants or needs is a horrible thing to do to male or female bodies.
So Sexualization is fine, just not all the time.
This is what I have already said a bunch of times in this thread, yes .
Asherian Command wrote: Batman and Robin Movies
George in the Jungle
Thor
Captain America
The Avengers
Iron Man
Thor the DarkWorld
As far as I can say, only the first one has an example of nipple armor. But OH DAMN WHAT A NIPPLE ARMOR IT IS!
That was pretty awesome.
Asherian Command wrote: Basically any scene where the male takes off his shirt is pandering to the female audience.
Any blockbuster. Wrong cops have both male and female character taking off their shirts with neither being meant as titillating for the audience, for instance. Yes, I watch weird movies, and I am fully assuming of it .
Asherian Command wrote: Sexualization is a good thing, because repressing sexual wants or needs is a horrible thing to do to male or female bodies.
So Sexualization is fine, just not all the time.
This is what I have already said a bunch of times in this thread, yes .
Example of female pandering
There is no use to having this scene in this movie. But they still have it.
So someone thought while making armor that the nipples need space? I mean people are not naked underneath the armor they usually have several layers underneath a platemail armor or anything, infact most games forget this.
Heavy armor is several layers of armor not just one.
I was looking at a game set in Rome and it had the peck and ab armor. The very first thing I though was that there is no way they are really his abs. It's just kind of a little silly when you think about it. Like one of those shirts that has the hot body picture.
In an environment were you have peck ab armor, I think it's much more forgiving to have boob ab armor. It fits in better.
So someone thought while making armor that the nipples need space? I mean people are not naked underneath the armor they usually have several layers underneath a platemail armor or anything, infact most games forget this.
Heavy armor is several layers of armor not just one.
Yeah, there's usually a layer of chaimail under the plate. And a shirt under that, because wearing chainmail against bare skin is just asking for chafing.
I mean, Red Sonya shouldn't have any skin left on her...though that may be why she is known as Red Sonya.
Muscle armor, and even more nipple armor, has the armor sculpted to represent the thing, of course. It should be obvious. Muscle move. A lot. Metal plaque does not.
I muse that someone who wears armor that makes it look like they are hot and naked might have some kind of thing about the way they look. Like they might be very vain or are very concerned with the idea of masculinity/femininity.
Ashiraya wrote: I found the Sanguinary Guard funny because of the irony.
But I prefer appropriately androgynous armour; when you wear lots of metal the gender differences become hard to see.
I would agree but I think if we want people to be comfortable we should also have characters that don't wear the normal type of armor, like armor specifically made for them. (Like the rose knight picture, because it looks quite badass)
Ashiraya wrote: I wouldn't mind a suit of 'Black Queen' armour.
Spoiler:
I have a character who is a female and she wears full leather armor. And wears her hood when scouting.
Then there is another woman who wears a suit of armor shaped to look like a bear. And it is absolutely terrifying. And she is married and has two kids, and she is a princess. She is fifteenth in line to the throne. But she doesn't really care. Good character.
What specifically do you want to see changed, then?
I've explained this numerous times in this thread.
But if you insist on me reiterating (can't blame you with something like seventy pages to read through), I want games to stop lazily defaulting to male when writing characters (I have offered solutions on how to do this in an unbiased manner, in fact); I also desire for games to allow for more customization of the player character, especially (but not exclusively) RPGs and multiplayer-only or multiplayer-heavy games like most first-person shooters, two genres I'm more heavily invested in (but there's no reason that this could not be expanded to other genres; the RTS genre, for example, would need to do little more than to change pronouns when referring to "the commander", similar to how Stronghold 2's greeting changes to "Greetings, Lady Mel" when I enter my name at the start).
That's the topic I have focused on in this thread, and the topic that I find most important. The sexualization/sexuality in games topic I find to be a secondary (but still important) concern; certainly I believe developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have; the woman should be defined by what badass/good/evil/etc thing she does, not what she looks like-- that's just lazy and boring. A good step in that is to stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game, but that alone won't do everything that needs to be done.
I don't see much disagreeable with this, but I feel like that's because you're intentionally framing it in a limited way that doesn't represent what you actually want. If all you're asking for is more female characters and more customization where it's sensible, then sure I can get behind that. But what makes it suspect is the latter portion of your post, where you attack simple aesthetics. I don't want to see the Sorceress from Dragon's Crown or the HDD Neps be censored out of existence or stigmatized to eroge.
So if you don't have barely covered tits shoved in your face every time you're looking at a female character, you instantly assume there's censorship going on?
Kali wrote: Because I like them and want development resources to support them,
There can be development resources spent on eroge.
Kali wrote: and because I do not want to be socially damaged by enjoying the things I like.
Then you should complain about how people should not be socially damaged for enjoying eroge, rather than complain that what you like is conflated with eroge, no ?
Melissia wrote:So if you don't have barely covered tits shoved in your face every time you're looking at a female character, you instantly assume there's censorship going on?
See it's statements like this that reveal your true intent. You don't simply want new things, you want to destroy those that are already present. You are campaigning against perceived evils rather than on the merits of your perceived goods.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:There can be development resources spent on eroge.
Right, and there should be, but that's not what I'm concerned about. These games clearly aren't eroge but according to the feminist paradigm they should be demonized as such.
Then you should complain about how people should not be socially damaged for enjoying eroge, rather than complain that what you like is conflated with eroge, no ?
Kali wrote: These games clearly aren't eroge but according to the feminist paradigm they should be demonized as such.
These designs are clearly in between what belongs to porn games and to “normal” games. They ought to go to specific games rather than be mainstream. That is what they say. And, if there is no problem with porn games, there should be no problem with, well, let us call them pin-up games. They will just not be present in mainstream games along with mainstream characters.
Melissia wrote: I haven't advocated for hte censorship of past video games, and if you insist on claiming that I have, you are a liar.
Only future ones, right?
This heavily reminds me of 'The Cafe' episode of Seinfeld
Jerry, fascinated by an empty and failing eclectic restaurant called "The Dream Café," offers his patronage to the restaurant, and convinces its owner, Babu Bhatt (Brian George), to restyle his menu and decor. He suggests that Babu make his restaurant the only authentic Pakistani eatery in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the restaurant still lacks customers and Babu loses a lot of money. He becomes very upset with Jerry and blames him for causing his failure, yelling, "You're a very, very bad man!", waving his index finger.
The best of intentions, advice based on no business knowledge, leading to business failure a la Remember Me.
. . . which I can get behind. The AAA industry is dying anyway due to bloated budgets and unrealistic sales expectations, might as well see if a phoenix or two can rise from the ashes
So asking for additional content is censorship? Because I have asked for more future games to have character designs that appeal to me, not for ALL future games to tailor themselves specifically to my tastes and mine alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm now reminded of this:
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Largely because a lot folks would see your post and somehow interpret the words to mean this:
AdeptSister(Interpreted) wrote: I demand all games star only unappealing women. Anyone who wants to play games about something other than hypermasculine women are so embarrassing. They shouldn't play due to their attraction to women. I'm angry there are men in audience. I demand personalization of PCs in every game with the only options being minoirties.
I would love to get to the time when "Man" starts being used as a four letter word. Being a good person and a man is mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for no men new or ask for your hobby to be more exclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does never allowing any sexualization and knowing how smarter I than you really hurt your fee-fees so much?
So asking for additional content is censorship? Because I have asked for more future games to have character designs that appeal to me, not for ALL future games to tailor themselves specifically to my tastes and mine alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm now reminded of this:
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Largely because a lot folks would see your post and somehow interpret the words to mean this:
AdeptSister(Interpreted) wrote: I demand all games star only unappealing women. Anyone who wants to play games about something other than hypermasculine women are so embarrassing. They shouldn't play due to their attraction to women. I'm angry there are men in audience. I demand personalization of PCs in every game with the only options being minoirties.
I would love to get to the time when "Man" starts being used as a four letter word. Being a good person and a man is mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for no men new or ask for your hobby to be more exclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does never allowing any sexualization and knowing how smarter I than you really hurt your fee-fees so much?
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Well you have the choice of not playing that types of games, just like I choose to not play games that requires Origin.
Being inclusive isn't being vilified from what ive observed, its what comes next that is the hypocritical double standard that people react to, Its the claims of wanting equality but then demanding special treatment for female characters in the next breath, finally culminating in total oppression of female charactisation in appearance, personality followed by the constant denial of the gaming industry is improving. And this is the same pattern every single time this issue crops up.
Like all media gaming is not exempt from exaggeration, just like the worst soap show imaginable to the humblest of documentaries they are all exaggerated to make them more intresting.
So your first line sounds like "Deal with it or Leave." Which if I am misconstruing your statement, I apologize. But, you know that this reminds me of the arguments that are used against someone who complains about GW. People usually complain about something because they care.
And when did I say the gaming industry was not getting better? I think that most people agreed that it has. And "total oppression of female characterization?" What do you mean by this? I thought I was asking for greater characterization. Like using women differently in games instead of making them the same token "woman " role. What special treatment am I asking for over male characters? I just am hoping for the same character diversity for women as there are for men. No special treatment.
Melissia wrote: So asking for additional content is censorship? Because I have asked for more future games to have character designs that appeal to me, not for ALL future games to tailor themselves specifically to my tastes and mine alone.
Your words, not mine. 'Past' video games. Sounds suspiciously specific, but I'll admit I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, the situation in general reminded me of 'The Cafe' episode of Seinfeld, not you in particular.
I believe you when you say you want more video games produced with female protagonists that cater to your tastes, which is great. Your money is as good as anyone else's and you have a voice.
However as Kali pointed out:
That's the topic I have focused on in this thread, and the topic that I find most important. The sexualization/sexuality in games topic I find to be a secondary (but still important) concern; certainly I believe developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have; the woman should be defined by what badass/good/evil/etc thing she does, not what she looks like-- that's just lazy and boring. A good step in that is to stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game, but that alone won't do everything that needs to be done.
Smacks of "change these things I'm not the target audience of"
Melissia wrote: So asking for additional content is censorship? Because I have asked for more future games to have character designs that appeal to me, not for ALL future games to tailor themselves specifically to my tastes and mine alone.
Your words, not mine. 'Past' video games. Sounds suspiciously specific, but I'll admit I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, the situation in general reminded me of 'The Cafe' episode of Seinfeld, not you in particular.
I believe you when you say you want more video games produced with female protagonists that cater to your tastes, which is great. Your money is as good as anyone else's and you have a voice.
However as Kali pointed out:
That's the topic I have focused on in this thread, and the topic that I find most important. The sexualization/sexuality in games topic I find to be a secondary (but still important) concern; certainly I believe developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have; the woman should be defined by what badass/good/evil/etc thing she does, not what she looks like-- that's just lazy and boring. A good step in that is to stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game, but that alone won't do everything that needs to be done.
Smacks of "change these things I'm not the target audience of"
You're really not supposed to go doing things after somebody has called out that you're going to do it. It makes them look very clever, or at minimum feel very smug.
Melissia wrote:I haven't advocated for hte censorship of past video games
That's not what I was suggesting. I think you want to marginalize existing trends, not just create new ones. To be fair, it's only hinted at in your responses (and if this is just a mischaracterization of your actual point of view, sorry for that), but your "feminist ally" Hybrid Son states quite clearly that this is an intended aim. I think aesthetic choices like designing characters who wear "boobplate" is not only perfectly fine, but also pretty damn cool in lots of settings, for instance, and though you may not intend to do away with that, lots of people who claim to be arguing from your position very much do.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:These designs are clearly in between what belongs to porn games and to “normal” games.
According to what metric, exactly? There's nothing pornographic about either Dragon's Crown or the Neptunia series. They're both mainstream game, not AAA titles, sure, but definitely not indie games or niche games. Or as another example, Morrigan from the very AAA Dragon Age: Origins:
Despite her less than conservative attire, her characterization is quite good and hardly chauvinistic. In any case, I can't imagine many people being put off by her presence, and I can't fathom why I'd be interested in changing the game so as to attract the types of people who would be put off by it to the community I'm a part of.
They ought to go to specific games rather than be mainstream. That is what they say. And, if there is no problem with porn games, there should be no problem with, well, let us call them pin-up games. They will just not be present in mainstream games along with mainstream characters.
I can't accept denying a game a larger audience because of its aesthetic design choices. I'm utterly unconvinced that the visual portrayal of women in games merits any kind of reform, and I'm suspicious of anybody who would throw what are currently regarded as mainstream or even AAA titles into the category of eroge or even in that direction.
It's a trilby though. That gives a -15 debuff instead.
How can you be hatin' on something so lovable it has it's own video game?
That is not a fedora.
Fedoras have wider brims.
It looks more like a trilby.
You seem to be confusing the fact the distinction is irrelevant for me being unable to make it. They're grouped for the sake brevity as "Annoying Nerd Hats" lacks a certain flow.
I can't accept denying a game a larger audience because of its aesthetic design choices. I'm utterly unconvinced that the visual portrayal of women in games merits any kind of reform, and I'm suspicious of anybody who would throw what are currently regarded as mainstream or even AAA titles into the category of eroge or even in that direction.
OK. I just wish to make it clear what you are saying: By moving away from some consistent "aesthetic design choices" games will "deny a larger audience."
Because if that is the case, It sounds like those "aesthetic design choices" are a very important aspect of the game and not having them will lower your enjoyment of them. And you believe that your point of view is representative of the majority? Am I interpreting your point correctly?
Melissia wrote:I haven't advocated for hte censorship of past video games
That's not what I was suggesting. I think you want to marginalize existing trends, not just create new ones. To be fair, it's only hinted at in your responses (and if this is just a mischaracterization of your actual point of view, sorry for that), but your "feminist ally" Hybrid Son states quite clearly that this is an intended aim. I think aesthetic choices like designing characters who wear "boobplate" is not only perfectly fine, but also pretty damn cool in lots of settings, for instance, and though you may not intend to do away with that, lots of people who claim to be arguing from your position very much do.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:These designs are clearly in between what belongs to porn games and to “normal” games.
According to what metric, exactly? There's nothing pornographic about either Dragon's Crown or the Neptunia series. They're both mainstream game, not AAA titles, sure, but definitely not indie games or niche games. Or as another example, Morrigan from the very AAA Dragon Age: Origins:
Despite her less than conservative attire, her characterization is quite good and hardly chauvinistic. In any case, I can't imagine many people being put off by her presence, and I can't fathom why I'd be interested in changing the game so as to attract the types of people who would be put off by it to the community I'm a part of.
They ought to go to specific games rather than be mainstream. That is what they say. And, if there is no problem with porn games, there should be no problem with, well, let us call them pin-up games. They will just not be present in mainstream games along with mainstream characters.
I can't accept denying a game a larger audience because of its aesthetic design choices. I'm utterly unconvinced that the visual portrayal of women in games merits any kind of reform, and I'm suspicious of anybody who would throw what are currently regarded as mainstream or even AAA titles into the category of eroge or even in that direction.
I actually don't see anything wrong with that line of thinking.
AdeptSister wrote: By moving away from some consistent "aesthetic design choices" games will "deny a larger audience."
No, games that choose that kind of aesthetic would be denied a larger audience because they're purposely shunted into niche or even pornographic markets that will necessarily change the character of those games.
"aesthetic design choices" are a very important aspect of the game and not having them will lower your enjoyment of them.
Certainly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: You suggested that I wanted to destroy and censor games that have already been made.
Simply a failure to effectively communicate on my part, then. I definitely did not at any point suspect you of being intent on revising history.
Kali, thank you for the reply. See, the same "aesthetic design choices" that enhances the experience for you can detract it for me. In my experience, they are sometimes incongruent with the gaming world. Especially when it is only consistent with women characters. Mostly it feels tacked on and does nothing to help the story or gameplay.
AdeptSister wrote: Kali, thank you for the reply. See, the same "aesthetic design choices" that enhances the experience for you can detract it for me. In my experience, they are sometimes incongruent with the gaming world. Especially when it is only consistent with women characters. Mostly it feels tacked on and does nothing to help the story or gameplay.
Well if we see a variety of people wearing different clothing sort of like in skyrim. I think that is fine. I mean if there is one character that dresses slutty that is completely fine.
I mean I don't think Aela the huntress from Skyrim recieved hate because she shows her breasts in a way.
If there is a variety of characters with different clothing and different styles I am fine with one character or a minority having females or men in sexualized clothing.
But an entire game doesn't have to have every character regimated into an unreal state of falsehood. I mean look at today, look at how many interesting clothing styles people wear in general.
I always laugh when someone says that a strip club in grand theft auto degrades women. Well its a strip club..... What the hell do you think was going to be there. It adds realism to the game, it adds immersion. I think there is one game that actually has a gay bar.
But people will continue to think strip clubs degrading while forgeting that it is techincally a sport.
Let's not use the "realism" argument in video games. Because that argument is so inconsistent. Strip clubs are in the game because the designer wanted them, not "realism".
AdeptSister wrote: Let's not use the "realism" argument in video games. Because that argument is so inconsistent. Strip clubs are in the game because the designer wanted them, not "realism".
It adds nothing of value to most settings. Only game I can think of where it did make sense was Duke Nukem Forever, and even then it only appeared in his unconscious dream rather than as a real place.
Also, I agree with the "realism" argument being inconsistent garbage
Kali wrote: There's nothing pornographic about either Dragon's Crown or the Neptunia series.
Just to make sure, you are telling me that you think qualifying this:
Spoiler:
a on the same level as a pin-up is an overstatement? I think it is actually an understatement. I think this is embarrassing, and it does not need the help of any “evil invading feminists” to be so.
Kali wrote: I can't accept denying a game a larger audience because of its aesthetic design choices.
And what about making aesthetic design choice to accommodate a larger audience, then? You are apparently into female characters with extremely huge breasts wearing clothing that defy about every laws of physics, while giving the finger to anatomy classes, all for the sake of titillation. Good for you, but if most people are not, how could you expect games with these “aesthetic design choice” being less played than those with more mainstream designs?
But if you insist on me reiterating (can't blame you with something like seventy pages to read through), I want games to stop lazily defaulting to male when writing characters (I have offered solutions on how to do this in an unbiased manner, in fact); I also desire for games to allow for more customization of the player character, especially (but not exclusively) RPGs and multiplayer-only or multiplayer-heavy games like most first-person shooters, two genres I'm more heavily invested in (but there's no reason that this could not be expanded to other genres; the RTS genre, for example, would need to do little more than to change pronouns when referring to "the commander", similar to how Stronghold 2's greeting changes to "Greetings, Lady Mel" when I enter my name at the start).
That's the topic I have focused on in this thread, and the topic that I find most important. The sexualization/sexuality in games topic I find to be a secondary (but still important) concern; certainly I believe developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have; the woman should be defined by what badass/good/evil/etc thing she does, not what she looks like-- that's just lazy and boring. A good step in that is to stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game, but that alone won't do everything that needs to be done.
The first paragraph is great, I can get behind that.
LordofHats wrote: I think you're taking her words to a literal extreme she doesn't intend.
These aren't a request for more variety:
developers need to stop focusing on sexuality as the only personality trait women have
stop using cheap and lazy titillation tactics in character design in every single major release game
that alone won't do everything that needs to be done
In fact, I'd like evidence of games where women have only 'sexy' as a personality trait. Duke Nukem is about the only one I can think of, and one example does not a trend make.
Also, 'every single major release game' uses cheap and lazy titillation tactics? I haven't played any of the recent Call of Duty games, but are they now set on nude beaches or something?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I think this is embarrassing, and it does not need the help of any “evil invading feminists” to be so.
Right, but then your opinion isn't informing the development process at present, which is why this character exists in a mainstream game.
And what about making aesthetic design choice to accommodate a larger audience, then?
I'm not interested in accommodating a larger audience, as I've said several times already. I don't view more people playing games as a good thing, and in fact I see it as quite contradictory to both my interests and the interests of most "hardcore" gamers.
You are apparently into female characters with extremely huge breasts wearing clothing that defy about every laws of physics,
Hey man I appreciate the DFC too.
while giving the finger to anatomy classes, all for the sake of titillation.
Rather than simply that, I think this character design is cool and fun. More importantly, I see nothing wrong with it.
Good for you, but if most people are not, how could you expect games with these “aesthetic design choice” being less played than those with more mainstream designs?
As I said, these two aren't examples of AAA titles, but they are absolutely in the mainstream. I did provide a AAA example in the form of Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins, whose attire is even more scandalous than the Sorceress'. This game is almost universally hailed as a popular and critical success, and is in fact quite a lot more popular than either Dragon's Crown or the Neptunia series.
In fact, I'd like evidence of games where women have only 'sexy' as a personality trait. Duke Nukem is about the only one I can think of, and one example does not a trend make.
Also, 'every single major release game' uses cheap and lazy titillation tactics? I haven't played any of the recent Call of Duty games, but are they now set on nude beaches or something?
I could think of a few. But in terms of mainstream nope
I'm not interested in accommodating a larger audience, as I've said several times already. I don't view more people playing games as a good thing, and in fact I see it as quite contradictory to both my interests and the interests of most "hardcore" gamers.
Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore
As I said, these two aren't examples of AAA titles, but they are absolutely in the mainstream. I did provide a AAA example in the form of Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins, whose attire is even more scandalous than the Sorceress'. This game is almost universally hailed as a popular and critical success, and is in fact quite a lot more popular than either Dragon's Crown or the Neptunia series.
Well in honesty its fine to have them, but they shouldn't be that common.
Rather than simply that, I think this character design is cool and fun. More importantly, I see nothing wrong with it.
I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.
Kali wrote: I'm not interested in accommodating a larger audience, as I've said several times already.
Yet you care about the games you like staying mainstream rather than becoming niche. That is a bit self-contradictory. If the games you like accommodate only a niche public, it will be niche. If it accommodates a larger audience, it will be mainstream. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I think it's tacky and ugly from an aesthetic stance, but I feel that way about gold/bronze as the primary armor color to begin with so that probably doesn't help.
LordofHats wrote: I think you're taking her words to a literal extreme she doesn't intend.
These aren't a request for more variety:
Asking for game devs to stop using sexuality as the sole personality trait for women characters is asking for more variety. There's more to women than our vaginas, you know. We're people, and should be written like actual people.
Kojiro wrote: Out of curiosity, what do people think of male armour that clearly has pecs? Like say Cadians or even SW storm troopers? Is it as wrong as the female boob plate?
I think it looks ugly and dumb. Yes, even when it's roman
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankenberry wrote: The campaign must be for equality for all, not just one sex.
Then start your own damn movement instead of piggybacking off the feminist movement. Because that would indicate you're serious instead of just trying to place all the burden on women in order to belittle us and be a lazy, privileged white dude.
No one is placing any burden on you, oh goddess Melissia, I was being sarcastic. Impossible to convey without a tag, I now realize, so I'll try to attach one the next time I am doing so.
I wonder, is the air thin up on that exceedingly high horse you're riding or are your opinions so jaded that you have to post irrational bs?
Edit: I don't need to piggyback of of the feminist movement, I'm a white male, I have everything I'll ever need because of that fact. Now, go make me a sandwich. /sarcasm
Given how often I've had people actually and seriously argue to me that feminism is evil because it focuses on the rights of women, and given the second part of your post, I am not really convinced that the notion that you are being sarcastic really makes it any better...
Most women just want their female characters to stop being reduced to "the Love interest' or the Lady in breast armor and High Heels trying to be bad ass or just the overly sexualized centerpiece that grabs male gamers by their libidos to get into the game.
Melissia wrote: Given how often I've had people actually and seriously argue to me that feminism is evil because it focuses on the rights of women, and given the second part of your post, I am not really convinced that the notion that you are being sarcastic really makes it any better...
I don't think it is evil.
Like every movement there is a extremist side to it. And that part of it is evil
But that is like every movement. Take the equality movement, if taken to the extremes.... IT can be extremely evil.
I think any movement is evil if taken to its extremes is a problem.
Melissia wrote: Given how often I've had people actually and seriously argue to me that feminism is evil because it focuses on the rights of women, and given the second part of your post, I am not really convinced that the notion that you are being sarcastic really makes it any better...
I've got ZERO problems with feminists. Every side needs a group solely dedicated to that groups advancement, regardless of what their goals are, it's a dedication that I can respect if nothing else.
What I have a problem with is when feminists blame men for everything; like women didn't exist for the same amount of time or something. Y'know what? Don't like how something is and you can change it? fething change it. Stop bitching at the rest of the world to do it for you and for the love of everything good and great in this world, stop blaming 'the men' for whatever gakky predicament your lives are currently in. I sure as gak didn't tell that manager not to hire you because you're a woman, or tell that game dev to give every female character a supporting role with low cut armor, or make most, if not all, primary heroes male.
Again, I've got no issue with the expansion of equality for women. Never have, never will. What I take issue with are those that bitch and then refuse to do anything about it.
Frankenberry wrote: The campaign must be for equality for all, not just one sex.
Then start your own damn movement instead of piggybacking off the feminist movement. Because that would indicate you're serious instead of just trying to place all the burden on women in order to belittle us and be a lazy, privileged white dude.
Frankenberry wrote: Don't like how something is and you can change it? fething change it.
... which is why feminist gamer groups are lobbying companies to change the way they write-- to try to get it changed.
Good, that's bound to get things changed.
Now, at the same point, would you have a game company completely re-write a game's story from a male lead to a female lead just because?
Edit: And no, none of this was meant as sarcasm.
I don't think she means that. Yes it would be nice to see more women in games be the main protagonist. BUT it more of the degrading way they are being portrayed.
So the basic point of contention here is not that one side is against more, well written female characters. As far as I can recall from reading the thread, basically everyone is on board with that.
We are simply seeing an issue where one side is feels like the other side isn't simply saying "Write more good characters - especially females" but is instead saying "Write more good female characters and stop creating what I feel to be bad female characters.
Right?
Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
My plan has ever been about adding more good female characters. Good is a subjective thing. I think the way you do it is to just have a lot of female characters. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will be just plain odd.
Bromsy wrote: So the basic point of contention here is not that one side is against more, well written female characters. As far as I can recall from reading the thread, basically everyone is on board with that.
We are simply seeing an issue where one side is feels like the other side isn't simply saying "Write more good characters - especially females" but is instead saying "Write more good female characters and stop creating what I feel to be bad female characters.
Right?
Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
We are all gamers it would just be nice to have us all included at the same levels. This doesn't mean there needs to be a quota for everything. But it would be nice to see more female characters than the main recognizable handful we have now.
nomotog wrote: We actually already had the female enemy talk.
My plan has ever been about adding more good female characters. Good is a subjective thing. I think the way you do it is to just have a lot of female characters. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will be just plain odd.
I may have just drunkenly skimmed past something, but from what I remember - almost all the 'talk' was about female bosses, and/or sexualized female enemies being a bad thing.
I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
How about when it comes to factions like Fallout's NCR? They have pretty much a 50/50 chance for soldiers to be female, a bunch are randomly generated. But there's this one place called Forlorn hope that apparently has the highest attrition rates and there are no nameless female soldiers there.
nomotog wrote: We actually already had the female enemy talk.
My plan has ever been about adding more good female characters. Good is a subjective thing. I think the way you do it is to just have a lot of female characters. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will be just plain odd.
I may have just drunkenly skimmed past something, but from what I remember - almost all the 'talk' was about female bosses, and/or sexualized female enemies being a bad thing.
I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
My take was that enemies are NPCs with the most agency and that baring women from being NPCs kind of pushes them into more passive roles. Basically it's not fair if women can't be enemies.
Though I will go ahead and present a counter argument because I love being complicated. i am naming this idea the captain pimp worry. The name comes COH. When COV was releases, the mastermind didn't have any female minions.One of the worries was that if they allowed female minions then they might get some player making a character called captain pimp and naming all their minions B**** and Ho. Basically there is this worry that the player might do something offensive when given the opportunity.
Lotet wrote: How about when it comes to factions like Fallout's NCR? They have pretty much a 50/50 chance for soldiers to be female, a bunch are randomly generated. But there's this one place called Forlorn hope that apparently has the highest attrition rates and there are no nameless female soldiers there.
nomotog wrote: We actually already had the female enemy talk.
My plan has ever been about adding more good female characters. Good is a subjective thing. I think the way you do it is to just have a lot of female characters. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will be just plain odd.
I may have just drunkenly skimmed past something, but from what I remember - almost all the 'talk' was about female bosses, and/or sexualized female enemies being a bad thing.
I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
My take was that enemies are NPCs with the most agency and that baring women from being NPCs kind of pushes them into more passive roles. Basically it's not fair if women can't be enemies.
Though I will go ahead and present a counter argument because I love being complicated. i am naming this idea the captain pimp worry. The name comes COH. When COV was releases, the mastermind didn't have any female minions.One of the worries was that if they allowed female minions then they might get some player making a character called captain pimp and naming all their minions B**** and Ho. Basically there is this worry that the player might do something offensive when given the opportunity.
I'd agree with the first part.
As far as your counter argument, I'd say that falls under the 'getting the bad with the good'. You can't take away choices from people in order to prevent others from being offended. That was lies madness. If you did that, then you must give equal credence to people who want to exclude women from video games because they are offended by women winning at anything or whatever that argument would be. Otherwise you'd just be selectively choosing who it's okay to offend and who it isn't. I say give everyone all the choices, and let people be offended if they must.
Lotet wrote: How about when it comes to factions like Fallout's NCR? They have pretty much a 50/50 chance for soldiers to be female, a bunch are randomly generated. But there's this one place called Forlorn hope that apparently has the highest attrition rates and there are no nameless female soldiers there.
This okay?
Okay for what?
Having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes?
Lotet wrote: How about when it comes to factions like Fallout's NCR? They have pretty much a 50/50 chance for soldiers to be female, a bunch are randomly generated. But there's this one place called Forlorn hope that apparently has the highest attrition rates and there are no nameless female soldiers there.
This okay?
Okay for what?
Having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes?
Bah, forget about it.
I was asking what people's opinions were. If we as a whole believe there are not enough good female protagonists, and we in general want more; do we believe there are enough 'good' female antagonists, and do we want more? I am interested.
Bromsy wrote: I was asking what people's opinions were. If we as a whole believe there are not enough good female protagonists, and we in general want more; do we believe there are enough 'good' female antagonists, and do we want more? I am interested.
Were you? I saw a different question.
Bromsy wrote: Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
Bromsy wrote: I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
A question about goons, not bosses or heroes. I guess I was just focusing on the parts you didn't intend to be focused on.
Bromsy wrote: I was asking what people's opinions were. If we as a whole believe there are not enough good female protagonists, and we in general want more; do we believe there are enough 'good' female antagonists, and do we want more? I am interested.
Were you? I saw a different question.
Bromsy wrote: Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
Bromsy wrote: I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
A question about goons, not bosses or heroes. I guess I was just focusing on the parts you didn't intend to be focused on.
No, you threw out an example of a thing. You never actually stated an opinion, and the example you put out was of a thing not really related to what I brought up. The NCR are not antagonists. They are possible antagonists, maybe, but they are pretty clearly not designed that way.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say, based on the tone of your posts. Especially the last one, where you seem to think I am trying to play a trick or something and you cleverly saw through it or somesuch nonsense. Here. Take my original post
So the basic point of contention here is not that one side is against more, well written female characters. As far as I can recall from reading the thread, basically everyone is on board with that.
We are simply seeing an issue where one side is feels like the other side isn't simply saying "Write more good characters - especially females" but is instead saying "Write more good female characters and stop creating what I feel to be bad female characters.
Right?
Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
and answer the question within it. With your actual opinion. And explain your opinion, so I have some context as to what you are talking about. Or don't, I don't really care. But the little snippets of your internal monologue you have been posting have been less than useful.
Bromsy wrote: Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
Hey, I don't know about you but I never liked the NCR. I've replayed that game several times and they are the only faction I haven't won Hoover Dam for.
My example was supposed to be what I saw as a good example of what I wanted. It led to a generally gender neutral faction but one that wouldn't use women in the most hostile battle front. One where everyone dies a lot. But they are thrown into every other combat situation.
And in my last post I said that I must have misinterpreted you. I don't know why you're so mad at that. Maybe I should have apologized? Though i doubt it could make it through the perceived 'tone'.
Bromsy wrote: Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
Melissia wrote: Asking for game devs to stop using sexuality as the sole personality trait for women characters is asking for more variety. There's more to women than our vaginas, you know. We're people, and should be written like actual people.
I do know that women are not walking vaginas - what AAA games have women where their sole personality trait is 'sexy'?
The only ones that come readily to mind are Aphrodite from God of War, and the twins in Duke Nukem (or basically anyone in Duke Nukem)
But my memory isn't stellar, and I haven't played every game released, so there might be heap I don't know about.
Lotet wrote: My example was supposed to be what I saw as a good example of what I wanted. It led to a generally gender neutral faction but one that wouldn't use women in the most hostile battle front. One where everyone dies a lot. But they are thrown into every other combat situation.
Bromsy wrote: I may have just drunkenly skimmed past something, but from what I remember - almost all the 'talk' was about female bosses, and/or sexualized female enemies being a bad thing.
I just want to know where people stand on having reasonably attired women there to be shot up alongside all the miscellaneous dudes.
The only well attired (businesswear right?) female mooks I recall from a game were ones in GTA Vice City, one of the later missions I think.
It stood out because apart from that it was male mooks all the way before and after. It was a change.
And because I can't help but think of it when I think of GTA Vice City:
Bromsy wrote: Oh, and as for people who really want more female protagonists, are you also advocating for more females to be enemies? And I don't mean bosses, with backstories and spin-off comics and crap... I mean random mooks with little to no story at all to serve as cannon fodder.
Yes, totally.
Yep, more nameless female enemies. It would be a really easy way to broaden the portrayal of women in the game.
Lotet wrote: My example was supposed to be what I saw as a good example of what I wanted. It led to a generally gender neutral faction but one that wouldn't use women in the most hostile battle front. One where everyone dies a lot. But they are thrown into every other combat situation.
Why would we want that? Women can die too.
And they do, against the Legion, against Raiders, against the player. Just like the men do. Forlorn Hope is the only area where women aren't common.
But me seeing that as a good example was based on something I heard the Extra Credits folks say, something along the lines of rejecting and accepting different gender facets of society instead of going completely to one side and ignoring the other side. So I guess you would have put ladies into Forlorn Hope. Okay, not like it would have made a difference in the game, it was just something I noticed and thought it was interesting that they didn't utterly ignore gender as more than a cosmetic difference.
For reference, one game I played just recently and which is pretty bad on that regard is Guacamelee. It plays the Damsel in distress trope completely straight, in its most plain form: love interest get kidnapped by the bad guy, saving her is the objective of the game, she has absolutely no character development. While you can play with a female character skin, the whole story is about the male character: you start as him, no choice, and people will still refer to you as Juan and a male no matter what skin you use. The playable female character has just 0 character development, she is introduced as “the guardian of the mask” or something, and then never mentioned ever again in the whole game, iirc.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: For reference, one game I played just recently and which is pretty bad on that regard is Guacamelee. It plays the Damsel in distress trope completely straight, in its most plain form: love interest get kidnapped by the bad guy, saving her is the objective of the game, she has absolutely no character development. While you can play with a female character skin, the whole story is about the male character: you start as him, no choice, and people will still refer to you as Juan and a male no matter what skin you use. The playable female character has just 0 character development, she is introduced as “the guardian of the mask” or something, and then never mentioned ever again in the whole game, iirc.
Reference for what? A example of lazy inclusivity?
Maybe not, but this is neither something I would parade as a good thing either.
Then I suppose mooks should have absolutely no reference to their gender then, since if putting women into the highest mortality area is fine then it seems gender should do nothing more for them than change what they look like and their voices.
Oh well, it's not like mooks get any story time anyway. Plus making gender completely unimportant is one of the goals for some people.
Good to know a bit more on what brand of feminism you follow.
For lazy use of cliched gendered trope and how they do not make for an interesting story/.
Lotet wrote: Then I suppose mooks should have absolutely no reference to their gender then, since if putting women into the highest mortality area is fine then it seems gender should do nothing more for them than change what they look like and their voices.
Yeah. They are mooks. If there is absolutely no reference to their gender in 99% of the case, it is perfectly fine. Why?
Asherian Command wrote: Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore
Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.
they shouldn't be that common.
Why?
I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.
What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?
Asherian Command wrote: Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore
Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.
they shouldn't be that common.
Why?
I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.
What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?
The suit just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)
I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.
I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.
Kali doesn't want more people to buy games, however, so I don't think they would agree with that. The video game industry of course wants more people to buy games though, so I don't think that Kali's ideas are even close to being in line with the reality on the ground.
Kali wrote: Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers.
I think you are mistaken here. I highly doubt you are representative of the interest of the majority of gamer. I also think you are wrong to believe there is a fixed pool of game development resources and that a bigger market will just mean having to same the share amount of resources on more games, diluting it.
Melissia wrote: Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.
It's chicken and egg I guess, but is the lack of female AAA protagonists a result of underwhelming spending by the female demographic, or is the female demographic spending less because of the lack of AAA female protagonists?
I've gone through and categorized gender of player character/s
Both genders: 35
Males: 51
Females: 2 N/a: 12 (due to being a car, robot, or smurf)
The two female character only games are Tomb Raider (6th best selling) and Beyond: Two Souls (78th best selling)
So, are female leads only 2% of the 100 best selling because of the chicken, or the egg?
I personally have no idea, but bloody hell, 2%. I have all the time in the world for you now Melissia, the combined 'both genders' and 'females' figure might be 37%, but games with gender select don't always have the most interesting protagonists, Saint's Row being the exception.
I think I just got a taste of why you're so passionate about this.
Melissia wrote: Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.
It's chicken and egg I guess, but is the lack of female AAA protagonists a result of underwhelming spending by the female demographic, or is the female demographic spending less because of the lack of AAA female protagonists?
I've gone through and categorized gender of player character/s
Both genders: 35
Males: 51
Females: 2 N/a: 12 (due to being a car, robot, or smurf)
The two female character only games are Tomb Raider (6th best selling) and Beyond: Two Souls (78th best selling)
So, are female leads only 2% of the 100 best selling because of the chicken, or the egg?
I personally have no idea, but bloody hell, 2%. I have all the time in the world for you now Melissia, the combined 'both genders' and 'females' figure might be 37%, but games with gender select don't always have the most interesting protagonists, Saint's Row being the exception.
I think I just got a taste of why you're so passionate about this.
This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.
Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.
The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".
... while I doubt I'll convince anyone by saying this, but the problem with Smurfette type principles is basically this:
Guy characters are treated as individuals, since to the writers, whom are usually male, think of guys as individuals whom are not reflective of the whole group. However, the woman character, whom is often the only female character in these kinds of things (or at least the only one with a speaking part) is required to represent all women, resulting in a bland, generic character.
Crystal-Maze wrote: This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.
Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.
Thank you. I was a bit surprised by the 2%. It doesn’t really matter if the cause is “Publishers are buggers” or “Females aren’t buying enough AAA games” or whatever.
Also this is embarrassing, but the joke about Batman before. . . Batman as a separate category is 2%. If you don't count Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, which would pop it up to 3%.
Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.
Asherian Command wrote:[It] just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)
I think that's the only reason at all to demand that the visual portrayal of women in games be changed.
I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.
There's an insidious implication behind that desire, though, which is that you change the nature of the market and its products to suit these new people. Simply adding to the existing community does no harm, but this notion that current styles are "unacceptable" is destructive.
I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.
Case in point.
Melissia wrote: The video game industry of course wants more people to buy games though, so I don't think that Kali's ideas are even close to being in line with the reality on the ground.
I think that the industry is sufficiently capable of performing a calculus of their own interests. In the first place, most if not all developers and publishers are motivated by more than simply profit, as they also wish to realize creative visions. Second, the fact that they consider the status quo profitable, to the point that even sustained lobbying for reform has caused little change, indicates that, at the very least, they don't see change as being desirable on a financial level.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I think you are mistaken here. I highly doubt you are representative of the interest of the majority of gamer.
I'm representing the status quo in many respects, which I think is quite representative of most gamers.
I also think you are wrong to believe there is a fixed pool of game development resources and that a bigger market will just mean having to same the share amount of resources on more games, diluting it.
Resources doesn't just mean money. It also means skilled labor, time, marketing, social capital, etc. Many of these resources are finite or fixed, and the introduction of new "mainstream" trends necessarily pushes current successes to the periphery.
Melissia wrote:Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.
I really don't, at all. I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.
Melissia wrote: The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".
Smurfs were meant to be one dimensional, weren't they? Brainy smurf, grouchy smurf. . . carries a mirror smurf? etc.
Although reliable sources (wikepedia ) say Smurfette may have been introduced
to end speculation arguing that the Smurfs were gay
or because
the networks were more likely trying to pander to young girls than trying to defuse gay rumors
Crystal-Maze wrote: This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.
Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.
Thank you. I was a bit surprised by the 2%. It doesn’t really matter if the cause is “Publishers are buggers” or “Females aren’t buying enough AAA games” or whatever.
Also this is embarrassing, but the joke about Batman before. . . Batman as a separate category is 2%. If you don't count Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, which would pop it up to 3%.
Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.
Sigh.
You have to count Lego batman. I mean he is in the name and on the cover. That is just shameful. Women make up over 50% of the population but only 2% of video game protagonists. (At least among the top 100.)
One of the great things about having multiple women characters is that it allows a variety of personalities. With only one, they represent all women in the world (like Melissa stated.)
Kali, I think it comes down if the status quo is the best idea. The issues people are mentioning are actively offending possible customers and just feeds into all these negative stereotypes about gamers. Is the titillation really that critical to gaming?
Asherian Command wrote: Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore
Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.
they shouldn't be that common.
Why?
I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.
What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?
The suit just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)
I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.
I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.
I'll have to hop in on this opinion. Somebody mentioned Dragon's Crown. Honestly while I think it's aesthetic design is interesting, I rally could only ever play the elf and wizard. Also kinda the fighter (his proportions just creep the hell out of me). The rest just kinda offed me with themselves existing. eeesh.
Anyways, late to respond but as per the problem? From a technical standpoint whilst gamers is actually very heavy with females. I think reports even lifting over half of them being females. If you don't mind this... I would like to point out that this data does technically use games on phone apps and facebook, etc. That's rather rude of me to say because it gets into the whole entire YOU ARE NOT GAMERS! argument but I'd argue there is some difference between people that lean heavily on playing phone games from the good ones, to the bad ones, to the go in each day press a few. The catch with games is they kinda all have sinks. Heck, I've seen some gamers that just play the Call of Duty games and that's it. Some only play League of Legends and that's about it or just play WoW. So, from a completely technical standpoint I'd like to argue that a lot of the AAA demographics are still white males that are usually teenagers or young adults. Now then... lemme just take a second to hop off this platform...
As per personal opinion, I'd like to see females improved in representation. Now somebody like Seerkesian? Yeah I'll say hers are stupid but that's because of a whole laundry load of bs she does including manipulating facts from Hitman Absolution to dragging around bodies in FALLOUT or pointing to counter-examples in the games but then waving them aside as eh but it doesn't matter. In the grand scheme though? I'd like it improved. I'm fine with the whole family killed, rescue wife/girlfriend/daughter/son story. I'm fine with the damsel in distress scenario. Are they lazy? Honestly? Yes but I don't think it's something I can just drop a game for especially considering that fact that game stories are usually pretty bad to begin with and stand up more for their mechanics . But seriously, more mooks that are females, more interesting and in depth female characters. More female protagonists. I'm completely up for it. Hell, if the gaming industry really tries I'd love to see characters improved at large because when you get down to it they are usually just murderhobos running around slaughtering people
As per whether it should be endorsed, why not? Maybe not as the main character to start with but improving them as background characters in general? Step it up, improve characters in general. Damsel in distress? They bust out while you try to save them, maybe help you along the way. Do more, get out of spamming tropes and cliches, have some fun playing with things and making memorable characters, or a story that's actually cohesive. Sticking to status quo? Sure, you can stick with that or we could improve writing in games in general. Make females better in games? Bang characters improved, make characters in general better and more intriguing? Bang even more interesting. Really, there isn't a drawback to it. It's not like having girls in games is gonna flip people off. The only possibility of that (that I can think of) is mooks that are females and shooting them up which, considering the popularity of games like NV, 3, and even Skyrim, I don't think is quite that extreme nor is it anything significant enough for people to care about. So really, what's the drawback with expanding it? What's the negative quality?
AdeptSister wrote: One of the great things about having multiple women characters is that it allows a variety of personalities. With only one, they represent all women in the world (like Melissa stated.)
I don't believe that's true at all. Rarely is there only a single female character in a game, and even rarer still would the developer intend or the player take away that that character is supposed to be representative of all women.
Kali, I think it comes down if the status quo is the best idea. The issues people are mentioning are actively offending possible customers and just feeds into all these negative stereotypes about gamers. Is the titillation really that critical to gaming?
As I've said before, it's not about "defending titillation," (frankly I disagree that this is the way most women in games are portrayed) it's a matter of lacking a rational basis to critique that element. Simply stating that it makes you uncomfortable and that because of that you're not interested in it does not warrant reform.
OK, so the crux of your argument is that it people's offense to the sexualization of women in games is that since you don't see it as problem, it is not a problem? Do you realize the issue with that?
Because, it sounds like that is why you are saying it is irrational. There have been many people stating why people took offense and gave reasoned logical arguments. I'm not sure what else are you looking for.
As for examples, we can cite the Dragon's Crown, the commonality of the combat bikini, and the majority of the work of Team Ninja. There are many other examples on this very thread.
AdeptSister wrote: OK, so the crux of your argument is that it people's offense to the sexualization of women in games is that since you don't see it as problem, it is not a problem? Do you realize the issue with that?
Because, it sounds like that is why you are saying it is irrational. There have been many people stating why people took offense and gave reasoned logical arguments. I'm not sure what else are you looking for.
As for examples, we can cite the Dragon's Crown, the commonality of the combat bikini, and the majority of the work of Team Ninja. There are many other examples on this very thread.
Is it wrong if the only thing I can think about when people mention Team Ninja is how horrendous Other M was?
Kali wrote: I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.
... corrupt?
What the hell? Ain't nothing "corrupt" about asking companies to provide a product I want to buy, and asserting "corruption" just because your tastes are different is frankly hypocritical.
I am not gingerist, it is just that had I described a smurf by “The one with the blue skin, a big nose and a white phrygian cap”, that would not have helped !
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Besides, "they're all male, except the ones that are female" isn't going to sway a jury
I do not know whether or not that is going to sway a jury, but that sure means you can determine the characters gender.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.
But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?
Kali wrote: I'm representing the status quo in many respects, which I think is quite representative of most gamers.
You are representing the status quo? What does that even mean?
I am pretty sure most gamers do not have a problem with more people playing as it means more money for game developers and more social recognition for gaming.
Kali wrote: Resources doesn't just mean money. It also means skilled labor, time, marketing, social capital, etc. Many of these resources are finite or fixed
All of those are pretty extensible in many regards. Skilled labor just require more people wishing to learn and train on this specific kind of job, time is just not an issue, …
But then again, if any game that feature female characters wearing non-sexualized clothes is automatically something that you are not interested in playing, I can see how you would not benefit from it.
Melissia wrote: The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".
Smurfs were meant to be one dimensional, weren't they? Brainy smurf, grouchy smurf. . . carries a mirror smurf? etc.
Yes, this is a perfect example of male being the default and female being something special about a character. This needs to go.
What the hell? Ain't nothing "corrupt" about asking companies to provide a product I want to buy, and asserting "corruption" just because your tastes are different is frankly hypocritical.
Not to mention completely circular. If the market doesn't adhere to those tastes it's niche, and not mainstream enough, but point out that expanding the audience will make games more mainstream and we get complaints about how the market is a corrupt scheme.
The market is the market. If anything is corrupting it at the moment, its the publishing industry that runs of self fulfilling prophecy market analysis, not consumers asking for more variety.
Look at Disney the past few years. Tangled and Frozen both stand out as excellent films that attempted to answer the accusations of sexism directed at Disney in the 90's. I'm failing to see how adjusting their storytelling to be less sexist has ruined their market.
Just trying to unpack Kali's thinking here. This reply was to Asherian:
Kali wrote:What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?
Kali wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:[It] just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)
I think that's the only reason at all to demand that the visual portrayal of women in games be changed.
In this statement is Kali saying that Ivy's design making Asherian uncomfortable is 'the only reason to demand the portrayal of women to be changed'?
This reply was to AdeptSister:
Kali wrote: As I've said before, it's not about "defending titillation," (frankly I disagree that this is the way most women in games are portrayed) it's a matter of lacking a rational basis to critique that element. Simply stating that it makes you uncomfortable and that because of that you're not interested in it does not warrant reform.
In this statement is Kali saying saying that a design making you uncomfortable and putting you off is not a 'rational basis' to critique it?
Are these two statements not in direct opposition to each other?
(Also interesting to note that the opinion he doesn't care about is the one coming from a female username).
He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.
Melissia wrote: He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.
Yeah thats when I started to think. Maybe he is just a troll. Because more successful the better game are released. The more people. the more views and different criticisms of the game that will change how games are made.
Melissia wrote: He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.
Yeah thats when I started to think. Maybe he is just a troll. Because more successful the better game are released. The more people. the more views and different criticisms of the game that will change how games are made.
I'd like to believe that he's a troll. Unfortunately I think this may not actually be the case.
So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.
I don't really miss them, they were awkward at best, stupid at worst, and in all cases, arbitrarily limited what kinds of characters I could successfully play, especially in higher-difficulty games. The game telling me "if you play a female fighter she won't be as good as a male fighter" is stupid and an unnecessary addition to gameplay that adds nothing of value to the game-- and, in fact, only takes away from it.
Though I could get in a rant about the stupidity of DnD's "Strength" and "Dexterity" stats, which really should be swapped when it comes to to-hit rolls for melee and ranged weapons (bows take much, MUCH more strength to wield than a sword, even a greatsword).
nomotog wrote: So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.
I mean they were sexist, but I kind of miss them.
I don't know about Arcanum, but in DnD they would just be pointless.If you want to play a woman who is strong, put your points into strength. If you don't, put them into something else. Easy peasy.
Actually, in 1st ed DnD, men had a higher strength cap (18/00) than women (18/50).
No, there was no other thing that balanced this out. Male characters flat out had more potential than female characters in strength, and equal potential in every other aspect.
I always saw sex based modifiers as limiting. If someone wants to create a woman fighter with lower strength, they can easily do it without having to have a built in penalty. Why make the penalty mandatory? What does it add to a fantasy game that is about destroying limitations?
The only argument I can see is "realism" argument that I talked about earlier. I think that even falls flat as PCs are usually exceptional.
The realism argument is a failure anyway, given that we're talking usually about fantasy games, where the laws of nature are different than the real world.
For example, Strength vs Dexterity. In the real world, you need to be physically stronger to wield a bow than to wield a sword, while you need to be more dexterous to wield a wield a sword than to wield a bow. In DnD, the opposite is true.
nomotog wrote: So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.
I mean they were sexist, but I kind of miss them.
I don't know about Arcanum, but in DnD they would just be pointless.If you want to play a woman who is strong, put your points into strength. If you don't, put them into something else. Easy peasy.
Arcanum had female characters losing a point of Str to gain a point of Con. (Unless you took the tomboy trait.) It was kind of the games way of forcing the player to conform to the settings sexist gender norms. I can't make a judgment about it being good or bad because of nistalga.
I always try to never let nostalgia get in the way of criticizing an old game's faults, myself. I love Total Annihilation and STILL say it's better than any RTS Blizzard has ever produced in the entire history of the company, but I'm still willing to admit it lacks some important things like an attack-move command (Though there were many mods that added it in, to say nothing of the total conversions, which put Starcrafts' mod scene to shame).
I am not really all that good at blocking out my nostalgic feelings. I can admit that giving women a -1 to str and a +1 to con is sexist. (On many levels in fact.) I don't think I can admit it's a bad thing though. I played it in middle school and everyone is stupid in middle school. I thought it was just so realistic and cool. (Again I was in middle school.)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?
'top selling games of 2013'
Female video game characters exist, but they aren't being bought in large quantities unless they are Lara Croft or Ellen Page.
I don't know why, I don't even have a theory why. Lack of advertisement? Insufficient female audience? Uninterested male audience? All of the above? Something else?
I'm still doing my Damsel in Distress in video games from 2010-2013 count, but I might expand it to a gender playable character count as well. God help me.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?
'top selling games of 2013'
Female video game characters exist, but they aren't being bought in large quantities unless they are Lara Croft or Ellen Page.
I don't know why, I don't even have a theory why. Lack of advertisement? Insufficient female audience? Uninterested male audience? All of the above? Something else?
I'm still doing my Damsel in Distress in video games from 2010-2013 count, but I might expand it to a gender playable character count as well. God help me.
Yeah I saw that I laughed really hard I actually got involved in another thread and I am now talking with people in the industry. Alot of people have delusions about GG
Anyway. I think there is a problem with that games don't seem to cater to girls. it has been made into a boy only thing. Girls think it is only for guys. Its actually kind of sad.
Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...
Melissia wrote: huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...
I agree completely with everything you said, but please stop using the word 'whom'. All of the 'whoms' in the above paragraph should be 'whos', as they refer to the subject rather than the object of your sentences.
No. In American English and informal spoken English 'who' is considered an acceptable substitute for 'whom'. However, the reverse is not true (one cannot substitute 'whom' for 'who') - it is like repeatedly saying 'him cooked', 'her showered', or indeed 'whom say'.
I know that I am being nit-picky, but I hate to think of the more grammatically pedantic misogynists out there who will see perfectly well thought out opinions on the web, such as those of Melissia, and fail to take them seriously because of their clunky phrasing.
They are out there, these dark mirrors of myself. I've met them; I go to university in jolly old England.
Crystal-Maze wrote: No. In American English and informal spoken English 'who' is considered an acceptable substitute for 'whom'. However, the reverse is not true (one cannot substitute 'whom' for 'who') - it is like repeatedly saying 'him cooked', 'her showered', or indeed 'whom say'.
Still not going to do it. Don't care. In fact, if you continue, I'll explicitly do it MORE just to annoy you.
If a misogynist would dismiss my posts because of a minor, irrelevant quibble in grammar (which isn't even accurate to American English, only to British English), then that misogynist can go screw themselves.
Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...
Honestly I don't quite see the point in not hiring an individual for playtesting because they are a women. Also the rest is stupid. Just stupid in general (apologies just stuff like this kinda makes me scratch my head and just confound me to no end)
(Also GG is like some hydra that's charging blindly through the internet. It's got good heads, it's got bad heads but none of them are looking one way and some are chowing down on others. The glories of hoard combat!)
It means that I don't see the portrayal of women in games as a problem that merits reform.
I am pretty sure most gamers do not have a problem with more people playing as it means more money for game developers and more social recognition for gaming.
There's no problem with the expansion of the playerbase if that's all that happens, but the point here is that you think it's good to change things in order to get more people playing - I could not disagree more about this.
All of those are pretty extensible in many regards. Skilled labor just require more people wishing to learn and train on this specific kind of job, time is just not an issue, …
They're effectively fixed, since the pool of creative directors is very limited due to legacy costs that don't vanish with an increase in market size or profitability. Furthermore, the character of the industry and its games necessarily changes with this kind of dramatic expansion in consumers, something I have no desire whatsoever to see happen.
But then again, if any game that feature female characters wearing non-sexualized clothes is automatically something that you are not interested in playing, I can see how you would not benefit from it.
That's hardly my point. I don't demand the presence of scantily-clad babes in all games, but I'll be damned if I surrender the chance, simply to assuage the concerns of people who don't even play them.
Kali wrote: I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.
... corrupt?
Referring to capitalism, not your normative impressions. I strongly distrust the market as a good instrument for realizing human fulfillment and I outright deny that capitalism is a sensible or desirable way to structure the economy.
Crystal-Maze wrote: In this statement is Kali saying that Ivy's design making Asherian uncomfortable is 'the only reason to demand the portrayal of women to be changed'?
As in, "the only reason that people give", with the implication that it's not a serious issue and therefore does not warrant reform.
Melissia wrote: He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too,
I don't want the industry to fundamentally change in a direction that serves the wholly alien masses and away from the comparatively "niche" population of gamers that actually support it today.
and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt.
As I said, my use of the word 'corrupt' described the capitalist system, not all opposing value sets.
Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...
Honestly I don't quite see the point in not hiring an individual for playtesting because they are a women. Also the rest is stupid. Just stupid in general (apologies just stuff like this kinda makes me scratch my head and just confound me to no end)
(Also GG is like some hydra that's charging blindly through the internet. It's got good heads, it's got bad heads but none of them are looking one way and some are chowing down on others. The glories of hoard combat!)
Well, it is from 4chan / 8chan. Its basically a shoggoth.
Kali wrote: It means that I don't see the portrayal of women in games as a problem that merits reform.
That is far from your only characteristic. I mean, even your mindless hating of casual games make you not representative, I think.
Kali wrote: There's no problem with the expansion of the playerbase if that's all that happens, but the point here is that you think it's good to change things in order to get more people playing - I could not disagree more about this.
Yeah, getting more video games, that would be different because female in reasonable armor? Terrible addition that will ruin everything!
Kali wrote: They're effectively fixed, since the pool of creative directors is very limited due to legacy costs that don't vanish with an increase in market size or profitability.
Kali wrote: That's hardly my point. I don't demand the presence of scantily-clad babes in all games
Then what is your problem about there being more without them?
Kali wrote: but I'll be damned if I surrender the chance, simply to assuage the concerns of people who don't even play them.
Nope, what you do not want is for them to become niche. That is what you said. Not disappear, become niche. You want them to be mainstream.
This get's a lot of hate on polygon it is no different than other "sexy" DC Characters, it is designed by Tesuya Nomura (Kingdom Hearts creator)
Spoiler:
Yes it got that latex dominatrix vibe, but she looks lethal.
What i don't get what is the problem in games that differentiate between females and males characteristics? I agree in social interaction and in normal (work) life the sexes need to be treated equally, but male and females are physically and mentally not the same, there are area's that males are better and other where females are better (i saw or read that females are better at withstanding high G turns) . So in the Olympics should not have a different competitions for males and females?
I don't want to complain because I know how people don't like it, but come on. It hugs so tight you can see her belly button. There isn't even such a thing as a bellybutton size. I can't even imagine how you would even measure it.
LordofHats wrote: Biggest complaint is that one again, they found a way to show some cleavage (the rest of the sit is just awesome enough I'm willing to overlook it).
The problem that I have is not that there are differences in characteristics between men and women, how they are used. There is a bad habit that the stats they use are based on social stereotypes.
Also, games that use stats usually have optimal builds. If a specific sex gives a beneficial stat boost then there will be optimal sex-class combinations (like the optimal race-class builds in DnD). I can see that as limiting.
Jehan-reznor wrote: This get's a lot of hate on polygon it is no different than other "sexy" DC Characters, it is designed by Tesuya Nomura (Kingdom Hearts creator)
Spoiler:
Yes it got that latex dominatrix vibe, but she looks lethal.
What i don't get what is the problem in games that differentiate between females and males characteristics? I agree in social interaction and in normal (work) life the sexes need to be treated equally, but male and females are physically and mentally not the same, there are area's that males are better and other where females are better (i saw or read that females are better at withstanding high G turns) . So in the Olympics should not have a different competitions for males and females?
The design is actually kind of awesome.
I mean the 1980s catwoman (Tim burtons) Was absolutely creepy as hell, and she wore latex. Just because someone is wearing skin tight clothing does not mean it is a bad design. I mean we have certain characters who have ab plate armor. I think we can allow cleavage and a belly button. As basically ab armor shows the exact same things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: The problem that I have is not that there are differences in characteristics between men and women, how they are used. There is a bad habit that the stats they use are based on social stereotypes.
Also, games that use stats usually have optimal builds. If a specific sex gives a beneficial stat boost then there will be optimal sex-class combinations (like the optimal race-class builds in DnD). I can see that as limiting.
I think it would be more interesting to do a small increase at the beginning of the game like women have a better stat in charisma against men, and likewise to men.
Or women have a better charisma in the beginning then men. And if a character is a lesiban (And a woman) they may or may not be attracted to you if you are a woman, and be repulsed by a man. Likewise the other way around.
Opening potential plot ideas and other things as well. Like a teenage girl is probably more comfortable with another woman, than a man.
AdeptSister wrote: I just want games that aren't so embarrassing to play due to their usage of women characters and design. Or that cling to certain image of their audience. I also like personalization of my PCs when appropriate.
But I would love to get to the time when feminism stops being used as a four letter word. Being as gamer and a feminist is not mutually exclusive. It's not "censorship" to ask for something new or ask for your hobby to be more inclusive. Why is this so vilified? Does removing sexualization really hurt a game experience for some people?
Well you have the choice of not playing that types of games, just like I choose to not play games that requires Origin.
Being inclusive isn't being vilified from what ive observed, its what comes next that is the hypocritical double standard that people react to, Its the claims of wanting equality but then demanding special treatment for female characters in the next breath, finally culminating in total oppression of female charactisation in appearance, personality followed by the constant denial of the gaming industry is improving. And this is the same pattern every single time this issue crops up.
Like all media gaming is not exempt from exaggeration, just like the worst soap show imaginable to the humblest of documentaries they are all exaggerated to make them more intresting.
So your first line sounds like "Deal with it or Leave." Which if I am misconstruing your statement, I apologize. But, you know that this reminds me of the arguments that are used against someone who complains about GW. People usually complain about something because they care.
And when did I say the gaming industry was not getting better? I think that most people agreed that it has. And "total oppression of female characterization?" What do you mean by this? I thought I was asking for greater characterization. Like using women differently in games instead of making them the same token "woman " role. What special treatment am I asking for over male characters? I just am hoping for the same character diversity for women as there are for men. No special treatment.
Theres plenty of games, franchises genres in gaming ive had to abandon either because the market or publishers decided they no longer are viable or ive disagreed with the direction they've taken, its having realistic expectations of what can be changed.
Then why isn't it emphasized, why isn't these game endorsed, why is it always guys that have to show up strong female characters only for them to be ignored or trivialized away to the sounds of *foghorns* with the predictable SEXISM IN GAMING kekekekekekekeke.
Well that comes from the constant aggressive attacks on current gaming, gamers and forcibly changing it instead of more productively endorsing positive influences into gaming gamers, unfortunately moderates are the first victims, its difficult having a civilized discussion when someone else is leaning over your shoulder screaming SEXISM in GAMING. Gaming where rather polite prior to the brovasion that occurred over a decade ago and most dirtbags can be traced back there.
Well its a small stepping stone for a chain reaction that will either escalate or be hijacked, even if you have every good intentions in mind there are those that don't share those values. this dosent just affect female portrayal in gaming, it affects everything in gaming, that's why its such a big deal And again moderates will be the first causalities.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I agree in social interaction and in normal (work) life the sexes need to be treated equally, but male and females are physically and mentally not the same
Yep, totally mentally different. There is a huge mental difference between men and women. Sure thing.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I agree in social interaction and in normal (work) life the sexes need to be treated equally, but male and females are physically and mentally not the same
Yep, totally mentally different. There is a huge mental difference between men and women. Sure thing.
Scientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.
Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women's brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men's brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.
Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women's for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.
"If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there's a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better," Verma said. "Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."
She added: "I was surprised that it matched a lot of the stereotypes that we think we have in our heads. If I wanted to go to a chef or a hairstylist, they are mainly men."
Female brain
Neural map of a typical woman's brain. Photograph: National Academy of Sciences/PA The findings come from one of the largest studies to look at how brains are wired in healthy males and females. The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages. Armed with the maps, they hope to learn more about whether abnormalities in brain connectivity affect brain disorders such as schizophrenia and depression.
Verma's team used a technique called diffusion tensor imaging to map neural connections in the brains of 428 males and 521 females aged eight to 22. The neural connections are much like a road system over which the brain's traffic travels.
The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. "If you want to learn how to ski, it's the cerebellum that has to be strong," Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Male and female brains showed few differences in connectivity up to the age of 13, but became more differentiated in 14- to 17-year-olds.
"It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are," Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. "Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related."
It’s no secret that boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishers between male and female brains.
Scientists generally study four primary areas of difference in male and female brains: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity. The differences between male and female brains in these areas show up all over the world, but scientists also have discovered exceptions to every so-called gender rule. You may know some boys who are very sensitive, immensely talkative about feelings, and just generally don’t seem to fit the “boy” way of doing things. As with all gender differences, no one way of doing things is better or worse. The differences listed below are simply generalized differences in typical brain functioning, and it is important to remember that all differences have advantages and disadvantages.
Processing
Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?
Gray matter areas of the brain are localized. They are information- and action-processing centers in specific splotches in a specific area of the brain. This can translate to a kind of tunnel vision when they are doing something. Once they are deeply engaged in a task or game, they may not demonstrate much sensitivity to other people or their surroundings.
White matter is the networking grid that connects the brain’s gray matter and other processing centers with one another. This profound brain-processing difference is probably one reason you may have noticed that girls tend to more quickly transition between tasks than boys do. The gray-white matter difference may explain why, in adulthood, females are great multi-taskers, while men excel in highly task-focused projects.
Chemistry
Male and female brains process the same neurochemicals but to different degrees and through gender-specific body-brain connections. Some dominant neurochemicals are serotonin, which, among other things, helps us sit still; testosterone, our sex and aggression chemical; estrogen, a female growth and reproductive chemical; and oxytocin, a bonding-relationship chemical.
In part, because of differences in processing these chemicals, males on average tend to be less inclined to sit still for as long as females and tend to be more physically impulsive and aggressive. Additionally, males process less of the bonding chemical oxytocin than females. Overall, a major takeaway of chemistry differences is to realize that our boys at times need different strategies for stress release than our girls.
Structural Differences
A number of structural elements in the human brain differ between males and females. “Structural” refers to actual parts of the brain and the way they are built, including their size and/or mass.
Females often have a larger hippocampus, our human memory center. Females also often have a higher density of neural connections into the hippocampus. As a result, girls and women tend to input or absorb more sensorial and emotive information than males do. By “sensorial” we mean information to and from all five senses. If you note your observations over the next months of boys and girls and women and men, you will find that females tend to sense a lot more of what is going on around them throughout the day, and they retain that sensorial information more than men.
Additionally, before boys or girls are born, their brains developed with different hemispheric divisions of labor. The right and left hemispheres of the male and female brains are not set up exactly the same way. For instance, females tend to have verbal centers on both sides of the brain, while males tend to have verbal centers on only the left hemisphere. This is a significant difference. Girls tend to use more words when discussing or describing incidence, story, person, object, feeling, or place. Males not only have fewer verbal centers in general but also, often, have less connectivity between their word centers and their memories or feelings. When it comes to discussing feelings and emotions and senses together, girls tend to have an advantage, and they tend to have more interest in talking about these things.
Blood Flow and Brain Activity
While we are on the subject of emotional processing, another difference worth looking closely at is the activity difference between male and female brains. The female brain, in part thanks to far more natural blood flow throughout the brain at any given moment (more white matter processing), and because of a higher degree of blood flow in a concentration part of the brain called the cingulate gyrus, will often ruminate on and revisit emotional memories more than the male brain.
Males, in general, are designed a bit differently. Males tend, after reflecting more briefly on an emotive memory, to analyze it somewhat, then move onto the next task. During this process, they may also choose to change course and do something active and unrelated to feelings rather than analyze their feelings at all. Thus, observers may mistakenly believe that boys avoid feelings in comparison to girls or move to problem-solving too quickly.
These four, natural design differences listed above are just a sample of how males and females think differently. Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain, and the importance of these differences cannot be overstated. Understanding gender differences from a neurological perspective not only opens the door to greater appreciation of the different genders, it also calls into question how we parent, educate, and support our children from a young age.
Gregory L. Jantz, PhD is the founder of The Center • A Place of HOPE and an internationally recognized best selling author of over 26 books related to mental wellness and holistic recovery treatment. He is also co-hosting the first-ever Helping Boys Thrive Summit on May 24th to discuss how brain science influences raising and educating boys. This article features excerpts from Dr. Jantz's book Raising Boys by Design
Furthermore, neither article actually provides evidence to indicate there is a genetic difference between male and female brains, as opposed to brains developing differently due to children having different cultural norms pushed upon them from birth. The article writers simply assume that the difference must obviously be genetic.
Summary: Subtle observable differences exist between male and female brains, but how exactly these relate to differences in behaviour is unknown. Such gender variations in the brain are often exaggerated and misappropriated, not only by the mass media but also by scientists, to reinforce stereotypes and perpetuate myths.
The science of sex differences has always been – and still is – fraught with controversy. Some believe that behavioural differences between men and women are mostly due to cultural influences, while others argue that sex differences are largely determined by biology. In reality, the situation is far more complex. It lies somewhere in the middle, and involves two related but independent factors, which are often confused or conflated.
One of these factors is biological sex, which is determined by chromosomes. Most people have either two X chromosomes, which makes them female, or one X and one Y chromosome, which makes them male. The other is gender, which is influenced largely by the socialization process. As we grow up, we learn society's norms about how males and females look and act; for most people, sex and gender are matched, and so they inadvertently conform to these norms.
Men and women's brains differ in subtle ways, and these differences are probably established in the womb, due to the effects of sex hormones, which masculinize or feminize the organ as it develops. However, we still do not understand the effects of sex hormones on the developing brain, or how the subtle differences observed between men and women's brains are related to differences in their behaviour.
Battle of the sexes?
The most obvious difference between the brains of men and women is overall size – men's brains are, on average, between 10 and 15 per cent larger than women's. In one recent study, neuroscientists compared the brains of 42 men and 58 women postmortem, and found that men's weighed an average of 1,378g (3lb), compared with 1,248g (2.75lb) for women. These size differences have been found repeatedly, but they emerge only when comparing large numbers of people, so some women's brains are larger than the average whereas some men's are smaller. These differences partly reflect the fact that men are generally bigger and taller than women, but they are not related to differences in intelligence.
Men and women's brains also differ in overall composition. Male brains tend to have a slightly higher proportion of white matter, whereas those of females have a higher proportion of grey matter in most parts of the cerebral cortex. Consequently, the cortex is slightly thicker in women's brains than in men's and, according to several studies, is slightly more convoluted as well. There are also sex differences in the size of individual brain structures. The hippocampus, a structure involved in memory formation, is on average larger in men than in women, as is the amygdala, which is also involved in memory, as well as emotions.
Another sexual variation is found in a structure called the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus. The function of this tiny structure is unknown, but research from four different laboratories has repeatedly found that it is almost twice as large in males than in females. It has also been linked to sexual orientation and gender identity: one study showed that it is more than twice as large in heterosexual males than in homosexual males, where it more closely resembles that of women; another found that it is smaller in male-to-female transsexuals, and larger in female-to-male transsexuals. These studies have been criticized for their small sample sizes, and the findings have not been confirmed.
Stereotypes and myths
Numerous studies show subtle differences in male and female behaviour and in cognitive functions, too. Men tend to be more aggressive and outperform women on mental tasks involving spatial skills such as mental rotation, whereas women tend to be more empathetic and perform better on verbal memory and language tasks. Findings like these are often exaggerated to reinforce the stereotypes that women are bad at reverse parking and that they love to chat!
In some cases, individual studies purporting to show sex differences in certain tasks are misappropriated. For example, according to a tiny postmortem study published in 1982, the corpus callosum, the massive bundle of nerve fibres connecting the two brain hemispheres, is proportionally larger in women than in men. This was widely reported to mean that women are better at multitasking, even though subsequent work has failed to replicate the results. A more recent study showed that women are marginally better than men at paying attention to sounds presented to both ears simultaneously – this was interpreted by some as evidence that 'men don't listen'.
Many of these claims are accompanied by the assertion that the observed differences between men and women's brains are 'hard-wired' and, therefore, irreversible. We now know, however, that brain structure and function change in response to experience, so any observed differences between the brains of men and women could also be due to differences in upbringing and socialization. To date, though, very little research has been done to investigate how different nurturing styles might influence brain development.
Box: The extreme male brain hypothesis
People with autism tend to perform poorly on tests of empathizing, or the ability to put oneself in somebody else's shoes, but do well on tests of systematizing, or finding repeating patterns. Similarly, women tend to score higher on the empathy scale, and men on the systematizing scale. These observations led one researcher to propose the highly controversial 'extreme male brain' hypothesis of autism. The hypothesis states that autism is an extreme form of the normal male cognitive profile, which occurs as a result of high testosterone levels in the womb. Accordingly, people with autism can be considered as 'hyper-systematizers' who focus more on patterns and fine details than on other people's thoughts and actions. The extreme male brain hypothesis has been used as an explanation for why autism is four times more prevalent in males than in females, and why people with autism can excel in disciplines such as maths and engineering.
Also, that was in response to Hybrid's claim that Men and Women are mentally identical. Studies have shown that is false.
The whole "Men and women are different!" argument is so incredibly lame I can't believe anyone goes trotting out it seriously.Of course there are both concrete differences and diverging trends in men and women, anyone with functioning eyes and a basic understanding of high school biology can figure that one out. However it's a lame argument because:
A) Men and Women are more similar than they are different. That is to say for every clear divergence between the sexes, many more commonalities exist.
B) Culture & Experience play a huge role in how we both as individuals and as groups experience the world.
C) Even given the same culture and biology individuals still have greatly diverging beliefs, tastes and experiences.
Sure you'll probably be able to drill down to some biological differences that might indicate possible contributing factors to broad trends that can be accounted for by sex difference, but that's about it. Trying to extrapolate those out into some kind of grand truth that neatly accounts for complex high-level aspects of humanity is absurd.
Chongara wrote: The whole "Men and women are different!" argument is so incredibly lame I can't believe anyone goes trotting out it seriously.Of course there are both concrete differences and diverging trends in men and women, anyone with functioning eyes and a basic understanding of high school biology can figure that one out. However it's a lame argument because:
A) Men and Women are more similar than they are different. That is to say for every clear divergence between the sexes, many more commonalities exist.
B) Culture & Experience play a huge role in how we both as individuals and as groups experience the world.
C) Even given the same culture and biology individuals still have greatly diverging beliefs, tastes and experiences.
Sure you'll probably be able to drill down to some biological differences that might indicate possible contributing factors to broad trends that can be accounted for by sex difference, but that's about it. Trying to extrapolate those out into some kind of grand truth that neatly accounts for complex high-level aspects of humanity is absurd.
That is true.
Though please point out where I was extrapolating that research into a "grand truth that neatly accounts for complex high-level aspects of humanity"
All I was doing is countering Hybrids assertion that there are no mental differences between men in women. Research shows that there are, in fact, slight mental differences between the sexes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: It doesn't actually matter, though. We are not identical, but we are equal.
Indeed. Social inequality is inefficient and illogical. I never understood the whole inferiority claim.
"We now know, however, that brain structure and function change in response to experience, so any observed differences between the brains of men and women could also be due to differences in upbringing and socialization."
And yet the quackery that is evolutionary psychology asserts otherwise, because quackery is too busy asserting unproven nonsense without any verifiable evidence to bother with actual facts. Why bother with facts when you can just spout bullgak to believe your sexist trash?
*mutter* ... and yet atheist activists try to tell me religious folk are the source of all sexism... *mutter*
Also, that was in response to Hybrid's claim that Men and Women are mentally identical. Studies have shown that is false.
Yeah, but why? Is it because of a biological reason or a conditioning one? Both? Neither? The brain is a really fethed up organ in the sense that figuring our how it works to this day remains a complete cluster feth of scientists and doctors kind of shrugging at each other and saying 'maybe.'
It's not really a body of knowledge to be making definitive declarations like those you are over.
All I was doing is countering Hybrids assertion that there are no mental differences between men in women. Research shows that there are, in fact, slight mental differences between the sexes.
.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: All I was doing is countering Hybrids assertion that there are no mental differences between men in women.
And it worked! I am now completely convinced that there are huge mental difference between men and women, much bigger than between two men or two women.
Melissia wrote: *mutter* ... and yet atheist activists try to tell me religious folk are the source of all sexism... *mutter*
The thing with religion is that it “enshrine” (such an appropriate word) the bad concepts and ideas of the time where it was fabricated. Hence even if the religion was progressive at its inception, as the world continues to move forward, it becomes a great reactionary force preventing positive change.
But yeah, I personally know people that calls themselves both atheists and sexists. Anyone trying to assert religion as the sole and only cause for sexism rather than just a major one is obviously deluded.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: All I was doing is countering Hybrids assertion that there are no mental differences between men in women.
And it worked! I am now completely convinced that there are huge mental difference between men and women, much bigger than between two men or two women.
I never said huge. Just there are differences.
You appeared to have been claiming that there are no differences.
All I was doing is countering Hybrids assertion that there are no mental differences between men in women. Research shows that there are, in fact, slight mental differences between the sexes.
.
Oh. In other words:
How very productive.
Oh how cute, painting me as a pedantic nerd. How very productive.
So, I need to learn more about those very meaningful differences. Please enlighten me, because I would not want to interact with women as if they were mentally the same as men, that would likely be a very bad idea.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, I need to learn more about those very meaningful differences. Please enlighten me, because I would not want to interact with women as if they were mentally the same as men, that would likely be a very bad idea.
Don't worry, they are so slight that it hardly matters.
Also, I never said meaningful either.
Then, and I hope you'll understand my blunt nature in asking it this way, perhaps you can shut the hell up about them already?
We have plenty of people in this thread that use them as excuses to say women shouldn't have any say in how games are made, even if we're willing to buy or make the games ourselves....
Jehan-reznor wrote: I agree in social interaction and in normal (work) life the sexes need to be treated equally, but male and females are physically and mentally not the same
Yep, totally mentally different. There is a huge mental difference between men and women. Sure thing.
Don't worry, they are so slight that it hardly matters.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Also, that was in response to Hybrid's claim that Men and Women are mentally identical. Studies have shown that is false.
merriam-webster.com wrote:ped·ant noun \ˈpe-dənt\
a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details
Yeah, but why? Is it because of a biological reason or a conditioning one?
As with many things: both. Women and men are different from a biological and neurological point of view - what then happens during socialization etc. influences what base there is to work on and with. Example: muscle growth. Your average man will be stronger than your average woman merely because of biology. Average. A trained woman will kick an untrained man's ass.
What is important, however, is that the differences between men and women aren't seen as deficits, but as strengths or rather: chances. Denying the difference is just as stupid as seeing it as a weakness. I don't understand why being (slightly) different is a problem to so many. Ashiraya said a very wise sentence: We are not identical, but we are equal.
Hybrid was being sarcastic when responding to Jehan. He's really saying "there are no differences between men and women." Note how Jehan didn't say huge.
Nice taking what I typed out of context though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Then, and I hope you'll understand my blunt nature in asking it this way, perhaps you can shut the hell up about them already?
We have plenty of people in this thread that use them as excuses to say women shouldn't have any say in how games are made, even if we're willing to buy or make the games ourselves....
Yes, that is the wrong thing to do. There are differences, but using them as grounds for discrimination is wrong. So is denying that they exist.
What is important, however, is that the differences between men and women aren't seen as deficits, but as strengths or rather: chances. Denying the difference is just as stupid as seeing it as a weakness. I don't understand why being (slightly) different is a problem to so many. Ashiraya said a very wise sentence: We are not identical, but we are equal.
...now, wasn't this about video games? ;D
Yes. This was what I was getting at. But of course, I had to be attacked for it.
Ok. But if the differences are so slight (thank you CthulusSpy), doesn't that mean that it would not be noticeable in most game mechanical systems?
A +1 strength is pretty noticeable. And if you make a character inherently weaker at a specific role, you are basically incentivizing that the players not play that role. But why? Is not the nature of games fantasy?
AdeptSister wrote: Ok. But if the differences are so slight (thank you CthulusSpy), doesn't that mean that it would not be noticeable in most game mechanical systems?
A +1 strength is pretty noticeable. And if you make a character inherently weaker at a specific role, you are basically incentivizing that they not play that role. But why? Is not the nature of games fantasy?
Indeed. Which is why stat penalties or buffs based on gender are stupid. The only way I could consider it plausible is if the stats relate to a race of creatures that exhibit extreme forms of sexual dimorphism. But even then, that seems to be an odd sort of thing to have in a game. Or if the game system is ridiculously precise. Like, all stats are rounded off to the one hundredth decimal. Not sure I would want to play a game like that.
There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yes! I thought we were on the same page. Some people on this thread have been promoting different mechanical characteristics. I mean, IMO, it keeps sounding like the following to me: "Men and Women are different and thus, in they as characters should have specific roles that each should conform to." I see no reason to build limitations like that into the system. It's like the designer saying "Sorry player, I know that you wanted to make an super social butterfly guy, but according to my beliefs no man can reach the maximum charisma of a woman because...'reasons.'" Why is such a design a good thing?
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yep. They are literally half as big. This was back in 3e/3.5 D&D.
AdeptSister wrote: Yes! I thought we were on the same page. Some people on this thread have been promoting different mechanical characteristics. I mean, IMO, it keeps sounding like the following to me: "Men and Women are different and thus, in they as characters should have specific roles that each should conform to." I see no reason to build limitations like that into the system. It's like the designer saying "Sorry player, I know that you wanted to make an super social butterfly guy, but according to my beliefs no man can reach the maximum charisma of a woman because...'reasons.'" Why is such a design a good thing?
Clearly, that designer never heard of Clark Gable or Casanova
AdeptSister wrote: Yes! I thought we were on the same page. Some people on this thread have been promoting different mechanical characteristics. I mean, IMO, it keeps sounding like the following to me: "Men and Women are different and thus, in they as characters should have specific roles that each should conform to." I see no reason to build limitations like that into the system. It's like the designer saying "Sorry player, I know that you wanted to make an super social butterfly guy, but according to my beliefs no man can reach the maximum charisma of a woman because...'reasons.'" Why is such a design a good thing?
What a bonus modifier is somehow a bad thing? I think a personality modifier would be awesome. Like you get to choose you personality type at the beginning of the game and you get different modifiers or negatives for the personality types.
AdeptSister wrote: Yes! I thought we were on the same page. Some people on this thread have been promoting different mechanical characteristics. I mean, IMO, it keeps sounding like the following to me: "Men and Women are different and thus, in they as characters should have specific roles that each should conform to." I see no reason to build limitations like that into the system. It's like the designer saying "Sorry player, I know that you wanted to make an super social butterfly guy, but according to my beliefs no man can reach the maximum charisma of a woman because...'reasons.'" Why is such a design a good thing?
It's basically forcing archetypes or gender rolls on the player. It's hard to think of a reason for that to be needed. (The funny thing is that often players will conform to these roles naturally without any prodding.)
Edit: Modifiers at character creation could be used to help paint the norms of the setting. Like how elfs get bonus dex because by the norms of the setting elves are more agile. If your setting was particularly sexist, then including sexist modifiers at character creation could be a way to inform your players of that.
I have no problem with modifiers, but when you tie them to gender in becomes problematic. Nomotog captured it perfectly.
Now you want to create a sexist setting (which is not my cup of tea) that supports different roles, MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PLAYER. It can be annoying if the designer is not communicating with the player. Especially after the player dropped money on the game.
Modifiers could actually get more interesting. When you make a modifier to a game mechanic, your basically state a universal law of your setting. Like if you give one group a - 2 to int then that group is literally dumber according to the rules of the setting. Think about that message.
Now where you can get fancy is if you took all the stereotypes (Elves are agile, dawarfs are strong and hardy.) kept them, but then didn't but in mechanics modifiers. Think about what kind of message that sends.
This is kind of were we get to my current idea of how to handle sexist settings. You let the setting be sexist, but then you use the mechanics to inform the player that all this sexism isn't the law of the universe. It's just a thing that the people believe.
AdeptSister wrote: Ok. But if the differences are so slight (thank you CthulusSpy), doesn't that mean that it would not be noticeable in most game mechanical systems?
A +1 strength is pretty noticeable. And if you make a character inherently weaker at a specific role, you are basically incentivizing that the players not play that role. But why? Is not the nature of games fantasy?
It depends. In a medieval-ish world, for example, it would sense for men to have a higher S value given that they were mostly doing physical work, e.g. farmer / fighter. On the other hand, in the very same world, an Amazonian woman would be a better fighter and have a higher S than a male farmer. That's exactly what many people pointed out: there are differences. There's a base and then you work with what you were given to develop your very own potential. That's what makes mankind so interesting - variety.
Women frequently worked on their husbads/family's farms doing the same things men would do. The idea they didn't is modern, based on mid-western farming practices.
When you have to do everything by hand, you need everyone to pitch in.
LordofHats wrote: Women frequently worked on their husbads/family's farms doing the same things men would do. The idea they didn't is modern, based on mid-western farming practices.
When you have to do everything by hand, you need everyone to pitch in.
Yes. This is something people tend to overlook. There were peasant women on the fields. Only assigning men to harvest food is a recipe for disaster, especially when winter is coming.
Also, maids in the Victorian era - very strong due to having to carry big pots around. I recall seeing a photograph of an old maid from the 19th century / 20th century holding a huge metal pot. I remember thinking "damn, if I tried holding that my arms will fall off"
Melissia wrote: Or you could be a good, intelligent, creative writer build a sexist society that isn't a mirror image of the real world.
But I guess being creative is too hard for most writers.
What do you mean?
One example from my memory was a writer who proposed a story with a society where women were societally expected to be politicians, workers, soldiers, etc, and men were relegated to philosophers, scientists/engineers, academia, etc. A man who wanted to be a soldier was thought of as un-manly, because that honor belonged to women; a woman whom wanted to be an engineer was thought of as unfeminine, since that was clearly a manly thing, not something a woman should dirty her hands with. That's the more extreme end of the spectrum, showing how different a society can be from ours, but other smaller bits could be things like "a society where men were expected to stay home to raise any children they fathered and women expected to work", or "men are legally denied the right to carry swords in public, while women are socially obligated to do so".
Compare that to the lazy writing of many people, including people in this thread, whom suggest we take a fantasy world and lazily slap modern sexism on it and call it a day.
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yep. They are literally half as big. This was back in 3e/3.5 D&D.
There were no gender stat differences in 3/3.5 D&D.
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yep. They are literally half as big. This was back in 3e/3.5 D&D.
There were no gender stat differences in 3/3.5 D&D.
Indeed. 3.5 was the generation of the Mages vs Everything else
Joking aside, the only way 3/3.5 had it in was if a player implemented it or there was some monster species (kinda like ants I suppose) that had very distinct differences.
Melissia wrote: Or you could be a good, intelligent, creative writer build a sexist society that isn't a mirror image of the real world.
But I guess being creative is too hard for most writers.
What do you mean?
One example from my memory was a writer who proposed a story with a society where women were societally expected to be politicians, workers, soldiers, etc, and men were relegated to philosophers, scientists/engineers, academia, etc. A man who wanted to be a soldier was thought of as un-manly, because that honor belonged to women; a woman whom wanted to be an engineer was thought of as unfeminine, since that was clearly a manly thing, not something a woman should dirty her hands with. That's the more extreme end of the spectrum, showing how different a society can be from ours, but other smaller bits could be things like "a society where men were expected to stay home to raise any children they fathered and women expected to work", or "men are legally denied the right to carry swords in public, while women are socially obligated to do so".
Compare that to the lazy writing of many people, including people in this thread, whom suggest we take a fantasy world and lazily slap modern sexism on it and call it a day.
"a society where men were expected to stay home to raise any children they fathered and women expected to work", or "men are legally denied the right to carry swords in public, while women are socially obligated to do so".
I'll just have to interject by saying that the former is just as lazy as standard style. The only difference is they go hey look we basically inverted the expectations of the standard view of the sexes! We are so intellectual indeed. The men legally denied sword part is a bit more interesting just because it actually has a social obligation that wasn't really a thing in our world. Just tossing that in. The one about professions was also interesting.
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yep. They are literally half as big. This was back in 3e/3.5 D&D.
There were no gender stat differences in 3/3.5 D&D.
Indeed. 3.5 was the generation of the Mages vs Everything else
Joking aside, the only way 3/3.5 had it in was if a player implemented it or there was some monster species (kinda like ants I suppose) that had very distinct differences.
And there was a time were it seemed like every week or every other week someone would put out something that added them. It may not have been in the core rules, but it was still something that was toyed with a lot by DMs.
nomotog wrote: There was an example I saw that kind of put things into perspective. Back when D&D was playing with gender modifiers. (-2 +2) Someone pointed out that giving women a -2 to str would make them as strong as halflings.
That's...terrible. Aren't Halflings the weakest race in the game? That doesn't seem right.
Yep. They are literally half as big. This was back in 3e/3.5 D&D.
There were no gender stat differences in 3/3.5 D&D.
Indeed. 3.5 was the generation of the Mages vs Everything else
Joking aside, the only way 3/3.5 had it in was if a player implemented it or there was some monster species (kinda like ants I suppose) that had very distinct differences.
And there was a time were it seemed like every week or every other week someone would put out something that added them. It may not have been in the core rules, but it was still something that was toyed with a lot by DMs.
Probably because of how open 3rd edition (to be precise, 3.5) was. It was so open that Pathfinder is basically just 3.5 with a few minor edits (sorry for ot but feel it's somewhat valid considering mention of DMs spamming it. The biggest fault was an old DnD game doing it and people continuing it. Then again, this is the same world where elves can pull back hardcore bows because dexterity whilst being exceedingly slinder.
StarTrotter wrote: I'll just have to interject by saying that the former is just as lazy as standard style. The only difference is they go hey look we basically inverted the expectations of the standard view of the sexes!
Inverting expectations is much less lazy than simply working with societal norms, and, especially for male writers, requires them to think about how the social norms chafe and feel restrictive-- or whether or not they'd actually like it, or if opinions on the matter would be split, what kind of events might have led the culture to believe in these things, etc., as opposed to simply accepting the lazy "common sense" approach whereupon they choose NOT to think about it, and invariably leads to sexist representations of both women AND men.
Indeed, there were so many d20 products at the time because of the Open License that it would take a sizable research grant and five years to properly categorize them all.
I'm speaking only of the core rules from WotC, and in those there were racial modifiers to stats (Dwarves tougher than Humans, Elves faster but less-tough than Humans, and so on), but none of them were gender-based within the racial modifiers,
Psienesis wrote: Indeed, there were so many d20 products at the time because of the Open License that it would take a sizable research grant and five years to properly categorize them all.
I'm speaking only of the core rules from WotC, and in those there were racial modifiers to stats (Dwarves tougher than Humans, Elves faster but less-tough than Humans, and so on), but none of them were gender-based within the racial modifiers,
And it was glorious! I loved the era were you practically had a source book for every conceivable idea. (Wallmart d20 for the win!)
StarTrotter wrote: I'll just have to interject by saying that the former is just as lazy as standard style. The only difference is they go hey look we basically inverted the expectations of the standard view of the sexes!
Inverting expectations is much less lazy than simply working with societal norms, and, especially for male writers, requires them to think about how the social norms chafe and feel restrictive-- or whether or not they'd actually like it, or if opinions on the matter would be split, what kind of events might have led the culture to believe in these things, etc., as opposed to simply accepting the lazy "common sense" approach whereupon they choose NOT to think about it, and invariably leads to sexist representations of both women AND men.
Eh, I feel it's dependent upon how literal the switch is. If it's just the sexual organs/stuff that gets swapped up, it really does feel just as lazy if not more so (due to the fact that conventional historics actually is more varied than modern expectations i.e. Victorian women were capable of carrying heavy weights my hands would fall off for as another poster mentioned). Now if you really start mixing the brew, keeping some faults and the sorts then it can feel more unique but it's more of multiple steps at that point whilst just flipping the sexes wouldn't do much.
Psienesis wrote: Indeed, there were so many d20 products at the time because of the Open License that it would take a sizable research grant and five years to properly categorize them all.
I'm speaking only of the core rules from WotC, and in those there were racial modifiers to stats (Dwarves tougher than Humans, Elves faster but less-tough than Humans, and so on), but none of them were gender-based within the racial modifiers,
And it was glorious! I loved the era were you practically had a source book for every conceivable idea. (Wallmart d20 for the win!)
I personally prefer the GURPS system for that now. Granted I always thought that the d20 system was horrid
.
.
.
.
I would like to point out that this data does technically use games on phone apps and facebook, etc. That's rather rude of me to say because it gets into the whole entire YOU ARE NOT GAMERS! argument but I'd argue there is some difference between people that lean heavily on playing phone games from the good ones, to the bad ones, to the go in each day press a few. The catch with games is they kinda all have sinks. Heck, I've seen some gamers that just play the Call of Duty games and that's it. Some only play League of Legends and that's about it or just play WoW. So, from a completely technical standpoint I'd like to argue that a lot of the AAA demographics are still white males that are usually teenagers or young adults. Now then... lemme just take a second to hop off this platform...
