Actually my point was more it was a similar society to our own, but some small differences, such as the ones I mentioned-- rather than just flipping all gender expectations period, which I agree would be lazy. Just flipping some can cause the reader to notice the bizarre incongruities and perhaps even wonder why the hell the gender norm (and perhaps others) is there in the first place, making it a good writing tool. Especially if not everything that is "normal" to their society but incongruent to ours is revealed at once, leaving one sometimes wondering what else is different ,and if there are hidden differences the story doesn't deal with.
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.
Interesting. Did the novel delve into the history of the world at all? Presumably it was the women who became soldiers in the present because it was the women in the past who were the ones out doing the killing for food, as they were, for whatever reason, the ones with the better shot at using their proportionally greater upper body strength and spacial orientation skills to spear a boar, and also the ones more likely to be chosen by their early tribe as combatants in competition over resources.
You know, we can make a thread about the problems gamers have with how men are represented in games. I mean that is OK. It's not like there is a ban on it. If there is a problem that it bugging you, make that thread.
nomotog wrote: You know, we can make a thread about the problems gamers have with how men are represented in games. I mean that is OK. It's not like there is a ban on it. If there is a problem that it bugging you, make that thread.
Eh, I think the point on that was simply that game writing in general is very, very lazy. It's something that sweeps up male characters and female characters in a vortex of bland characters with lazy writing usually capped off by a story that you only like because of the actual gameplay itself. He also said that it happens to females more (Although I can't tell if I have a greater problem with that or how 40k went on to say we don't want to model females because we're afraid of messing up )
Whilst not a game - I find the portrayal of sexes in Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive interesting.
Basically, men are expected to lead, fight, and work at manual labor. Women are expected to study, learn, engineer, and socialize. (At least in the primary culture the main characters are a part of - the rest of the world has different norms) to the point where men are almost totally illiterate (learning to read is feminine) ... although they have a quasi-written language of pictographs and there is an emergent society of men who have advanced that into an actual written language - which the majority of people consider dodgy at best.
Most successful people are couples who have complementary skills - ie a good military commander is also judged on his wife's abilities, as she is also his scribe/record keeper; especially important as there is now recently invented long range communication that is entirely writing based. Even to the point where since women hold an almost complete monopoly on literacy, they often include subtext knowing that the men who might be dictating the message cannot read it.
There is also a fairly nondogmatic religious class of monks who can be of either sex who are encouraged to learn - this is generally where more scientifically minded men are guided - who are supposed to guide others toward focusing their natural interests and abilities. They are also at least in theory 'owned' by their patrons, as there was a huge anti religious fallout after a theocratic coup earlier in the timeline.
I dunno, this thread is at page 81, and by now every argument has been made several times. Whenever I'm taking a peek back into this thread, it just reminds me of why I've originally stopped posting here.
I suppose that, yes, it may serve as some sort of "mirror of society" so that you can see society's face and all the different opinions, but in the end I think that face doesn't look very pretty, and nobody who is debating things here is going to be convinced by the other side because everyone has already made up their mind, based on how they perceive the things they've seen.
In other words, it may not be an "echo chamber", but it is a broken record.
I can see that point. But for me, at least I have seen where the beliefs of specific posters and been given a greater understanding of their point of view and their discussion style. It's been pretty informative.
I mean, isn't that the point of most threads: to learn different POVs and why they believe what they do?
I don't have an answer to that. It does not feel like a new conversation to me, but I have been at this for a decade (at least), so that's not really surprising.
Nah, most people and their respective opinions should be taken seriously, even if you (heavily) disagree with them. If someone litereally says "I AM ALWAYS RIGHT", then..well...that's another matter
Nah, most people and their respective opinions should be taken seriously, even if you (heavily) disagree with them. If someone litereally says "I AM ALWAYS RIGHT", then..well...that's another matter
Nah, most people and their respective opinions should be taken seriously, even if you (heavily) disagree with them. If someone litereally says "I AM ALWAYS RIGHT", then..well...that's another matter
How often do you argue when you're not sure if you're right?
The whole 'I only post when I know I am right' drama is pretty pointless. In practice he is just as likely to be convinced as you are (that is, all-but impossible), he just admits it. It does not actually have any effect on the discussion itself unless you want it to!
Lynata wrote: I dunno, this thread is at page 81, and by now every argument has been made several times. Whenever I'm taking a peek back into this thread, it just reminds me of why I've originally stopped posting here.
I suppose that, yes, it may serve as some sort of "mirror of society" so that you can see society's face and all the different opinions, but in the end I think that face doesn't look very pretty, and nobody who is debating things here is going to be convinced by the other side because everyone has already made up their mind, based on how they perceive the things they've seen.
In other words, it may not be an "echo chamber", but it is a broken record.
Lynata wrote: I dunno, this thread is at page 81, and by now every argument has been made several times. Whenever I'm taking a peek back into this thread, it just reminds me of why I've originally stopped posting here.
I suppose that, yes, it may serve as some sort of "mirror of society" so that you can see society's face and all the different opinions, but in the end I think that face doesn't look very pretty, and nobody who is debating things here is going to be convinced by the other side because everyone has already made up their mind, based on how they perceive the things they've seen.
In other words, it may not be an "echo chamber", but it is a broken record.
Its only broken if the message isn't getting trough, you don't have to agree to anything, but the moment you stop listen you loose.
I just found out about the MOBA Bloodline Champions. Every hero (here called Bloodline) have “opposite gender” skin available to be bought. There is generally a lot of skin showing for both gender due to the low-tech, low-magic Conan-like setting, but here is the base skin for the Guardian bloodline:
Spoiler:
and here is the purchasable male version:
Spoiler:
Is that not some nice reversal ?
They even manage to give the golem/stone construct a female skin that do not look ridiculous:
Spoiler:
vs
Spoiler:
The game allows for plenty of cheesecake for those that like it, but also includes tons of non-cheesecake skins. I think it is a very nice approach!
But this is French! Nobody can understand French because it is so different from English!
(Well, Sentinel is English because they do not translate the name of the Bloodlines, else it would be Sentinelle. But you still have no idea what sexe or féminin could possibly mean, do you ?)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I just found out about the MOBA Bloodline Champions.
Every hero (here called Bloodline) have “opposite gender” skin available to be bought.
There is generally a lot of skin showing for both gender due to the low-tech, low-magic Conan-like setting, but here is the base skin for the Guardian bloodline:
Spoiler:
and here is the purchasable male version:
Spoiler:
Is that not some nice reversal ?
They even manage to give the golem/stone construct a female skin that do not look ridiculous:
Spoiler:
vs
Spoiler:
The game allows for plenty of cheesecake for those that like it, but also includes tons of non-cheesecake skins. I think it is a very nice approach!
I continue my relentless search for CSM-esque female characters. In the meantime, I am toying around with GIMP.
Compare these two. The positioning is identical on both so they should be easy enough to swap tabs between for easy comparison.
First, the base in-game model. Somewhat glitchy textures at the knees, but that was me messing up. Note the ludicrously slim belly and biceps along with the tiny hands, despite the full plate!
Next, one that I edited a little with GIMP. Added some flash, but most importantly, I bulked up the belly and biceps, and swapped in better hands. The other character at the side is not relevant here, she was just added as a size comparison for use on another forum.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I just found out about the MOBA Bloodline Champions.
Every hero (here called Bloodline) have “opposite gender” skin available to be bought.
There is generally a lot of skin showing for both gender due to the low-tech, low-magic Conan-like setting, but here is the base skin for the Guardian bloodline:
Spoiler:
and here is the purchasable male version:
Spoiler:
Is that not some nice reversal ?
They even manage to give the golem/stone construct a female skin that do not look ridiculous:
Spoiler:
vs
Spoiler:
The game allows for plenty of cheesecake for those that like it, but also includes tons of non-cheesecake skins. I think it is a very nice approach!
Thought, Dakka?
I think the humans have potato heads Is the game-play any good? What is it like?
Ashiraya wrote: I continue my relentless search for CSM-esque female characters. In the meantime, I am toying around with GIMP.
Compare these two. The positioning is identical on both so they should be easy enough to swap tabs between for easy comparison.
First, the base in-game model. Somewhat glitchy textures at the knees, but that was me messing up. Note the ludicrously slim belly and biceps along with the tiny hands, despite the full plate!
Next, one that I edited a little with GIMP. Added some flash, but most importantly, I bulked up the belly and biceps, and swapped in better hands. The other character at the side is not relevant here, she was just added as a size comparison for use on another forum.
You can try it out for yourself, it is free to play. Actually seems very challenging. You control your hero via wasd (or qzsd for people with azerty keyboards), and use your cursor only to target stuff. You have 8 (!!) different skills per bloodline, one mapped to left mouse button, one mapped to right mouse button, one mapped to a, two sharing the same cooldown mapped to E and W, two sharing the same cooldown mapped to are and x, one ultimate mapped of F, and a movement-related ability mapped on space. There is no item or mana or creep or jungle or level, you just start with a bloodline and there are a bunch of other bloodline, and you beat the crap out of each other. Just played a few games against bot, seems very challenging, but fun and fast-paced.
http://www.bloodlinechampions.com/
Bishop F Gantry wrote:Its only broken if the message isn't getting trough, you don't have to agree to anything, but the moment you stop listen you loose.
Oh, I think the vast majority of people stopped to "listen" before this thread was even created.
This is really just noise - people making a statement and reinforcing their opinions. At best it serves to see where person X stands, but it doesn't really get you anywhere and the sheer amount of pages just hints at a lot of wasted energy.
(nice reversal though @ Bloodline Champions - it's funny to see the cliché turned around for once. reminds me of those movie poster parodies )
Bishop F Gantry wrote:Its only broken if the message isn't getting trough, you don't have to agree to anything, but the moment you stop listen you loose.
Oh, I think the vast majority of people stopped to "listen" before this thread was even created.
This is really just noise - people making a statement and reinforcing their opinions. At best it serves to see where person X stands, but it doesn't really get you anywhere and the sheer amount of pages just hints at a lot of wasted energy.
(nice reversal though @ Bloodline Champions - it's funny to see the cliché turned around for once. reminds me of those movie poster parodies )
I mean I don't have a problem but antia is apparently going to cover her.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq · 5h 5 hours ago
I’ll be discussing the reasons Bayonetta is so pernicious in my Fighting feth Toy video. Bayonetta is a quintessential example of the trope.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq · 6h 6 hours ago
Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers.
Reply0 replies Retweet126 retweets126 Favorite219 favorites219
More
I personally don't care on the matter just wondering everyone's thoughts on a mainly female cast game?
Well if you don't care why bother asking. We actually covered Bayonetta awhile ago. I think the conclusion was most people didn't play it.
The FFT is a interesting trope. It's basically the third person seductress under a different name. I simply don't know what to make of it. I think it falls into the category of limiting. Basically the desire/requirement for female characters to be sexy for the (assumed male) player limits the verity of characters you can have.
nomotog wrote: Well if you don't care why bother asking. We actually covered Bayonetta awhile ago. I think the conclusion was most people didn't play it.
The FFT is a interesting trope. It's basically the third person seductress under a different name. I simply don't know what to make of it. I think it falls into the category of limiting. Basically the desire/requirement for female characters to be sexy for the (assumed male) player limits the verity of characters you can have.
IN the heroes journey there is the woman as temptress or the temptress where their main goal is to make the main hero lose their way.
I think that is probably far more interesting than the FFT trope, but maybe Anita hates that idea and thinks the heroes journey is sexist.
That seems clear to me. I am interested in knowing whether it is clear to other too. It seems not clear to you, what about other members in the thread?
Manchu wrote: I would not have known this was a female character, either.
I know Ashiraya well enough to guess: not enough armor . For instance, look at the arms. Seems very close-fitting.
Asherian Command wrote: I mean I don't have a problem but antia is apparently going to cover her.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq · 5h 5 hours ago
I’ll be discussing the reasons Bayonetta is so pernicious in my Fighting feth Toy video. Bayonetta is a quintessential example of the trope.
Feminist Frequency @femfreq · 6h 6 hours ago
Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers.
Reply0 replies Retweet126 retweets126 Favorite219 favorites219
More
Are you actually following her on Twitter?
nomotog wrote: How would you make a game were you play the temptress?
That seems clear to me. I am interested in knowing whether it is clear to other too. It seems not clear to you, what about other members in the thread?
Manchu wrote: I would not have known this was a female character, either.
Manchu wrote: I would not have known this was a female character, either.
Not even the hourglass figure in 2D plate armour gives it away?
I can imagine that the edited figure is harder to identify, (though not impossible), but the unedited character with her sorry excuse for plate armour is, to me, rather distinctly a female model.
"... people sometimes say, oh, you write good female characters. You just write people, honestly. It's not any different. I think that if you're over-focused on the gender, you're probably writing a pretty one-dimensional character. Gender's not that huge of a component of personality, I don't think. At the end of the day, I think our humanity is a bigger component." - Amy Hennig, games developer.
Guess we saw that quote at least thrice now. Still valid, and it's still sad that people want to have female characters because...they're female, but...
I did read Terry Pratchett, but I was not thinking about the Discworld when I spoke of paper-powered golems. I was referring the original, biblical, trope-defining golem.
During the Middle Ages, passages from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) were studied as a means to attain the mystical ability to create and animate a golem, although there is little in the writings of Jewish mysticism that supports this belief. It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritualistic use of various letters of the Hebrew Alphabet forming a "shem" (any one of the Names of God). The shem was written on a piece of paper and inserted either in the mouth or in the forehead of the golem, thus bringing it into life and action.
In some tales (for example, some versions of those of the golems of Chełm and Prague, as well as in Polish tales and version of Brothers Grimm), a golem is inscribed with Hebrew words, such as the word emet (אמת, "truth" in Hebrew) written on its forehead. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א) in emet, thus changing the inscription from "truth" to "death" (met מת, meaning "dead"). Other versions add that after creating an entity out of clay, it would be brought to life by placing into his mouth a shem with a magic formula, and could later be immobilized by pulling out the shem[/b], or by reversing the creative combinations, for, as Rabbi Jacob ben Shalom, who arrived at Barcelona from Germany in 1325, remarked, the law of destruction is the reversal of the law of creation.
Okay then, the Talmudic golem or what have you.
Jewish folklore and mythology, Christian folklore and mythology, are the two not supposed to be pretty damn close up to when the son of the big boss came around (nepotism much)?
Note that the Golem of Prague was apparently supposed to be a he, not a it.
Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).
For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".
Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.
Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.
Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.
Yes, Data would be an "it". It's a tool, after all. A robot, android actually. Don't need it anymore? Destroy it. I don't see the point in assigning a gender to a robot. It can't reproduce anyway.
Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.
Yes, Data would be an "it". It's a tool, after all. A robot, android actually. Don't need it anymore? Destroy it. I don't see the point in assigning a gender to a robot. It can't reproduce anyway.
Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).
For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".
Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.
It may have been a female Necrontyr before, but now, it's a soulless, metal thing that only serves the C'tan's will.
Fair enough, though I would say it is still technically female as it considers itself as female.
If a race has no or uses no gender, would they have terms for genders?
Sigvatr wrote: Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.
Sig worthy stuff
If you need to be reminded of basic forum rules, feel free to add
Seriously, though, this is what everyone does unless otherwise stated. When someone says "Potatoes are awful.", then I normally assume that this individual person thinks that way, I don't think that person wants to say that everyone should think that potatoes are awful. Because potatoes are awesome.
Sigvatr wrote: What makes a person more than a tool? Please don't post any general statements, just your opinions please!
I'm not going there /again/. The last thread people went there, 3 people got banned and 2 were warned. Not feeling like playing the Dakka Moderation Bingo
FYI, 99% of Dakkanauts manage to post their opinions without breaking the site's rules.
It sounds like you are saying that only someone (as opposed to something), i.e., persons, can have a gender. What about animals? Animals clearly have sex; do they also have gender?
You know, I really think discussion of gender needs to be grounded in a much richer theoretical basis. As things stand, we are throwing around complicated terms (like "gender") without really knowing if we're talking about the same thing.
Sigvatr wrote: Actually, not hearing from Feminist Frequency ever again would be better for everyone
Nah, one may disagree with them on some of what they say, but it is still an interesting watch.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.
Maybe they have actually 10 different genders, and they could only reproduce when they had a combination of 6 genders, or 7 genders if one of those was a male. We just have encountered only necron of the male and female gender, but the 8 other unnamed genders exists somewhere else!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: It sounds like you are saying that only someone (as opposed to something), i.e., persons, can have a gender. What about animals? Animals clearly have sex; do they also have gender?
If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things." Obviously, a category called "things" is not very helpful.
I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?
Manchu wrote: If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things."
If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday. Then again, that explains why I am a vegetarian and you are (I guess) not. What about non-human species in fantasy, like dwarfs and elves? What about the now-extinct different branches of homo ?
Manchu wrote: If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things."
If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday. Then again, that explains why I am a vegetarian and you are (I guess) not.
Funny, I would also go for "persons," and I am not a vegetarian.
Two categories are too narrow. Three categories would be better - Humans, Non-Human Organisms, and Objects.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday.
Well, we might have to back track eventually to the concept of personhood, but one thing at a time:
Manchu wrote: I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?
I would say NO. As far as I can tell, gender is a relational rather than absolute concept. Anyone and anything can be gendered. Fictional characters, including automatons, can meaningfully be identified and identify themselves with gendered terms.
This raises the question of whether being gendered as, for example, a woman actually makes one a woman.
So for example, Data is referred to as a "he" but does that make him a "man"?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday.
Well, we might have to back track eventually to the concept of personhood, but one thing at a time:
Manchu wrote: I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?
I would say NO.
I would say yes at least for sex → gender, but I have been using a slightly wrong definition of gender for, like, forever, and I know it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Two categories are too narrow. Three categories would be better - Humans, Non-Human Organisms, and Objects.
I would go with four: humans, animals, plants, and objects. With humans being a subcategory of animals.
Plants are already non-human organisms though. 4 categories would certainly be more specific. Taxonomy is fun!
Manchu wrote: I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?
When you say sex, do you mean the act, or the biological components required to perform such acts?
Alright now, please stay on topic. The point of bringing up a bit of theory is to make sure we have some common understanding of gender, not to categorize Creation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: When you say sex, do you mean the act, or the biological components required to perform such acts?
By on topic here, you mean keeping focused on whether a stone construct with no genitalia can be considered male (or female), or not?
Is it really relevant to the bigger picture of "What problems do gamers have with how women are represented in games?" ?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, sex is a characteristic that an organism possesses that enables to reproduce, is it not? Hamlet is not an organism, he is a fictional construct.
Like I said, you are being overly literal. Hamlet is certainly "an organism" in his own terms, in the fictional setting in which he exists.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, sex is a characteristic that an organism possesses that enables to reproduce, is it not? Hamlet is not an organism, he is a fictional construct.
Like I said, you are being overly literal. Hamlet is certainly "an organism" in his own terms, in the fictional setting in which he exists.
Alright fair enough. I wasn't considering it from that perspective.
Think of it this way, if a fictional character cannot have a sex, could there be a such thing as a trangendered character? I mean, aside from claiming "transgender" is itself a gender (which is not what many trans people seem to think).
Manchu wrote: Are you asking whether what gender means is relevant to how gender is portrayed?
I am asking precisely what I wrote. Is there a need to investigate those intricacies of gender when really, there is hardly any discussion about what constitute a female character except one member asking once if one specific bloodline being gendered make sense?
I am wondering, are we having a language barrier obstacle or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
Can you, please, stop immediately asking if there's a "language barrier obstacle" whenever people argue and have a differing viewpoint? It sounds extremely condescending and you do this quite often. Thanks.
Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).
For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".
Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.
Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.
Orks.
They are quite literally the most alien species in 40k. Even more than Tyranids.
Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).
For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".
Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.
Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.
Orks.
They are quite literally the most alien species in 40k. Even more than Tyranids.
Haha, that is correct. I can't believe I forgot about them
True, but if someone feels that sexual reproduction isn't alien enough, they're the ONLY species in 40k that doesn't use sexual reproduction-- even Tyranids use hive-based-insectoid style sexual reproduction with their Norm Queens.
Melissia wrote: True, but if someone feels that sexual reproduction isn't alien enough, they're the ONLY species in 40k that doesn't use sexual reproduction-- even Tyranids use hive-based-insectoid style sexual reproduction with their Norm Queens.
Depends on whether you count Daemons as a species, I guess.
I think this video sets out the flaws in the critical position on this topic.
Specifically, I'd point to the latter part, where he criticizes that notion that sexualization is bad or devaluing to a character. Simply taking offense at the portrayal of these characters is not a good reason to demand they change, straight up.
You know we already did cover that too. Though the rule of the thread (I that I want to try and have at least) is you don't just drop a video and walk off. The idea is for you personally to post what you think. I kind of don't care what someone on youtube thinks.
Melissia wrote: True, but if someone feels that sexual reproduction isn't alien enough, they're the ONLY species in 40k that doesn't use sexual reproduction-- even Tyranids use hive-based-insectoid style sexual reproduction with their Norm Queens.
The Necrons do not reproduce either, although it's debatable whether they still count as a "race" given that they are soulless automatons without an own mind.
Kali wrote: Specifically, I'd point to the latter part, where he criticizes that notion that sexualization is bad or devaluing to a character.
I am going to copy over something I posted somewhere, because I am lazy and writing the same thing twice is not useful.
You know, in a similar debate I am having on another place, someone mentioned Orchid's finisher (from the game Killer Instinct). I went and checked out what it was. Basically she shows the opponent her boobs, and they do a heart attack, or in a mirror match, die out of jealousy. And I thought to myself that, as a guy I would actually find it pretty fine if some fighting game included a character that was just super-hyper-sexy, and that would do the same kind of finisher by showing his man-junk to the enemy instead of boobs. But if the only two or three male characters from the game where all super-sexualized like that, it would be a bit annoying, especially if none of the female characters were. And when I would start getting really pissed off is when all games started including almost only characters like that, implying that non-sexy males are not interesting and that male exists only to be sexy or something in that vein. But one character like that per game would be quite funny and enjoyable, actually. Soul Calibur has Voldo, but he is somehow more creepy than sexy.
I am pretty sure most humans do enjoy feeling attractive to others, and playing a super-attractive character is no doubt some fantasy quite a bunch of us could really enjoy.
Problem is:
- when it happens only to one gender
- when it happens to every, or even most character of said gender, becoming an almost mandatory design element.
(As for the video, a few things:
- Spiderman is really the exception among male character, in that he do get tons of poses no other male hero would take and that are way closer to poses used on female characters. Obviously he will not get some b&b pose, though.
- In that spiderman cover, his add does not come out nearly as much as spiderwoman's
- Neither superman nor spiderman looks naked in the loin area (thankfully)
- That was totally not Spidey's testicles, that was his butt.
- I have no idea why that cover raised such a controversy when really it does not seem any worse than tons of other covers)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: although it's debatable whether they still count as a "race" given that they are soulless automatons without an own mind.
Are you in denial of the whole newcron fluff?
If you are, that is a perfectly reasonable position that I do respect, but please do mention it to avoid misunderstandings.
Melissia wrote: True, but if someone feels that sexual reproduction isn't alien enough, they're the ONLY species in 40k that doesn't use sexual reproduction-- even Tyranids use hive-based-insectoid style sexual reproduction with their Norm Queens.
The Necrons do not reproduce either, although it's debatable whether they still count as a "race" given that they are soulless automatons without an own mind.
Overlords do have their own minds.
Don't necrons know how to transfer minds? Can't they duplicate said minds and place them into different bodies?
Are you in denial of the whole newcron fluff?
If you are, that is a perfectly reasonable position that I do respect, but please do mention it to avoid misunderstandings.
Are you in denial of the whole newcron fluff? If you are, that is a perfectly reasonable position that I do respect, but please do mention it to avoid misunderstandings.
TruCron through and through o/
Heresy! WardCrons best crons. Also, 2+2 = 5. GW told me so.
In any case, this thread has been quite helpful for me. It's been very good for helping me sort of work out where my personal opinions are on the nuances of the topic.
Chaos Space Marine seems potentially a bit too specific. - For all GW's faults, evil, spikey retrogothic science fiction powered Knight Armour, is something that's rather specific, especially if you add in the requirement for 'for a female' (an issue already long discussed in this thread).
Offhand, the only thing that remotely comes close to me. - And by remotely I mean, very remotely indeed.
Are, Hasslefree's 'Power Armored Libby' models. And the Dreadball Void Sirens. (Spoilers for massive pictures)
Spoiler:
Although, Mantic do have the female Enforcer Pathfinder model. - Which is basically Mantic's equivalent of Space Marine Scout Armour.
There's got to be something in the Infinity range too that would suit as well.
Of course, none of these would be spikey enough for something 'Chaos Space Mariney' - Maybe something like the female Daedric Armour in Skyrim?
I am mainly very curious to see how many female characters wear big, bulky armour; indeed, if any do. CSM were just an example so you see which 'armour class' I am referring to.
I dislike those pink-white models, but the Enforcer Pathfinder is great.
Of course, no boobplate, no boobwindow, sideboob and what have you, and no high heels.
Ashiraya wrote: It doesn't have to be sci-fi, or even spiky.
I am mainly very curious to see how many female characters wear big, bulky armour; indeed, if any do. CSM were just an example so you see which 'armour class' I am referring to.
I dislike those pink-white models, but the Enforcer Pathfinder is great.
Of course, no boobplate, no boobwindow, sideboob and what have you, and no high heels.
So big, bulky, nonsexual armour?
I think:
Metroid (depending on if you'd consider it 'bulky')
Souls series (Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Dark Souls 2) have some quite bulky armour sets
Monster Hunter series as well
Fallout 3 & New Vegas with their power armour
X-Com? I vaguely recall their armour sets where reasonably chunky
Probably more I can't remember, but I doubt there'd be many more.
What would be a great way to introduce a female villain? What makes a good female villain? What would be a great way to introduce it
I like the way Claire got introduced in the comic faust, having sex with a guy afterward she pushes her thumbs into his eyes and then uses a razor to cut his throat
in front of a 2 way mirror where her husband is watching
Maybe NSFW
Less realistic, really. Too much story and gameplay situation . She only felt bad for killing in cutscenes, but she was okay with brutally massacreing things in gameplay.
Ashiraya wrote: @Hybrid: Looks okayish, but something just looks... off.
Well, it meet your criterion, does it not? Especially given the style of the game it is coming from, where very few of the bloodlines wear any real armor, it does qualify as bulky armor.
To be fair about Lara Croft, she is not the only character to suffer from a disconnect between the narrative and gameplay. But it was disappointing.
Does anyone remember Flo from Jagged Alliance 2? She started as basically a secretary and complained about the killing. But If you used her enough, she begun to love the thrill of killing.
It's a great sidescroller game, with the story changing depending on your actions. You don't actually have to kill anyone, though that doesnt' mean there are no deaths.
Melissia wrote:She only felt bad for killing in cutscenes, but she was okay with brutally massacreing things in gameplay.
Not in my game. I definitely recall Lara calling out that they should just talk it over and how she didn't want to kill anyone, even whilst (due to player input) she was pulling the trigger to defend herself.
As her personality changes through the narrative and she becomes more badass, however, these comments change into taunts and challenges. "How do you like that?!"
I thought this was rather cool, and an interesting departure from standard games where the character doesn't actually go through any development in terms of personality changes.
You know what forget Athena. I love Lilith. (Not in that way.) She had a lot more characterization in BL2 and is now my favorite character. Actually throw a dead cat in a borderland game and your going to find a neat character.
Melissia wrote:She only felt bad for killing in cutscenes, but she was okay with brutally massacreing things in gameplay.
Not in my game. I definitely recall Lara calling out that they should just talk it over and how she didn't want to kill anyone, even whilst (due to player input) she was pulling the trigger to defend herself.
As her personality changes through the narrative and she becomes more badass, however, these comments change into taunts and challenges. "How do you like that?!"
*shrug* I felt that Iji did it massively better, perhaps because Iji had the option of a 100% "pacifist" run where you did not have to directly harm any living being (Though yo udid have to employ violence against a few inanimate objects, like windows and a generator).
Melissia wrote:She only felt bad for killing in cutscenes, but she was okay with brutally massacreing things in gameplay.
Not in my game. I definitely recall Lara calling out that they should just talk it over and how she didn't want to kill anyone, even whilst (due to player input) she was pulling the trigger to defend herself.
As her personality changes through the narrative and she becomes more badass, however, these comments change into taunts and challenges. "How do you like that?!"
*shrug* I felt that Iji did it massively better, perhaps because Iji had the option of a 100% "pacifist" run where you did not have to directly harm any living being (Though yo udid have to employ violence against a few inanimate objects, like windows and a generator).
Also helped because ijii takes into account if you have been killing people or not and changes ijii's personality to reflect that.
Melissia wrote: *shrug* I felt that Iji did it massively better, perhaps because Iji had the option of a 100% "pacifist" run where you did not have to directly harm any living being (Though yo udid have to employ violence against a few inanimate objects, like windows and a generator).
So did Postal², for that matter . You could be a non-violent total jerk, or an ultraviolent total jerk, it was totally up to you!
I can see a odd pleasure in liking something offensive for being offensive. "Society says it's wrong to pee on people! HA Ha I pee on your rules!" It's kind of a child like defiance you know when you were a kid and made up words so you could swear and get away with it.
That said. It's kind of hard to judge this type of offensive game. A lot of them have subtle messages and critics on themselves their players and the genre. I have heard that postal 2 is a citric of video game critics (at the time it came out, critic meant jack ) , games, the player, and well offense in general. I haven't played it myself though.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
If your not a racist misogynist, then don't worry when people call you that. I don't get this... Actually I do get why this upsets people it's just that explaining why could be upsetting itself. (You are free to consider me stupid and ignore everything I am about to say, have said or will ever say.) People don't really get worked up about insults they know are untrue. If it really bothers you, then it might be because you see a grain of truth in the statement. I am not saying that you are a racist misogynist. (I don't know you well enough to really judge you.) I am just saying you might want to reflect on why it bothers you.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
If your not a racist misogynist, then don't worry when people call you that. I don't get this... Actually I do get why this upsets people it's just that explaining why could be upsetting itself. (You are free to consider me stupid and ignore everything I am about to say, have said or will ever say.) People don't really get worked up about insults they know are untrue. If it really bothers you, then it might be because you see a grain of truth in the statement. I am not saying that you are a racist misogynist. (I don't know you well enough to really judge you.) I am just saying you might want to reflect on why it bothers you.
Hold the phone, what? Of course people 'get worked up' about being insulted with an untrue accusation. That's a normal thing for people to do.
"Heard you eat puppies. Oh, you're getting upset? Better hide any puppies when you're about."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
If your not a racist misogynist, then don't worry when people call you that. I don't get this... Actually I do get why this upsets people it's just that explaining why could be upsetting itself. (You are free to consider me stupid and ignore everything I am about to say, have said or will ever say.) People don't really get worked up about insults they know are untrue. If it really bothers you, then it might be because you see a grain of truth in the statement. I am not saying that you are a racist misogynist. (I don't know you well enough to really judge you.) I am just saying you might want to reflect on why it bothers you.
Hold the phone, what? Of course people 'get worked up' about being insulted with an untrue accusation. That's a normal thing for people to do.
"Heard you eat puppies. Oh, you're getting upset? Better hide any puppies when you're about."
Sigvatr wrote: Postal 2...just...wow. I liked the game because of it being offensive towards EVERYTHING.
That's not a good reason to like something. Just FYI.
I will remember calling you before thinking about whether I like something or not!
It is a very valid reason to like a game. Being completely over the top and not following conventions is a main factor in modern comedy as well. If you don't like it, well, you don't like it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
If your not a racist misogynist, then don't worry when people call you that. I don't get this... Actually I do get why this upsets people it's just that explaining why could be upsetting itself. (You are free to consider me stupid and ignore everything I am about to say, have said or will ever say.) People don't really get worked up about insults they know are untrue. If it really bothers you, then it might be because you see a grain of truth in the statement. I am not saying that you are a racist misogynist. (I don't know you well enough to really judge you.) I am just saying you might want to reflect on why it bothers you.
Hold the phone, what? Of course people 'get worked up' about being insulted with an untrue accusation. That's a normal thing for people to do.
"Heard you eat puppies. Oh, you're getting upset? Better hide any puppies when you're about."
Is this where I say 'welcome to the internet?'
Quite a difference in mere trash talking and talking with hidden agendas..
Sigvatr wrote: Postal 2...just...wow. I liked the game because of it being offensive towards EVERYTHING.
That's not a good reason to like something. Just FYI.
Well, it was offensive in very funny ways. Though I do admit it is way easier to find it funny when the only group that is being mocked/ridiculed/stereotyped that I was a part of were vegetarians, and they had barely a few appearance in the game, none of them relevant to the story, iirc.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
This has literally never happened to me. Did it happen to anyone else in this thread? Can you please provide an example of this happening to you, with context, because I have troubles even figuring out who could call you that because you like games, and in which context?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Quite a difference in mere trash talking and talking with hidden agendas..
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
This has literally never happened to me. Did it happen to anyone else in this thread? Can you please provide an example of this happening to you, with context, because I have troubles even figuring out who could call you that because you like games, and in which context?
You play MOBAs right? It isn't from this thread but:
Just play a match of more or less any competitive online game and listen to the number of times you hear the word “rape:” despite what we may think, this is not normal or inevitable. What it is, however, is a natural byproduct of the games we play.
It’s not a tremendous leap to assume that a community of consumers and producers is going to develop some intensely dysfunctional aggression and misogyny when this is the cultural background that we’re interacting with.
By playing MOBAs, or any other online game, you are developing misogyny (according to some games journalist)
It’s not a tremendous leap to assume that a community of consumers and producers is going to develop some intensely dysfunctional aggression and misogyny when this is the cultural background that we’re interacting with.
What's being asserted in this statement is that the gamer culture uses "raped" as a synonym for "defeated"; that this insinuates that "rapist" is also a synonym for "victor". Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
While some of the article's claims are bizarre, this one is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to. I don't agree with the article's assertion that most games inherently create or support this culture, that's baseless. But certainly gamers freely use "you just got raped!" as a term for someone losing in a game, and "We just raped the other team last round!" and similar terms for winning. And that aspect of gamer culture is and should be criticized.
It’s not a tremendous leap to assume that a community of consumers and producers is going to develop some intensely dysfunctional aggression and misogyny when this is the cultural background that we’re interacting with.
What's being asserted in this statement is that the gamer culture uses "raped" as a synonym for "defeated"; that this insinuates that "rapist" is also a synonym for "victor". Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
This astutes that the term "rape" in the lieu of video games / winning is used with the same semantics as in the lieu of actual rape. Is that the case?
And just to be precise: the article is not only poorly researched, it's outdated. In gamer speech, the term "rape" has long been replaced by the term "rekt" / "#rekt" which refers to the pronounciation of the word "wrecked".
Sigvatr wrote: This astutes that the term "rape" in the lieu of video games / winning is used with the same semantics as in the lieu of actual rape. Is that the case?
If you have a point in asking this question which might makes me want to answer it, you failed to make it.
My statement was quite clear. Gamers have, for a long time (I remember it being used back when Quake 3 was released in 1999), used rape as a positive thing that is done to other people in order to achieve victory. And in spite of your assertion, they still do so. Hell, I heard the term used several times yesterday while playing Payday 2.
Melissia wrote: used rape as a positive thing that is done to other people in order to achieve victory.
That's wrong in so many ways. Not only does your post mean that gamers literally raped other games to win in a game, you also jump to conclusions based on wrong assumptions and confuse semantics.
It’s not a tremendous leap to assume that a community of consumers and producers is going to develop some intensely dysfunctional aggression and misogyny when this is the cultural background that we’re interacting with.
What's being asserted in this statement is that the gamer culture uses "raped" as a synonym for "defeated"; that this insinuates that "rapist" is also a synonym for "victor". Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
While some of the article's claims are bizarre, this one is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to. I don't agree with the article's assertion that most games inherently create or support this culture, that's baseless. But certainly gamers freely use "you just got raped!" as a term for someone losing in a game, and "We just raped the other team last round!" and similar terms for winning. And that aspect of gamer culture is and should be criticized.
Melissia wrote: My statement was quite clear. Gamers have, for a long time (I remember it being used back when Quake 3 was released in 1999), used rape as a positive thing that is done to other people in order to achieve victory. And in spite of your assertion, they still do so. Hell, I heard the term used several times yesterday while playing Payday 2.
Your semantical objections are irrelevant and I do not respect your obvious attempt to deflect conversation away from the topic at hand.
Melissia wrote: Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
Following that logic, as 'being owned' is an outdated but still used negative term in gaming, does that make gaming culture pro-slavery?
Melissia wrote: Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
Following that logic, as 'being owned' is an outdated but still used negative term in gaming, does that make gaming culture pro-slavery?
In many ways, yes.
We gamers are not very careful about the terms we use when we celebrate victory. I'm guilty of having used both examples in the elation of having won, or the opposite for that matter.
Melissia wrote: Or it could mean you have no place to speak because of lack of knowledge.
(No, I'm not actually saying this; Either conclusion is silly.)
A lack of knowledge about online games, certainly. I freely admit to that. Those people condone sexual assault and slave ownership
It does not indicate that you would have been any better in the same situation. In spite of what Sigvatr seems to think, I'm more interested in talking about it and encouraging it to stop, than I am in condemning people for doing it.
Just play a match of more or less any competitive online game and listen to the number of times you hear the word “rape:” despite what we may think, this is not normal or inevitable. What it is, however, is a natural byproduct of the games we play.
It’s not a tremendous leap to assume that a community of consumers and producers is going to develop some intensely dysfunctional aggression and misogyny when this is the cultural background that we’re interacting with.
By playing MOBAs, or any other online game, you are developing misogyny (according to some games journalist)
I do play MOBAs (mostly Strife), but none of those quotes are saying this make me misogynous. They are saying this is making me interact with misogynous people (which thankfully is not something I actually noticed, even when playing on “arranged teams” from the France chat room with female team members on voicechat. The insults I have seen were mostly “slow”, “idiot”, “stupid”, “noob”, “braindead”, i.e. all attacking mental faculties rather than gender. But then again, I might try playing with a feminine-sounding username to see if it makes thing change.).
Let us be honest: when Anita Sarkeesian made a video on Twilight, the Twilight fans response was mostly to ignore it completely and move on. When she made videos about video game, hell broke loose. If Twillight fans had a way, way more mature and reasonable reaction than video games fans, what does that tell us about video games fans .
(Okay, the video about Twilight was very short, I singled it out just for the fun factor, but her whole series about movies had mostly movie fans agreeing and disagreeing with her doing so very quietly and reasonably compared to the big hellstorm when she even launched her quickstarter on video game. Not sure how much of it was misogyny and how much of it was persecution complex, but that seriously shows a very unhealthy community.)
The language used in multi player games and the Internet is intriguing with its overtones. I'm still in awe that the term "butt hurt" is in common parlance. Correct me if I am wrong, but it implies something, right?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.
If your not a racist misogynist, then don't worry when people call you that. I don't get this... Actually I do get why this upsets people it's just that explaining why could be upsetting itself. (You are free to consider me stupid and ignore everything I am about to say, have said or will ever say.) People don't really get worked up about insults they know are untrue. If it really bothers you, then it might be because you see a grain of truth in the statement. I am not saying that you are a racist misogynist. (I don't know you well enough to really judge you.) I am just saying you might want to reflect on why it bothers you.
Hold the phone, what? Of course people 'get worked up' about being insulted with an untrue accusation. That's a normal thing for people to do.
"Heard you eat puppies. Oh, you're getting upset? Better hide any puppies when you're about."
I do eat puppies actually, but I eat them for fun not out of anger. In my experience people tend not to care when they are call outlandish insults that aren't true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: The language used in multi player games and the Internet is intriguing with its overtones. I'm still in awe that the term "butt hurt" is in common parlance. Correct me if I am wrong, but it implies something, right?
Not by itself, but when you put it next to other statements.
Melissia wrote: Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
Following that logic, as 'being owned' is an outdated but still used negative term in gaming, does that make gaming culture pro-slavery?
I'd say it's not quite as bad purely because of the way the term came about. 'raped' is quite obviously coming directly from the act of raping someone, which is awful. 'owned' on the other hand came about as a corruption of 'pwned' which basically meant a humiliating victory, because if you allowed your king to be taken by a pawn (PWN) in chess, you had been 'pwned'. So 'owned' is just a corruption of a term meaning a humiliating loss, whereas 'raped' is just people being awful.
AdeptSister wrote:The language used in multi player games and the Internet is intriguing with its overtones. I'm still in awe that the term "butt hurt" is in common parlance. Correct me if I am wrong, but it implies something, right?
I thought it meant 'This person is angry, they were spanked'.
Melissia wrote: Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
Following that logic, as 'being owned' is an outdated but still used negative term in gaming, does that make gaming culture pro-slavery?
I'd say it's not quite as bad purely because of the way the term came about. 'raped' is quite obviously coming directly from the act of raping someone, which is awful. 'owned' on the other hand came about as a corruption of 'pwned' which basically meant a humiliating victory, because if you allowed your king to be taken by a pawn (PWN) in chess, you had been 'pwned'. So 'owned' is just a corruption of a term meaning a humiliating loss, whereas 'raped' is just people being awful.
I thought pwned came from owned, not the other way around?
The owned thing makes more sense to me. It's a common typo to mix up the o and p keys. Even more common when your typing as fast as you can. Also you can't really capture a king with a pawn. You can use a pawn to put a king in check, but unless it is supported a lot, it's not going to work. Unless you are playing by the rules I played by in middle school. The ones where you don't call check and just sneak your pieces around.
Your semantical objections are irrelevant and I do not respect your obvious attempt to deflect conversation away from the topic at hand.
Your objections to these objections are irrelevant because on the one hand, as usual, you are unable to debate the topic at hand due to being overly emotional about it and unable to take a step back from your convictions, and on the other hand because you still are not able to back anything up with actual evidence. Making "logical conclusions" has no use for any discussion as those are entirely subjective. If you think that using the term "rape" in a context that does not involve actual rape leads to any change in attitude among the people using it or being confronted with it, then that's your opinion. The fact that there is zero actual evidence for your assumptions means that your assumptions are irrational, not logical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: The owned thing makes more sense to me. It's a common typo to mix up the o and p keys. Even more common when your typing as fast as you can. Also you can't really capture a king with a pawn. You can use a pawn to put a king in check, but unless it is supported a lot, it's not going to work. Unless you are playing by the rules I played by in middle school. The ones where you don't call check and just sneak your pieces around.
Ugh, that was WAY in the past, but iirc, people came to the conclusion that "pwned" was preferred by some gamers because it's a "stronger" word due to the plosive at the word's beginning. No idea how it was invented, however...urban dictionary refers a misspelling in a Warcraft game, but alas...
Ashiraya wrote: I thought pwned came from owned, not the other way around?
Same here.
As I recall, it was a random typo that caught on as a meme.
Also - I do not think "getting owned" has ever been understood as a reference to slavery.
Saying "I raped you in that game" is inherently a reference to rape. The equivalent for slavery would be saying "I made you my slave in that game," which I have never heard.
I have seen gamers say things like that, actually. "I made you my [Female Dog]" is not uncommon of a post-victory boast when one person is competing personally against another and wants to taunt them; given the context, it feels to me like it references sex slavery (which is inherently rape to begin with).
Saying "I made you my bitch" is certainly chauvinist and misogynistic. I disagree that it references sex slavery. I think the reference is to "real men" dominating other men as if they were women, which of course assumes dominating women is normative.
Male on male rape is actually an ancient thing they did as a action of domination over others. That's where the "not lie with a man as you would with a woman" thing comes from.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Male on male rape is actually an ancient thing they did as a action of domination over others. That's where the "not lie with a man as you would with a woman" thing comes from.
...and it can also be found in mass media, i.e. Spartacus, Final Season where the one general rapes the other dude to prove his dominance and blackmail him.
thought pwned came from owned, not the other way around?
Same here.
As I recall, it was a random typo that caught on as a meme.
Yeah same here, I recall it from the early mmo pvp days.
People would win a game and type owned but with p right beside o on the keyboard, often it came out pwned and then it meme'd.
Pointless trivia for you.....continue.
Melissia wrote: Since being defeated is a negative thing and winning is a positive thing in gamer culture, being a rapist is therefor insinuated by the culture as being a good thing.
Following that logic, as 'being owned' is an outdated but still used negative term in gaming, does that make gaming culture pro-slavery?
I'd say it's not quite as bad purely because of the way the term came about. 'raped' is quite obviously coming directly from the act of raping someone, which is awful. 'owned' on the other hand came about as a corruption of 'pwned' which basically meant a humiliating victory, because if you allowed your king to be taken by a pawn (PWN) in chess, you had been 'pwned'. So 'owned' is just a corruption of a term meaning a humiliating loss, whereas 'raped' is just people being awful.
It's been said a few times here, but that is so wildly inaccurate it deserves special mention.
Funny, the result I got from searching for HBMC was Hydraulic Body Motion Control, but I wasn't aware you worked for Nissan.
Anyway, more on topic, noticed that there was a much better representation of female leaders in Civ: Beyond Earth, from what I can tell in the videos. Hoping it's selectable-- I remember in Civ2, you picked male or female, and it used the name of a prominent leader of the appropriate gender afterwards, when customizing your nation. A pity the later games didn't follow that formula.
Melissia wrote: Funny, the result I got from searching for HBMC was Hydraulic Body Motion Control, but I wasn't aware you worked for Nissan.
Anyway, more on topic, noticed that there was a much better representation of female leaders in Civ: Beyond Earth, from what I can tell in the videos. Hoping it's selectable-- I remember in Civ2, you picked male or female, and it used the name of a prominent leader of the appropriate gender afterwards, when customizing your nation. A pity the later games didn't follow that formula.
To be fair, Civ IV had historical leads and a female president of America, for example, would have made no sense at all.
Call to power (a civ 2 spinoff) used Susan B. Anthony for the female US leader. Civ doesn't always use presidents. Some times it just uses important figures like Gandhi. Also civ 5 has a lot of female leaders to it. A lot I never heard of before. it is a nice learning experience.
My biggest problem with women in video games (as characters, that is) is that all of them are designed to appeal to men on some level, either as a romance interest or as a sort of McGuffin that triggers are often-socially-induced chauvanist/chivalrous programming. None of them... rather, almost none of them... are designed to appeal as people in general. You, the male player (designers assume all players are male), are intended to be either attracted to any female character you are presented with (on some level), or absolutely repulsed by them (and those you are intended to be repulsed by will be depicted as outside societal norms of beauty). There's no middle ground of "If she were real, I'd love to hang out with her and drink beer and watch movies, without the thought of romantic entanglements". There's no "she's a great friend, nothing more, and I want nothing more from her" design to characters. Unless they get the Little Sister archetype, which I mention further below.
They're, almost without fail, designed to be visually-pleasing, even if placed into attire that literally no one in their right minds would wear in that situation. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a nice chainmail bikini. I certainly do on an aesthetic level but, let's be honest, it's because it's cheesecake and I am a red-blooded, heterosexual American man. I'm not made of stone, for Chrissake.
A lot of them are designed to be endearingly annoying, too. Especially if they're posited as younger-than-the-protagonist. Vanille from FF13 is an example of such a character. This character archetype is intended to be your little sister, Player One, and so as much as she might piss you off with her antics, you will go to the mat sticking up for her against any outside threat (whether that's a person or a laser-breathing mecha-dragon-god-thing). Again, this is an archetype specifically designed to appeal to ingrained social mores.
They're also most-often designed to one extreme or another. Either they're hard-as-nails, totally-competent badasses that would rather kill and eat a man than give him the time of day (Lara Croft being one such example), or their names might as well be Damsel N. Distress. Though this has begun slowly changing somewhat in recent years, games in which female characters have some sort of nuances to their personalities are still few and far between... and even in the games where such nuance is present, the characters are often presented as sexual objects, either through a "mini-game" of gift-buying, dialogue options and side-quests to attain, or simply as part of narrative structure (just like an 80s action movie, Hero Mainguy will always go to bed with Female Love Interest right before the Big Fight... this is typically the 60 minute mark of an 80s action flick)... and, roughly half the time, FLI will go on to get captured and/or killed during the Big Fight, so that HMG has yet another reason to kill Evil Guy. It's a trope unto itself.
And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.
We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.
We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.
(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)
The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.
That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.
Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.
... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.
I'd just call that good storytelling. They made you identify with the character and put you into his shoes with his morality (or lack thereof). You suspended your disbelief to the point where you took actions that made sense for the character, even if they wouldn't make sense for you.
And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.
We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.
We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.
(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)
The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.
That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.
Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.
... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.
Ehem...what you just described is perfect game / story design. It heavily got you involved you into the game, it makes you care for the protagonists and gave you an enjoyable experience. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
It's a very skillful exploiting of established feelings in your audience, but to what end. They use and exploit these feelings, but don't like challenge them or even question them. What kind of message are they trying to send.
I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?
I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.
Compel wrote: Aren't you questioning them now though?
I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?
I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.
There is no moral choice involved. It's all required by the game and the game never addresses it at all. The game basically ends right after it happens. I never really pondered it in the game. The game didn't raise questions or thoughts with me. All I had was a vague feeling of wrongness. It was well I was reflecting on that feeling that I found my problem with the games message. People are bad and they should be bad. I kind of don't know if the game was intending to deliver this message or if it was an accident.
Compel wrote: Aren't you questioning them now though?
I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?
I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.
I don't know, to be honest, but I don't think so. That "map" begins with you killing a dude who's been told to walk you out of the hospital and send you on your way.
My biggest problem with women in video games (as characters, that is) is that all of them are designed to appeal to men on some level, either as a romance interest or as a sort of McGuffin that triggers are often-socially-induced chauvanist/chivalrous programming. None of them... rather, almost none of them... are designed to appeal as people in general. You, the male player (designers assume all players are male), are intended to be either attracted to any female character you are presented with (on some level), or absolutely repulsed by them (and those you are intended to be repulsed by will be depicted as outside societal norms of beauty). There's no middle ground of "If she were real, I'd love to hang out with her and drink beer and watch movies, without the thought of romantic entanglements". There's no "she's a great friend, nothing more, and I want nothing more from her" design to characters. Unless they get the Little Sister archetype, which I mention further below.
They're, almost without fail, designed to be visually-pleasing, even if placed into attire that literally no one in their right minds would wear in that situation. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a nice chainmail bikini. I certainly do on an aesthetic level but, let's be honest, it's because it's cheesecake and I am a red-blooded, heterosexual American man. I'm not made of stone, for Chrissake.
A lot of them are designed to be endearingly annoying, too. Especially if they're posited as younger-than-the-protagonist. Vanille from FF13 is an example of such a character. This character archetype is intended to be your little sister, Player One, and so as much as she might piss you off with her antics, you will go to the mat sticking up for her against any outside threat (whether that's a person or a laser-breathing mecha-dragon-god-thing). Again, this is an archetype specifically designed to appeal to ingrained social mores.
They're also most-often designed to one extreme or another. Either they're hard-as-nails, totally-competent badasses that would rather kill and eat a man than give him the time of day (Lara Croft being one such example), or their names might as well be Damsel N. Distress. Though this has begun slowly changing somewhat in recent years, games in which female characters have some sort of nuances to their personalities are still few and far between... and even in the games where such nuance is present, the characters are often presented as sexual objects, either through a "mini-game" of gift-buying, dialogue options and side-quests to attain, or simply as part of narrative structure (just like an 80s action movie, Hero Mainguy will always go to bed with Female Love Interest right before the Big Fight... this is typically the 60 minute mark of an 80s action flick)... and, roughly half the time, FLI will go on to get captured and/or killed during the Big Fight, so that HMG has yet another reason to kill Evil Guy. It's a trope unto itself.
And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.
We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.
We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.
(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)
The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.
That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.
Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.
... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.
Yeah those are called Generic NPC's
How is a character that's boring unengaging in any way remotely supposed to make me engage or care for this character. You basically described boring unremarkable people.
So a parent expressing parental behaviour is chauvinistic.
And if Ellie was designed as a generic NPC, would you have given a single wooden nickel about her?
Hm, I watched it. Just seemed to be a panel of folks talking about how people are over reacting, being dismissive of problems, exaggeration, misinterpreting the other side, being told they're being oppressed, rabble rousing and so on. For both sides of course.
Some line at the end said something along the lines that they're not anti-women, they're anti-authoritarian. Sounds clever, but I'll never use that line.
Well, I agree with the video, but I don't see much to discuss about. I probably missed why Asherian decided to post it. Why was that?
I've not watched the video, but I can certainly understand the desire to find a video you broadly agree with it, post it and not really want to say much further.
Because, generally speaking, I am terrible at getting my own opinions and point of view across in things. So much so, that even in text, I get very flustered when trying to explain myself on any opinions, even something like 'the sky is blue.'
So much so, I could very much see the appeal of saying, "my opinions broadly agree with this guy here, who is a far more eloquent speaker than me, what do you think?"
So, for example, for me, I tend to find myself agreeing with TotalBiscuit on a lot of gaming matters.
The argument I hear from the pro women should continue to be portrayed as scantily clad trophies is the fact that most gamers are male and the game companies shouldn't give in to the demands of a minority and only do what the majority wants. In addition they say that this does not cause mysgony because it is the equivalent of saying that guns in games cause gun violence.
ATXMILEY wrote: The argument I hear from the pro women should continue to be portrayed as scantily clad trophies is the fact that most gamers are male and the game companies shouldn't give in to the demands of a minority and only do what the majority wants. In addition they say that this does not cause mysgony because it is the equivalent of saying that guns in games cause gun violence.
Anyone who poses that as their argument is an imbecile.
Compel wrote: I've not watched the video, but I can certainly understand the desire to find a video you broadly agree with it, post it and not really want to say much further.
Because, generally speaking, I am terrible at getting my own opinions and point of view across in things. So much so, that even in text, I get very flustered when trying to explain myself on any opinions, even something like 'the sky is blue.'
So much so, I could very much see the appeal of saying, "my opinions broadly agree with this guy here, who is a far more eloquent speaker than me, what do you think?"
So, for example, for me, I tend to find myself agreeing with TotalBiscuit on a lot of gaming matters.
f you want to talk about something, then you have to talk about it. You can't just drop a video and leave. You know this too.
Shesh.
Okay my main reasoning was this:
I was about to leave for class and I didn't have enough time to collect my thoughts on the matter. I would of written it up. But I have an extremely busy time table that I have to keep to. If I don't then a lot of my projects get left behind.
Now the main reasoning I was posting it was it was an alternate look. I do not exactly agree with everything said.
Though I do agree with their look at the studies. And thinking critically about them. They talked about the difference between objectification and self empowerment.
The example with do you want to be a rouge great warrior or the peasent who shovels gak everyday? Its an empowerment fantasy. Not a symbolism for life in a fantasy game. It can be. But it has to be cleverly written and made in an interesting way. For a book thats a great idea, but for a game. It doesn't work.
The gave the example of how women are treated online. Saying that is probably a bigger issue. Also the issue that there are far too many male characters that lack quality and effort, but the women being more memorable than the men. It doesn't matter if your game has a female or a male. If it lacks the writing capabilities to leave an impact you have failed your customers. The thing is that games are meant to entertain.
They also touched on what women want to see in games. Every time someone says that men need to wear bikini's in order to be sexualized have clearly no idea what that actually means. So let me get this straight it is fine to have a birly muscular shirtless man with only leather on his legs and crouch and that's considered empowerment. But its objectification to have a woman in a bikini? seriously? Double standards much?
The other problem is how woman in games are treated. Like girl gamers and the sexy gamers. And how that people often see girls as filthy casuals. This is a stigma that has only happened until recently. Way back when, gender was not an issue. It has only become an issue recently. Way back when it was shameful to be a gamer period. Especially for men. It was seen as nerdy, a death sentence to your entire social life. There were so few gamers back then that it was hard to find people who could play games with each other.
It wasn't until the 1990s that games started to develop this stigma/idea that video games are a boys club.
It is because of how it is marketed and many other factors. (Including the prominence of feminism and the stigma that surrounds that)
Notice the word stigma? Well that is the most adequate way to explain these situations.
I know many female designers, animators, programmers, writers, artists, and gamers. And they can confirm the following:
Women are thought to be casual gamers only.
They are not attracted to FPSs
They are only attracted to gathering resource games. (Like Diner Dash, or Farmville etc)
They are constantly asked at EB games. "So you buying this for your boyfriend?"
They are seen as inadequate.
And they said that it only happens online.
When they are with their guy friends. The veil dissappears. When they are playing with their guy friends together online. that problem is gone. Anonymous gaming sessions with people you don't know have always had that problem. Because people believe they can get away from stuff online. That they can say whatever they want and get away with it.
------
Now back onto the topic again. Woman are under represented in terms of triple A games. But who the hell cares. Most Triple A Games are medicore at best. The best games are usually created by smaller companies that are not attached to a big brand name. Or your name is Valve and you can spend however many years developing a game because you literally make bank from one of your assets.
People forget about those games that feature female characters because its not popular among the triple A lineup. But lets face it most female characters in games right now that are in prominent roles are more less More Memorable and more interesting to play than the slew of that gruff military guy with a gun.
I mean throughout gaming we have seen the market respond by making more female centered games. They have more female characters. I mean gears of war for a very long time didn't have playable females in it, until Gears of War 3.
ATXMILEY wrote: The argument I hear from the pro women should continue to be portrayed as scantily clad trophies is the fact that most gamers are male and the game companies shouldn't give in to the demands of a minority and only do what the majority wants. In addition they say that this does not cause mysgony because it is the equivalent of saying that guns in games cause gun violence.
Anyone who poses that as their argument is an imbecile.
I guess you woudn't think too highly of some of Sigvatr's posts.
Just to clarify I'm not saying you're an imbecile (although I strongly disagree with you on most things but that doesn't necessarily mean I think you're dumb), but I just read your post about not catering to minorities if it doesn't create a higher profit which reminded me of one of the points
ATXMILEY brought up, here's the quote (underlined the part I thought was most relevant):
ATXMILEY wrote: The argument I hear from the pro women should continue to be portrayed as scantily clad trophies is the fact that most gamers are male and the game companies shouldn't give in to the demands of a minority and only do what the majority wants. In addition they say that this does not cause mysgony because it is the equivalent of saying that guns in games cause gun violence.
Asherian Command wrote: Every time someone says that men need to wear bikini's in order to be sexualized have clearly no idea what that actually means. So let me get this straight it is fine to have a birly muscular shirtless man with only leather on his legs and crouch and that's considered empowerment. But its objectification to have a woman in a bikini? seriously? Double standards much?
I saw this stupid argument way too many times. I am sure you can already tell what I a going to say, and which links I am going to post, can you not? Do I need to say the same thing and post the same links?
Asherian Command wrote: Now back onto the topic again. Woman are under represented in terms of triple A games. But who the hell cares. Most Triple A Games are medicore at best.
Where do you draw the line between AAA and not AAA? For instance, is Smite AAA?
Asherian Command wrote: People forget about those games that feature female characters because its not popular among the triple A lineup.
Even in non-AAA game, the proportion of female characters is very low.
Asherian Command wrote: But lets face it most female characters in games right now that are in prominent roles are more less More Memorable and more interesting to play than the slew of that gruff military guy with a gun.
I am sure you can still list more memorable male characters than memorable female characters. Try it, honestly.
The gave the example of how women are treated online. Saying that is probably a bigger issue. Also the issue that there are far too many male characters that lack quality and effort, but the women being more memorable than the men. It doesn't matter if your game has a female or a male. If it lacks the writing capabilities to leave an impact you have failed your customers. The thing is that games are meant to entertain.
The other problem is how woman in games are treated. Like girl gamers and the sexy gamers. And how that people often see girls as filthy casuals. This is a stigma that has only happened until recently. Way back when, gender was not an issue. It has only become an issue recently. Way back when it was shameful to be a gamer period. Especially for men. It was seen as nerdy, a death sentence to your entire social life. There were so few gamers back then that it was hard to find people who could play games with each other.
It wasn't until the 1990s that games started to develop this stigma/idea that video games are a boys club.
It is because of how it is marketed and many other factors. (Including the prominence of feminism and the stigma that surrounds that)
Notice the word stigma? Well that is the most adequate way to explain these situations.
I know many female designers, animators, programmers, writers, artists, and gamers. And they can confirm the following:
Women are thought to be casual gamers only.
They are not attracted to FPSs
They are only attracted to gathering resource games. (Like Diner Dash, or Farmville etc)
They are constantly asked at EB games. "So you buying this for your boyfriend?"
They are seen as inadequate.
And they said that it only happens online.
When they are with their guy friends. The veil dissappears. When they are playing with their guy friends together online. that problem is gone. Anonymous gaming sessions with people you don't know have always had that problem. Because people believe they can get away from stuff online. That they can say whatever they want and get away with it.
You know the way women are treated online maybe the bigger issue. Actually it is the bigger problem. I have no idea how to fix it though.
Even in non-AAA game, the proportion of female characters is very low.
I work in the industry. That is hilariously wrong.
Where do you draw the line between AAA and not AAA? For instance, is Smite AAA?
If a game has a budget well over 500,000$ dollars then it is triple A. A indie game usually costs 15,000$ to make.
I saw this stupid argument way too many times. I am sure you can already tell what I a going to say, and which links I am going to post, can you not? Do I need to say the same thing and post the same links?
Yup, and I've seen your argument many times. And I disagree with it. ITs your opinion you can have it. But it is my counter argument as I know people who think that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I made a long post about that a while ago with my suggestions on it.
Short version is, if an jerk starts being a jerk. Just pipe and say, "dude, that's not cool."
Don't start 'white knighting' or anything well, quite frankly, creepy like that. Just a simple. "that's not cool" followed by citing Wheaton's Law.
Then get back to killing stuff or saving the galaxy or whatever you were doing.
basically. Peer pressure in the right situations is fantastic. In this situation it works wonders.
Yeah, if I remember well, you somehow kinda work in the industry or something. Like, you worked on some game, whose name I do not know, but you were not mentioned in the credit for some reason. That sure gives you total authority to say I am hilariously wrong.
Asherian Command wrote: If a game has a budget well over 500,000$ dollars then it is triple A. A indie game usually costs 15,000$ to make.
White Knighting has no set definition, it can mean almost anything at this point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Short version. Take the 'dude that's not cool' to an extreme, then add in a bit of e-stalking and general creepy potential serial-killerness.
To many people who harass women, just saying "dude that's not cool" is "white knighting".
Compel wrote: Short version. Take the 'dude that's not cool' to an extreme, then add in a bit of e-stalking and general creepy potential serial-killerness.
Melissia wrote: White Knighting has no set definition, it can mean almost anything at this point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Short version. Take the 'dude that's not cool' to an extreme, then add in a bit of e-stalking and general creepy potential serial-killerness.
To many people who harass women, just saying "dude that's not cool" is "white knighting".
Well those who defend harassment are idiots. No surprise there.
Yeah, if I remember well, you somehow kinda work in the industry or something. Like, you worked on some game, whose name I do not know, but you were not mentioned in the credit for some reason. That sure gives you total authority to say I am hilariously wrong.
Well because I have studied it more than you. I am involved in it. I have sources. I have people in the industry. I know more than you think
This issue is relatively new and is not as big as people make it out to be Hybrid. And I will stand opposite of your stance. Because it is completely a radical move. Mine is equal representation . Yours is over indulging. yours is an extreme of my point of view. Take moderation. Not extremes in this case.
We need better female characters and better writing.
A guy not wearing a shirt all the time in a movie is objectification is pandering to the female crowd. A woman with a bikini is pandering to men. That is fine. But saying that in order for men to be equal to women they have to wear something like that? Objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.
But the thing is that I find it objectification if a man removes his shirt. That is pandering to a female crowd. And thats not bad.
If a game has a budget well over 500,000$ dollars then it is triple A. A indie game usually costs 15,000$ to make.
Whaaat? I'm not usually one to yell "Source" but source. Assuming folks are getting paid enough to cram themselves in crapsack apartment, and live off ramen with no insurance (~$10/hr, outside the boonies) even with a lean project team of 3.. that buys you all of 3 months of time from concept to shipment. Assuming no other costs but "Paying employee wages".
For these numbers to work, your net expenses for your folks working would have to be below minimum wage and you'd have to be getting your assets and tech for free.
15k buys you a dev team of "Just me, the person who came up with the idea for the game - I live with my parents for free". $15k is nothing, I cannot comprehend even the shittiest game being made for that much even if your only cost is feeding and clothing yourself.
If a game has a budget well over 500,000$ dollars then it is triple A. A indie game usually costs 15,000$ to make.
Whaaat? I'm not usually one to yell "Source" but source. Assuming folks are getting paid enough to cram themselves in crapsack apartment, and live off ramen with no insurance (~$10/hr, outside the boonies) even with a lean project team of 3.. that buys you all of 3 months of time from concept to shipment. Assuming no other costs but "Paying employee wages".
For these numbers to work, your net expenses for your folks working would have to be below minimum wage and you'd have to be getting your assets and tech for free.
15k buys you a dev team of "Just me, the person who came up with the idea for the game - I live with my parents for free". $15k is nothing, I cannot comprehend even the shittiest game being made for that much even if your only cost is feeding and clothing yourself.
15k is the cost for the game in general. For the purposes of this discussion I am not including the cost of staff. The most expensive bits are the staff. 500k is an expected cost. I meant to add another 0. Most indie devs DO not have the funding of a triple A studio nor would I quantify It is hard to quantify a game companies cost. As each game's budget is widely different depending on the tools used. I meant to say. 500k is the usual cost for a game (Hypothetically). 1.5 Million is an Triple A game.
Most indies are not even that big, usually. Usually around 1-7 people (Average cost is around 100k for a game designer) But most likely in order to save costs 50k is usually the expected cost for a developer etc. But most indie game designers do not even get close to 500k. As a 3ds MAX is around $5000, a photoshop liscense is around $3000, Z-Brush is around 795$, a render farm is even more expensive. The higher the rendering capabilities the better a render will be. The most amount of money spent is usually on computers that can render. This can add up to a ridiculous amount. And the funny thing. Most Indies do no t have access to any of these capabilities for the most part. The most popular is Java Script. You can do on a very cheap budget and still make a good game. The thing is most indie games are not third person or first person games. They are usually side scrollers or hell a card game.
The fact is that there are some indie companies that can afford a render farm and 3ds max in bulk. It is usually just a group of people that have gotten together and just made a game. That is the usual indie dev. That doesn't mean that they don't have budgets. But infact most indie devs lose money on a game. They rarely ever make their money back.
ATXMILEY wrote: The argument I hear from the pro women should continue to be portrayed as scantily clad trophies is the fact that most gamers are male and the game companies shouldn't give in to the demands of a minority and only do what the majority wants. In addition they say that this does not cause mysgony because it is the equivalent of saying that guns in games cause gun violence.
Anyone who poses that as their argument is an imbecile.
I guess you woudn't think too highly of some of Sigvatr's posts.
It is imbecilic because it is an argument based on a false premise, one that has been disproven by several studies in recent years. In 2012, a study done by the ESA demonstrated that 47% of gamers, across all platforms, were women. So, yes, that's a "minority", but it's nearly half of the playerbase. Any industry that fails to cater to half it's consumer base is an industry that is destined to fail. So, yes, to believe that women are some microscopic percentage of the gaming population is imbecilic.
A 2013 study, also by the ESA, indicated that the overall population of female gamers had dropped slightly (to 45%), but that women over the age of 18 accounted for 31% of the total player-base, while boys 17 and under accounted for only 19% of the player base. This indicates that only 36% of the player-base is male and 18 or older... not the "majority" of gamers, and only marginally more-numerous than their female counterparts.
A later study (2013), done by Variety Magazine, would demonstrate that, of the 45% of the player-base that is female, 30% of them were playing more-violent video games, with 20% of that number specifically playing Call of Duty.
A study from the same source that year, in its examination of demographics, demonstrated that 70% of females, aged 12 to 24, played video games, while 61% of the female population, aged 45 to 64 played video games, while only 57% of men in the same age-bracket played video games.
To believe that the "average" gamer is male, 18 years of age or older, is a fallacy... but it is a belief that both aspects within the industry and a certain sub-set of players cling to. Which is akin to holding a "Young Earth" belief. It is to deny proven facts and attempt to shape the discussion around what you "believe" to be true, rather than the objective facts. Which is, in a word, stupid.
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?
Don't get me wrong, I know wimminz play other games and I am not saying "Girls only play Candy Crush", but it's also a statistically proven fact that more women (Typically in the higher age ranges) play the more "Casual" market.
Sure, they're all games but we can categorize them and I know what kinds of games I'm thinking of when I talk about gender/race/other representations and it doesn't include facebook games. Or was I supposed to be thinking of them this whole time?
In any case, it doesn't seem that Slarg actually has any
The question of how many women play games (or play a particular type of game) isn't all the crucial in my view. I think there are many arguments for diversity that don't require women to be present in abundant numbers. You have the verity/novelty argument that more diversity can be good for games. (This is my pet argument.) You have arguments that focusing only on what men want (or what ad agents assume men want. Note they don't always sync up.) might not be the best thing for them. You might be offending the men foke with some of the things. You can also use the argument that games should apple to women in order to attract more women to gameing (or this particular type of game).
You can argue about how many women play what game, but I don't think it really matters too much.
You really think the majority of Madden players are that tiny specific demographic? "College Frat Boys" could never be the main demographic for such a huge franchise. It appeals to such a greater number of people than that. Be realistic here.
People (as infinity ward) have actually commented that some of the people who buy CoD/Madden/Fifa aren't gamers because they basically just buy CoD/Madden/Fifa and then maybe one other game because they have the console. We could talk about that if we wanted, but I don't know if that would be productive.
Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"
I want to see number of hours and dollars spent, a breakdown by genre as well as demographics by age and such. That 47% thing is basically junk because it's too broad.
If - and this is purely hypothetical - 47% of gamers are women, but men still sink in 85% of the total hours put into games and spend 80% of the money spent on games... then they are your audience. That's the kind of thing you need to look at.
Slarg232 wrote: Then I suppose we should also look past the majority of CoD/Madden/Fifa (Some of the most popular games on the market) are college frat boys?
Err. No. Call of duty has a very large audience it is not only popular with college kids. It is also popular with high schoolers and middle schoolers. And a vast array of ages.
Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"
I would suggest you actually buzz that over to UBISOFT, or a game developer or a designer. I mean I could ask extra credits and I could possibly do the research myself.
But I am not an internet celebrity. I have no crediblity. But I would like to see a study done on this that is correctly done. Like a survey like. "Have you played a video game? Including casual games or hardcore games etc etc. In person as an interview. Like as if the study is about something else so the person is told to tell the truth but before they are asked to come in they have to answer questions on a sheet. This way if people were lying in the interview room, we could hold a study about why that happened. Why did they lie about what they do? Like is gaming still a shameful play time. IT needs to be a friendly and inviting environment though.
Yes...one of the most widespread, profitable and popular games doesn't count as a game for....reasons.
Can we stop with the dismissal of gamers and games that you don't like? "Casual" games are just as valid as FPS games or indies.
Anyone that says that is actually a fool. Not you Adept. But the idea that a designer should not cater to a larger audience is senile and stupid. I personally think you should reach out to the largest audience possible. Some of the most top grossing movies of all time have pg-13 ratings or are considered 'family' movies. They make the most money.
Asherian Command wrote: Well because I have studied it more than you. I am involved in it. I have sources. I have people in the industry.
How are those people in the industry going to help you on knowing better than me the proportion of female characters in non-AAA games? I am pretty sure the only thing I need to do that is know a lot of non-AAA games.
Asherian Command wrote: Because it is completely a radical move. Mine is equal representation . Yours is over indulging. yours is an extreme of my point of view. Take moderation. Not extremes in this case.
Yeah, whatever you mean.
Asherian Command wrote: A guy not wearing a shirt all the time in a movie is objectification is pandering to the female crowd.
No. Hell no.
This is the poster for the damn fine movie Wrong Cops.
Spoiler:
This is not objectification or pandering to the female crowd. And it takes a whole new level of stupid to pretend it is. Unless you grow out of pretending you can measure objectification by the amount of shown skin, we cannot have any meaningful discussion. You are either willfully ignoring the importance of the body type and pose and setup, or being very obtuse.
Beside, why are you even mentioning movies? Are we not talking about games?
Asherian Command wrote: A woman with a bikini is pandering to men. That is fine. But saying that in order for men to be equal to women they have to wear something like that? Objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.
Once again the problem is not when it is only about one female character. The problem is trends.
The problems are:
- when it is almost every female characters and no male character, and
- when it works against the setting. Not every game is Lollipop Chainsaw.
Lotet wrote: Also, how many males play Candy Crush?
Seapking from a purely anecdotal place, a huge number of men play casual games. Actually, more guys have gotten in trouble for playing them in class, for me over the course of the years I've been in college, than women.
How are those people in the industry going to help you on knowing better than me the proportion of female characters in non-AAA games? I am pretty sure the only thing I need to do that is know a lot of non-AAA games.
Because they have studied it.
No. Hell no.
This is the poster for the damn fine movie Wrong Cops.
Men do not have to wear sexualized clothing in order to be objectified. People do not have to wear sexualized equipment of anything to be objectified. The thing is that is your frame of mind. This argument is completely different from. Women wear more revealing clothing then men. That I Agree with.
The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification. Which is a very broad term. So I would suggest you recollect yourself and think about this.
Anyone can be objectified. I mean look at the Twilight movies they are basically the female gaze given subsistence. Its hilariously bad. But it sold tickets in the millions. Lets face it most of the boy characters in there were thrown in their to be objectified. *Que Jacob taking off his shirt* *Que sparkly vampires*
The thing is that you are approaching this as a man. Which you are. Women will find it attractive and sometimes look at a man and think nothing else but about the body of the man. This happens with men too.
I feel like though. That there is some kind of empowerment when playing a female character. Kill-La Kill also does this with this sense of female empowerment. As most of the male characters are kind of useless.
So you are telling me that men that strip who mainly show their upper body are not being objectified? And that the scenes absolutely DEVOTED to a single character who is not wearing a shirt! IS not objectification please enlighten me. Because that is a fallacy.
You keep saying this but the fact is you are wrong. You keep bringing up that point. But I bring up counter examples.
Thor, Thor 2, Avengers, Captain America etc.
They have scenes where it literally shows the guys without their shirts for a solid 2 minutes.
That is an example of objectification.
In order to be objectified it doesn't have to be an all out thing. And the thing is that you expect that to be what it is, but it can be sutle. Woman usually focus on the upper body, this is called the female gaze. And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!
Which is completely sexist of an idea. (The idea of only saying it happens on men.)
As far as I can tell, this is not a correct English sentence. If it is, I have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to mean. Which argument is completely different from what?
Asherian Command wrote: The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification.
I cannot misuse objectification. Because I am not using it in the first place. Read my message.
Asherian Command wrote: And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!
And you need to stop quoting message where I say “This is designed to please female gaze and that is not designed to please female gaze” and answering “Why do you deny female gaze exists”. Seriously. Read. It is not that hard.
So, to sum it up: some movies cater to female gaze. This is entirely irrelevant. Most games do not cater to male gaze. You are pretending they do. This is false. A very few games do though, and I posted one of them. You managed to misunderstand this as… me saying something else, I have no idea what. Also stop pretending I say female gaze does not exist, this is dishonest.
As far as I can tell, this is not a correct English sentence. If it is, I have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to mean. Which argument is completely different from what?
Asherian Command wrote: The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification.
I cannot misuse objectification. Because I am not using it in the first place. Read my message.
Asherian Command wrote: And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!
And you need to stop quoting message where I say “This is designed to please female gaze and that is not designed to please female gaze” and answering “Why do you deny female gaze exists”. Seriously. Read. It is not that hard.
So, to sum it up: some movies cater to female gaze. This is entirely irrelevant. Most games do not cater to male gaze. You are pretending they do. This is false. A very few games do though, and I posted one of them. You managed to misunderstand this as… me saying something else, I have no idea what. Also stop pretending I say female gaze does not exist, this is dishonest.
Objectification is not necessarily a bad thing. You keep listing it as it is.
And this is completely irrelevant to the discussion please stay on topic.
Bromsy wrote: Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"
I want to see number of hours and dollars spent, a breakdown by genre as well as demographics by age and such. That 47% thing is basically junk because it's too broad.
If - and this is purely hypothetical - 47% of gamers are women, but men still sink in 85% of the total hours put into games and spend 80% of the money spent on games... then they are your audience. That's the kind of thing you need to look at.
What we need to remember is that 'computer games' are not simply a single product line. They are an entire type of media, and a new one to boot. They are not so niche, so narrow, so inflexible that they can be 'owned' by a single demographic, a single audience. To say so is as absurd as to say that movies are only for women, or that oil paintings are only for the French.
It doesn't matter if 'men' 'put in more hours', that does not make them a more valid audience. It may matter if they put in more money (from a cynical money-first perspective), but that is total contingent on a whole mess of other things, like why they do it, and weather on not women putting in more money would effect the money men put it, and . . . eugh, lots of other stuff.
Anyway, weather or not one is a gamer, or part of the audience for games, is not a dick measuring contest. The audience is not 'men'. The audience is everybody.
On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.
The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".
Melissia wrote: On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.
The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".
Do you have a source for that, or more than one? I'm curious to see the data.
Melissia wrote: On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.
The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".
Do you have a source for that, or more than one? I'm curious to see the data.
Honestly the closest I found was discussing games and had a 50/50 split actually so I really don't know where she got that from (source is Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry) so I don't quite know where.
Asherian Command wrote: Objectification is not necessarily a bad thing. You keep listing it as it is.
And yet again I have not used the word objectification. READ. MY. MESSAGE!
Asherian Command wrote: And this is completely irrelevant to the discussion please stay on topic.
So, you are going to continue to completely misrepresent everything I say. Okay, great. Congratulation on your intellectual honesty. Are you doing this on purpose, i.e. are you just trolling?
Slarg232 wrote: And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?
Don't get me wrong, I know wimminz play other games and I am not saying "Girls only play Candy Crush", but it's also a statistically proven fact that more women (Typically in the higher age ranges) play the more "Casual" market.
And why is that bad or make them less of a "gamer"?
I don't understand this dislike for things which are deemed "casual". Sure they're not the most creative or inspired games, but they can serve as something which Call of Duty, Battlefield, WoW or any other AAA title can't. A gateway. Getting people playing games, be it in their browser or on their phone, is something that is good. It can start with words with friends and move onto Scribblenauts. Anything which makes gaming more accessible to people, even if it is in a very basic form, is good.
I mean is Tetris considered a casual game? All it is is dropping blocks into place and trying to get a high score. If it were to be made now I think it's very likely it would've been first released as a casual game on social media sites. Yet as it was released a long time ago it doesn't fall into that category, despite the actual gameplay being similar to that used in casual games.
Slarg232 probably meant that casual gamers aren't the concern of the AAA market developers. Which, like I mention before, is what I thought this thread was revolving around. But I could be wrong.
Personally I think Nintendo is a much better gateway platform for people to become gamers. Also apparently WoW is a gateway game, I wonder why. I've just heard of people getting non-gamers into it.
Lotet wrote: Slarg232 probably meant that casual gamers aren't the concern of the AAA market developers
Funny, because every time there's a fresh new idea in gaming, it gets dumbed down to brain dead levels to turn the experience as casual as possible (this is why brands like 'casual gamer' kind of get messy).
The cell phone/tablet market could probably be better explained as 'flash games' or 'browser games', which indeed find much broader appeal than AAA gaming. Think of all the people who play Farmville. A little of pretty much every demographic plays Farmville.
Man, I don't care about calling people casuals. You can guess the meaning of that choice of words within the context that it was used and come to your own mental terminology that fits comfortably with you. I'm not agreeing with Slarg, I'm just trying to understand his stance, even though I'm probably wrong.
I said it because you should know what I mean by "casual" and "AAA". It's like calling the old Russian Emperor the 'Tzar', it's an incorrect title but you know what it means and can help people understand.
So, to improve my discussion methods, what would you suggest I say instead of casual? Facebook/Tablet games? What's a good choice that won't get people to retaliate because of my poor choice of words?
.
s.jpg
. For instance, look at the arms. Seems very close-fitting.
(according to some games journalist)
