LordofHats wrote: Yeah. That game looks like a barrel of laughs, but $25 is a bit steep for a visual novel (there's a reason I haven't been buying them even though the genre has finally started hitting the Steam store).
I do recommend this game. Not really a visual novel, even though it is based on Renpy, a visual novel engine. Do not let the visual fool you, this is more like Games of Throne than cute princesses. Just give a look at the list of achievements ! There are many way to build up your character, and some of them include turning Elodie into a damn killing machine capable of bludgeoning to death anyone in a duel. But, spoiler, that might not help you much if you do not have other skills at your disposal .
Also, if we are into indie game with female character, http://store.steampowered.com/app/241320/ . That little brute Ittle Dew and her sidekick Tippsie are female character done right in my book.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. That game looks like a barrel of laughs, but $25 is a bit steep for a visual novel (there's a reason I haven't been buying them even though the genre has finally started hitting the Steam store).
I do recommend this game. Not really a visual novel, even though it is based on Renpy, a visual novel engine. Do not let the visual fool you, this is more like Games of Throne than cute princesses. Just give a look at the list of achievements ! There are many way to build up your character, and some of them include turning Elodie into a damn killing machine capable of bludgeoning to death anyone in a duel. But, spoiler, that might not help you much if you do not have other skills at your disposal .
Also, if we are into indie game with female character, http://store.steampowered.com/app/241320/ . That little brute Ittle Dew and her sidekick Tippsie are female character done right in my book.
It gave different options that (in my opinion) were realistic for each gender. As a women, you didnt have to sell your body, but just like in real life, the option was there.
Stats are universal, some perks and options arent. Gender was more than a skin, but didnt change the way you played the game unless you chose to use your gender to gain perks (sometimes degrading yourself in the process).
Best RPG games made in my opinion. Especially some of the scenes you find in the desert (talking cows, doctor who, aliens, killer rabbit from the holy grail etc). Great fun.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa
Fallout 2 has doctor who and montey python stuff in it?
Ok now I'll go check out that game.
Fallout one has the tardis thingy in the desert. Gotta have good luck I noticed to find it.
Fallout 2, my friend showed me how to add in this "locked encounter" (its on google somewhere) and you find the rabbit haha.
Definitely get it from GOG. It works on my windows 8 really well. If you get it from steam you need to do some notepad coding to get it working.
Two weeks ago I didn't even consider the question, or look into feminism in video games at all. I spend at least an hour of every day perusing the news and reading the papers, but I'm always more interested in World Affairs, Economics, and anything and everything to do with the war on terror and all of the myriad Islamic terror groups that are operating on almost every continent. After two weeks of frantic research, I am already sick and tired of the question, especially after reading all about most of the known women who critique the industry, most of them are attacking people for nothing, needlessly taking offense at absolutely everything, or just being angry because of some non-insult like "you have nice teeth."
Furthermore, it cheapens the suffering of all the women around the world who have to deal with actual misogyny on a daily basis. There appear to be tens of thousands of women who talk sense on this issue, but none of them are "names" and perhaps that is the problem, we are in love with sensationalism, because all of the "names" discussing this have repulsed me with their lack of honesty and integrity. Anyway, regarding the topic, I am presuming that women do not like playing as big muscular men, totally understandable, I am a straight man and I like playing as a straight man. However, because men are the target market because they are easily the largest demographic, (I mean, pick one of the best selling games of last year, surely 80% of sales were to guys right?) then surely the issue exists because the one causes the other?
If the games sell well and make money, why would the devs change them? I think that it is only fair to make games more like ME and allow the player to choose the sex, but if the big companies are still making money, they have no incentive to bother and ultimately I don't think it is the end of the world. I would have still enjoyed ME3 if I had to play as fem-Shep, and I absolutely loved playing as Alexandra Roivas in Eternal Darkness. Id have preferred to be called Alan Roivas, but ultimately it is a minor issue, the playablity is far more important that what is between the legs of the primary character.
I don't for a second believe that not having more sex options causes women not to play though. My wife and all of her friends give less than a gak about video games, and it isn't because of sex issues, its because they don't give a gak. They probably aren't even aware that this discussion is taking place, or that some games do indeed allow you to choose.
Anyway yeah so that's my two cents, I'm relatively disinterested. Would the world be a tiny bit better if more women played more games and video games were a bit less sexist? Sure, but I think the problem is not really anywhere near as large a problem as militant feminists pretend it is, and I have very little respect for the likes of Anita Sarkesian because I have been asking girls like her for a decade why they are always so silent about their sisters across Africa and the Middle East and I never got a good answer.
It turns out they are silent because they are too busy getting outraged about polite Irish blokes nicely asking them for a coffee, or worrying about the amount of cock in video games.
I'll just be over here worrying about FGM and Sharia courts thanks girls.
mattyrm wrote: Two weeks ago I didn't even consider the question, or look into feminism in video games at all. I spend at least an hour of every day perusing the news and reading the papers, but I'm always more interested in World Affairs, Economics, and anything and everything to do with the war on terror and all of the myriad Islamic terror groups that are operating on almost every continent.
After two weeks of frantic research, I am already sick and tired of the question.
Especially after reading all about most of the known women who critique the industry, most of them are attacking people for nothing, needlessly taking offense at absolutely everything, or just being fething childish.
Furthermore, it cheapens the suffering of all the women around the world who have to deal with actual misogyny on daily basis.
There appear to be tens of thousands of women who talk sense on this issue, but none of them are "names" perhaps that is the problem, we are in love with sensationalism, because all of the names have repulsed me with their lack of honesty and integrity.
Anyway, regarding the topic, I am presuming that women do not like playing as big muscular men, totally understandable, I am a straight man and I like playing as a straight man.
However, because men are the target market because they are easily the largest demographic, (I mean, pick one of the best selling games of last year, surely 80% of sales were to guys right?) then surely the issue exists because the one causes the other?
If the games sell well and make money, why would they change them? I think that it is only fair to make games more like ME and allow the player to choose the sex, but if the big companies are still making money, they have no incentive to bother.
I don't for a second believe that not having more sex options causes women not to play though. My wife and all of her friends give less than a gak about video games, and it isn't because of sex issues, its because they don't give a gak. They probably aren't even aware that this discussion is taking place, or that some games do indeed allow you to choose.
Anyway yeah so that's my two cents, I'm relatively disinterested. Would the world be a tiny bit better if more women played more games and video games were a bit less sexist? Sure. But the biggest buyers are men, so what do you expect is going to happen?
I think the problem is not really anywhere near as large a problem as militant feminists pretend it is, and I have very little respect for the likes of Anita Sarkesian because I have been asking girls like her for a decade why they are always so silent about their sisters across Africa and the Middle East and I never got a good answer.
It turns out they are silent because they are too busy getting outraged about polite Irish blokes nicely asking them for a coffee, or worrying about the amount of cock in video games.
I'll just be over here worrying about FGM and Sharia courts thanks girls.
Millitant really? You thing figures like Sarkensian are militant? mattyrm, sweetie pie you really must have no idea what's out there. On the grand scale of things she hardly even registers as insistant let alone militant.
Secondly if you're going to hide behind the ol' "Well theres bigger problems in the world", line well then you better not ever complain or get upset by a single that happens in your life, to your hobbies, or that other people do around you because trust me: There is somebody else out the world right now making the worst day of your life look like absolute heaven on earth. It's a nonsense argument that borders on self-parody. It's your mom's "There are starving children in Africa who would love your broccoli" argument, it doesn't even come close to holding water and frankly you should be embarrassed you're trying to pass it off as a legitimate point in a discussion.
Secondly if you're going to hide behind the ol' "Well theres bigger problems in the world", line well then you better not ever complain or get upset by a single that happens in your life, to your hobbies, or that other people do around you because trust me: There is somebody else out the world right now making the worst day of your life look like absolute heaven on earth. It's a nonsense argument that borders on self-parody. It's your mom's "There are starving children in Africa who would love your broccoli" argument, it doesn't even come close to holding water and frankly you should be embarrassed you're trying to pass it off as a legitimate point in a discussion.
Are... are you saying that starving children in Africa WOULDN'T love his broccoli?
Secondly if you're going to hide behind the ol' "Well theres bigger problems in the world", line well then you better not ever complain or get upset by a single that happens in your life, to your hobbies, or that other people do around you because trust me: There is somebody else out the world right now making the worst day of your life look like absolute heaven on earth. It's a nonsense argument that borders on self-parody. It's your mom's "There are starving children in Africa who would love your broccoli" argument, it doesn't even come close to holding water and frankly you should be embarrassed you're trying to pass it off as a legitimate point in a discussion.
Are... are you saying that starving children in Africa WOULDN'T love his broccoli?
It would prove wether or not the idea of "If you were really hungry you would actually eat it" is true or false.....
Millitant really? You thing figures like Sarkensian are militant? mattyrm, sweetie pie you really must have no idea what's out there. On the grand scale of things she hardly even registers as insistant let alone militant.
Secondly if you're going to hide behind the ol' "Well theres bigger problems in the world", line well then you better not ever complain or get upset by a single that happens in your life, to your hobbies, or that other people do around you because trust me: There is somebody else out the world right now making the worst day of your life look like absolute heaven on earth. It's a nonsense argument that borders on self-parody. It's your mom's "There are starving children in Africa who would love your broccoli" argument, it doesn't even come close to holding water and frankly you should be embarrassed you're trying to pass it off as a legitimate point in a discussion.
Fair do's. As I said, I'm blissfully ignorant about militant as feth feminists because I was born and raised in England and have never actually met a super-militant feminist in person. I know maybe two that are pretty interested in the movement, but they are nowhere near some of those gals, certainly they would not get offended if a bloke politely asked them out, and as for men drooling over scantily clad women, they (rightly in my view) point out it is more damning of mens stupidity than real world harmful to women.
Regarding the second point, why would I be embarrassed? I didn't say that womens rights weren't an issue, I am a feminist, my wife is better than me at almost everything, I think I'm actually very progressive on this issue. I simply said said most of the issues I have read this last fortnight were not a genuine womens rights issue (misogyny in video games) because we are not talking about the right to vote, or not get groped by strangers, or only having your word worth half of a mans in a court. We appear to be talking about manufactured offense to get publicity and at worst what... the fact that more men play games so the devs pander to a silly stereotype? That is just offensive to me as a man that doesn't think with his testicles as it is to a woman.. its like everyone thinks that people that play games are sex-starved weirdos who need to drool over women 10 hours a day!
The fact that most video games have large male protagonists is not offensive to the vast majority of women, so the ladies of the West agree with me, not you.
nomotog wrote: You know. We aren't really talking about Sarkensian or feminist in this thread. This isn't about what they think. It's about what you/we think.
Oh yeah well I covered that. I think they overdo the baps and the muscles because it makes everyone who doesn't play games that everyone who plays games is a bit weird, and that's silly because its 2014 and half of the fething world are "gamers" but yeah... I don't think its a huge deal or anything, I suppose teenage boys are a large part of the market, and they do so love them some tits and violence.
mattyrm wrote: After two weeks of frantic research, I am already sick and tired of the question
Then stop reading about it.
There's nothing obligating you to click those links when you google. Or to participate in this discussion. If you're really tired of it, tune it out. Let the people who actually care have the discussion. No one is threatening your safety here. Unlike what is happening to quite a few female journalists.
mattyrm wrote: especially after reading all about most of the known women who critique the industry, most of them are attacking people for nothing
Are they only known to you because the misogynists who started and shout loudest about "Gamergate" as an excuse to send violent, hateful comments, threats, and other such harassment to female game journalists are taking up a big gak over them? Because I know plenty of women whom have criticized the industry WITHOUT doing this. (including Sarkesian, whom doesn't do this)
mattyrm wrote: Furthermore, it cheapens the suffering of all the women around the world
If you're going to dismiss the entire subject by claiming "oh first world problems", well, frankly... screw you. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't mean that they can't be made better here. Nor does it stop people from also worrying about things over there at the same time.
I'm not going to give up fighting for something that personally effects me just because some random people on the internet shout "ermagerd forst wurld problamz."
mattyrm wrote: and perhaps that is the problem, we are in love with sensationalism
I've been talking about this for far longer than people have been talking about Sarkeesian and Quinn, and yet you claim I'm in love with sensationalism? Just because you've only been paying attention to sensationalist news doesn't mean everyone has.
mattyrm wrote: However, because men are the target market because they are easily the largest demographic, (I mean, pick one of the best selling games of last year, surely 80% of sales were to guys right?)
According to the industry's own statistics, the largest single demographic in the gaming industry are 20- and 30-something women, not teenaged boys, or adult men. And that demographic is getting larger by the year.
mattyrm wrote: If the games sell well and make money, why would the devs change them?
For one, because it's the right thing to do and a good segment of their potential buyers want it. But since you're apparently not concerned about that, the efficiency argument is simple: because they could be making MORE money by thinking in the long term and growing their playerbase instead of just being satisfied with cheap short-term thrills.
mattyrm wrote: ultimately it is a minor issue, the playablity is far more important that what is between the legs of the primary character.
It is a minor issue to you. Most games cater to you as a white man, so it's far less noticeable to you.
mattyrm wrote: My wife and all of her friends give less than a gak about video games, and it isn't because of sex issues, its because they don't give a gak.
So what? I know plenty of men who don't play either, and in fact plenty who HATE video games and think they're tools of the devil. More men who would argue that (such as both of my brother-in-laws and a quarter of the men in my extended family...), in fact, than women who aren't interested in playing video games in some form. Even my 60-something mother is interested in video games and plays games on the Wii.
See Mel, I've defended you on here plenty of times because you have never crossed the line for me into "militant" merely active feminism, and that is a good thing. But you don't get to call me a misogynist, a 34 year old married man with no evidence suggesting I have ever been one, just because I fully agree with almost every tenet of feminism, and fully disagree with any and all acts of threats, intimidation, and violence.. but also happen to disagree with the loudest and most obnoxious feminists who in my eyes, have an agenda to pursue. There is also the obvious fact that they do not represent most women.
Who decides what makes someone a feminist? You? I treat women with dignity and respect, I always have, that is why women adore me, its not because of my baby blue eyes and winning personality....
All I'm saying is, you don't get to label me just because you feel very strongly about something. I am definitely not a misogynist and I don't think any woman I have ever met would label me as one.
I laid my position out in the last thread that was needlessly locked, but you read it. I was very clear, I think women should have more representation and I am all for it, but I do not think that the current glut of women and some of their champions in the press actually want that. They don't actually want equality, they want attention. Some even prevented a women dev competition because it didn't have their name on it. Its perfectly sound, perfectly logical, and has absolutely nothing to do with misogyny. Its actually pretty offensive you just throwing that at me, I have never called you an illogical man hating misandrist and I think you have typed some pretty aggressive stuff compared to me. In my book, these people want money, not equality, and if they are not benefiting from something they see it as a bad thing. That is all I am saying, I think they are making things seem much worse than they are, so they can profit.
I can not arrive at any other conclusion than that, because of the evidence. I think it is clear that many of them are using the political ideals of equality to pursue their own cash driven agenda, so I reckon I am more of a feminist than them too. I wouldn't chase the dollars, I would do the right thing for women.
Regardless, I hauled it back on topic and said I would like to see more clothes and less muscles because I'm not a young thruster and those things are far less relevant than the main crux of the issue, a fething good game, such as my favorite ever, Eternal Darkness (with a female protagonist) so lets just leave it there. If you think of me as a penis wielding oppressor simply because my common sense demands that I have little time for people that appear to profess a passion for feminism but seem far more interested in cash and press, then so be it, but I definitely don't think I deserve such condemnation.
Edit - You actually did call me a misogynist in the first bloody place!
... editing the quotes so this doesn't take up five pages...
mattyrm wrote: But you don't get to call me a misogynist [...] All I'm saying is, you don't get to label me [...] Its actually pretty offensive you just throwing that at me [...] If you think of me as a penis wielding oppressor [...] Edit - You actually did call me a misogynist in the first bloody place!
I didn't call you that, I haven't labeled you, I'm not, I never said that, and no, I did not.
mattyrm wrote: I think you have typed some pretty aggressive stuff compared to me.
I know I have. I'm an aggressive person.
mattyrm wrote: but I do not think that the current glut of women and some of their champions in the press actually want that [...] In my book, these people want money, not equality [...] I think they are making things seem much worse than they are, so they can profit. [...] I can not arrive at any other conclusion than that, because of the evidence. [...] simply because my common sense demands that I have little time for people that appear to profess a passion for feminism but seem far more interested in cash and press
Clearly, I disagree with this assertion. I find that you are jumping to conclusions based off of you having only paid much attention to a single "side" of the story.
Yes PM me, as I said I stand by my point, that I think the militant people I am detracting are making the vast majority of this gak up for press/their own benefit. However If you can convince me that Princess Toadstool has actually negatively impacted real life womens issues than I will come in here and publicly concede defeat.
Now back to the thread... I think there are indeed a few too many baps in video games and a bit more diversity would be a good and easy to implement thing, but I don't think its anything to massively kick off about.
There's nothing obligating you to click those links when you google. Or to participate in this discussion. If you're really tired of it, tune it out. Let the people who actually care have the discussion. No one is threatening your safety here. Unlike what is happening to quite a few female journalists.
Why do you think these poor, defenseless women getting doxxed and threatened led to such breathless and widespread coverage, while a thirteen year-old getting doxxed and threatened (by some people that some of your pure-as-the-driven-snow victims follow) never did?
There are bullies and threatening scum on all sides of this issue. I have a feeling that you're not quite as outraged over Milo Yiannopoulos getting death threats for his writing on the subject. Is it because he's not on your side of the issue?
I'm also curious why you continue to believe it's a misogynistic movement given the widespread adoption of the #notyourshield hashtag by women and minorities.
I'm not going to give up fighting for something that personally effects me just because some random people on the internet shout "ermagerd forst wurld problamz."
I'd be pretty careful about calling this sort of stuff "fighting for something." All of this strikes me as the most base form of slacktivism. People are tweeting stuff or writing blog posts and expecting it to change the world, and getting angry when it doesn't. It's not exactly Martin Luther King, Jr. marching in Selma.
According to the industry's own statistics, the largest single demographic in the gaming industry are 20- and 30-something women, not teenaged boys, or adult men. And that demographic is getting larger by the year.
And we've been over this countless times. Pretending that distribution holds true across all platforms and genres is farcical. You see plenty of female-friendly features in the areas where female interest is high. If you're not seeing them elsewhere? Well, that's because there aren't a lot of women playing shooters or simulations or wargames.
For one, because it's the right thing to do and a good segment of their potential buyers want it. But since you're apparently not concerned about that, the efficiency argument is simple: because they could be making MORE money by thinking in the long term and growing their playerbase instead of just being satisfied with cheap short-term thrills.
Well, no, it's not the right thing to do, and the "could" in the "could be making more money" is the insidious part. You'll have to prove it. Either to me, because I like such assertions backed up with facts, or to them. Because they're not going to buy that Call of Duty will sell even better if it's tuned to female tastes instead of the tastes of the males who make up, overwhelmingly, its market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Now back to the thread... I think there are indeed a few too many baps in video games and a bit more diversity would be a good and easy to implement thing, but I don't think its anything to massively kick off about.
I consider your crusade against breasts misogynistic.
mattyrm wrote: Yes PM me, as I said I stand by my point, that I think the militant people I am detracting are making the vast majority of this gak up for press/their own benefit. However If you can convince me that Princess Toadstool has actually negatively impacted real life womens issues than I will come in here and publicly concede defeat.
Now back to the thread... I think there are indeed a few too many baps in video games and a bit more diversity would be a good and easy to implement thing, but I don't think its anything to massively kick off about.
Nope, I need more baps in my vidya gamez!!! Men and women though, so it's okay
White-dude characters are not "Bad"
A preponderance of white-dude characters so as to be the clear default is a problem. Cheesecake and jiggly bits are not "Bad"
A preponderance of male-fantasy character designs so as to be the clear default is a problem. Characters falling into gender stereotypes is not always bad, but usually is unless done with care.
Video games do not stand alone, they are part of and representative of a broader cultural problem.
Gender representation in video games is not a women's rights issue nor a human rights issue. It is however a media problem and it is sexism. Video games are not a rights issue of any sort.
Our cultural context (of which video games are some part), does affect women's and everyone's rights.
The degree to which video games play a role in shaping our cultural context is unquantifiable and by no means a dominate factor, but that's no reason to ignore it entirely. There are both men and women generally dissatisfied with the overall representation of women in video games.
This is not a problem with any one character specifically, princess toadstool or otherwise. It is an issue with broad industry-wide trends.
Given the broad trends any one character might be useful as illustrative example, and often are problematic when viewed in that context.
Our culture has a long history of marginalizing women and this influences all media including video games.
Being able to "not care" about the gender or race of character is a luxury largely afforded by already having a great number and wide variety of characters that share your race and gender.
Seaward wrote: Why do you think these poor, defenseless women getting doxxed and threatened led to such breathless and widespread coverage, while a thirteen year-old getting doxxed and threatened (by some people that some of your pure-as-the-driven-snow victims follow) never did?
The women really haven't gotten "widespread coverage" outside of feminist circles. A lot of my fellow gamers apppear to want to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen so that they can feel better about the fake "gamergate" movement. Similarly, the thirteen year old has gotten a ton of attention for it from the "opposite" crowd-- however, they were mostly just being used as ammunition by 4channers and redditers such as in the link you gave, rather than people actually caring about it.
I'm not sure if it was here or somewhere else, but I've said before that I find doxxing to be morally repugnant in almost all cases (the exceptions being quite narrow in scope, and do not apply here). Viciously attacking someone by posting their personally identifiable information, especially their location, online is not a defensible thing in an online debate. I'm increasingly pissed off that this is being used as a weapon by ANYONE.
Seaward wrote: There are bullies and threatening scum on all sides of this issue.
Centrism for centrism's sake is not the same as wisdom.
Seaward wrote: I have a feeling that you're not quite as outraged over Milo Yiannopoulos getting death threats for his writing on the subject. Is it because he's not on your side of the issue?
I disapprove of those death threats. But I freely and unashamedly admit that I am far more concerned with the attempts to use threats to silence women who speak up due to the history of misogynists using violence against women whom say things they do not like, just like people have used violence to silence other minority groups as well.
Quoting Margaret Atwood here: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." In general, this is still a true statement. And it's not just feminists, sometimes something as simple as posting opinions on local politics can trigger verbal abuse such as "I hope you get raped with a gorsebush".
If... if that is what I think it is... what a strange thing to wish someone is raped by. Like, really pretty incomprehensible. But then again, people are very hard to figure out and they make me wonder if it's one of those other vectors that proves where humanity is not fit to be among. At the same time, I imagine there is a vast and sprawling majority of humanity that are blissfully unaware of all the strange and horrifying things that people are saying on the internet.
Melissia wrote: The women really haven't gotten "widespread coverage" outside of feminist circles. A lot of my fellow gamers apppear to want to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen so that they can feel better about the fake "gamergate" movement. Similarly, the thirteen year old has gotten a ton of attention for it from the "opposite" crowd-- however, they were mostly just being used as ammunition by 4channers and redditers such as in the link you gave, rather than people actually caring about it.
Mentions in the major gaming publications and even Forbes is widespread. Far more widespread than a thread on /b/, which is all the kid got, and that not even from people who pretend to care deeply about online harassment and threats of violence - if only when it affects someone whose views they happen to agree with.
Centrism for centrism's sake is not the same as wisdom.
If you think I'm a centrist for any sake, let alone its own, you've never read a thing I've said here.
And it's not centrist to point out there are despicable people on all sides of this issue. It's pretty blindly ignorant to pretend they're only on one side or the other, though.
I disapprove of those death threats. But I freely and unashamedly admit that I am far more concerned with the attempts to use threats to silence women who speak up due to the history of misogynists using violence against women whom say things they do not like, just like people have used violence to silence other minority groups as well.
Quoting Margaret Atwood here: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." In general, this is still a true statement. And it's not just feminists, sometimes something as simple as posting opinions on local politics can trigger verbal abuse such as "I hope you get raped with a gorsebush".
Yeah, I thought you'd say something like that, which is why I lead with Milo.
Let's do Jenny Bharaj now, the YouTube girl getting harassment and threats...from the pro-Zoe/Anita/feminism crowd, for voicing her support of #GamerGate. I expect a lot of eloquent outrage.
You know, when I made this thread. I was mostly thinking we would be talking about games and not really get into the death threat stuff. That was kind of silly, but also very irresponsible. (It was wrong.) The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.
The perplexing thing is that one would imagine at the very least we should be able to agree that death threats are bad. Because you know death threats, but I don't know if we really all agree. (That is we as in everyone else. You in this thread are cool.) With this new flare up of hate, I am seeing more passive support of it. I have seen my steam friends list find excuses to excuse the abuse and that bothers me. Even I was thinking that this thread might be a good way to talk about the games issue without tackling this issue of abuse and that bothers me too.
nomotog wrote: You know, when I made this thread. I was mostly thinking we would be talking about games and not really get into the death threat stuff. That was kind of silly, but also very irresponsible. (It was wrong.) The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.
The perplexing thing is that one would imagine at the very least we should be able to agree that death threats are bad. Because you know death threats, but I don't know if we really do all agree. (That is we as in everyone else. You in this thread are cool ) With this new flare up of hate, I am seeing more passive support of it. I have seen my steam friends list find excuses to excuse the abuse and that bothers me. Even I was thinking that this thread might be a good way to talk about the games issue without tackling this issue of abuse and that bothers me too.
Is anyone else bothered by this?
I'm bothered by people who shriek in horror and outrage in one case and shrug their shoulders in indifference in another based simply on who got threatened or did the threatening.
I'm not particularly bothered by the seeming epidemic of threats though, no. They're far older than the internet when it comes to responding to controversial opinions. They shouldn't exist, but they do, and they're not going away, so ginning up a rending of garments and cursing of the gods response when it's politically advantageous to do so doesn't make much of an impression on me.
Seaward wrote: If you think I'm a centrist for any sake, let alone its own, you've never read a thing I've said here.
Saying "both sides are equally bad" is, by definition, centrism.
Seaward wrote: Let's do Jenny Bharaj now, the YouTube girl getting harassment and threats...from the pro-Zoe/Anita/feminism crowd, for voicing her support of #GamerGate. I expect a lot of eloquent outrage.
See my above statement. regarding why that threat should be taken seriously and people who made it should be shunned.
I'm not going to post a long -winded rant here for your amusement. I don't like you enough to even try, unlike with Matty
Melissia wrote: Saying "both sides are equally bad" is, by definition, centrism.
Then I suppose it's a good thing I didn't say that.
See my above statement. regarding why that threat should be taken seriously and people who made it should be shunned.
Just not by you, or what? I mean, you want the GamerGate people to disband and completely denounce their movement based on the actions of a tiny minority, but when your side of the issue does the exact same thing as you're accusing the other side of doing, well, hey, can't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
nomotog wrote: You know, when I made this thread. I was mostly thinking we would be talking about games and not really get into the death threat stuff. That was kind of silly, but also very irresponsible. (It was wrong.) The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.
The perplexing thing is that one would imagine at the very least we should be able to agree that death threats are bad. Because you know death threats, but I don't know if we really do all agree. (That is we as in everyone else. You in this thread are cool ) With this new flare up of hate, I am seeing more passive support of it. I have seen my steam friends list find excuses to excuse the abuse and that bothers me. Even I was thinking that this thread might be a good way to talk about the games issue without tackling this issue of abuse and that bothers me too.
Is anyone else bothered by this?
I'm bothered by people who shriek in horror and outrage in one case and shrug their shoulders in indifference in another based simply on who got threatened or did the threatening.
I'm not particularly bothered by the seeming epidemic of threats though, no. They're far older than the internet when it comes to responding to controversial opinions. They shouldn't exist, but they do, and they're not going away, so ginning up a rending of garments and cursing of the gods response when it's politically advantageous to do so doesn't make much of an impression on me.
Shouldn't this bother you though? When did we get so accepting that this is just how it is? Is it too much to ask that people be upset. Maybe some rending of garments is called for .
nomotog wrote: The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.
It really isn't, because it's not a issue of "female representation". Death threads on the Internet are stupidly common, and like "Go kill yourself IRL" they're basically meaningless and are often given out for the most trivial things. Change features in a game and the dev's get death threats. Kill off a beloved character in a TV show and the writers get death threats. The Internet has made death threats a far easier thing to send. To claim that they're an "issue of female representation in games" is to ignore how common they really are, and how often they're directed at people who aren't women. They're a bad thing in general, and are not inherently related to women in gaming.
nomotog wrote: Shouldn't this bother you though? When did we get so accepting that this is just how it is? Is it too much to ask that people be upset. Maybe some rending of garments is called for in this case.
What's that old serenity prayer? Lord, give me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference?
You know, you have been insisting on this so much it reminds me of an expression I just learned about recently: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". But seriously, stop thinking about this whole thing as feminism (and making it personal too), if that helps. Do you not agree that female representation in game includes way too much sexualization? And that there are way, way more damsel in distress than dude in distress? And that this makes game less appealing to women?
If you answered yes to those three questions, then congrats, you do agree with what 99% of the people who have a problem with female representation in video game think. Maybe not with the two examples that you like to tout out as militant feminists (if they are not just strawwomen), but really, who the hell cares about them?
And goddammit, stop trying to make this into a discussion on you, and whether or not you are a feminist, and whether or not your ladies friends are feminists .
It's not a question that really needs an answer. Most women who play games play social games/mobile games/Facebook games that they find appealing and are keyed to that demographic. The explosion in female gamers comes from this newfound... platform, I guess is the best word for it. People play games that appeal to them, attempting to make games that appeal to everyone is a fool's errand, and demographics are a real thing; not just in games, but in any other entertainment industry. That doesn't mean that stupid things don't happen (eg. Naughy Dog having to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us), but I don't think video games sit as some great bastion of anti-female-ness.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No more or less than any other entertainment industry.
I think more so than both movie industry and music industry. But how should that matter anyway?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's not a question that really needs an answer.
It is not a question you want to answer, rather.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The explosion in female gamers comes from this newfound... platform, I guess is the best word for it.
How is that in any way related to the fact PC and console games have trends that makes them less welcoming to women?
H.B.M.C. wrote: but I don't think video games sit as some great bastion of anti-female-ness.
So, uh, basically, rather than wanting to discuss the issue, you go all defensive about how your hobby is not-so-bad-the-other-do-worse? You do realize that I play games too, a lot, and pretty much everyone in this thread does to. You do not need to be defensive like that, nobody is going to blame you for playing the same game we also do, and nobody is trying to demonize games. Right?
He is playing CoD? I retract everything I said, H.B.M.C., actually you are a terrible person and you should feel terrible!
Kidding, I do not even know that much about CoD. It used to be about WW2 iirc, but I am not that much into FPS in a realistic setting, I find that a bit cringeworthy. I would rather play Painkiller or Unreal Tournament.
Than the music industry? Yikes. I'd say they're worse.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, uh, basically, rather than wanting to discuss the issue, you go all defensive about how your hobby is not-so-bad-the-other-do-worse? You do realize that I play games too, a lot, and pretty much everyone in this thread does to. You do not need to be defensive like that, nobody is going to blame you for playing the same game we also do, and nobody is trying to demonize games. Right?
What's there to discuss? I don't see the gaming industry's treatment of women as having any real difference to other forms of entertainment media. Why single them out as a great evil or, as some people are keen to do, deeply rooted in "misogyny" (a word that gets used far too often) or even the dreaded P-word. As I've said, there are problems in the gaming industry - even gave one such example, and there are more - but they're outliers. Most people playing games just play games. They don't sit there analysing whether the box-art for Divinity shows too much cleavage or whether the Dragon's Crown sorceress' boobs are too big. They just play the game.
The last statistics (that came out along side that 40-whatever-% of gamers are female info) were quite surprising for CoD. It was only around 80% male for that game, so a high percentage of female gamers for that game. Of course most of the other games (Battlefield, DOTA/LOL, etc.) were high 90's for male gamers, whereas the surge of female games come from things like Farmville and Candy Crush. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but it does show more than ever the whole point about demographics.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Than the music industry? Yikes. I'd say they're worse.
What? Were did you find any damsel outside of power metal bands lyrics . Actually, I guess it depends quite a bit on which kind of music we are talking about.
Because we are in the “video game” section of DakkaDakka. I would gladly discuss about the portrayal of women in comic books if there was a comic books section and if I had a real interest in comic books, but that is not the case. For movies… as for music, it depends quite a bit on which kind of movie, and on top of that, contrarily to video games, I am not that much interested in mainstream movies anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Most people playing games just play games. They don't sit there analysing whether the box-art for Divinity shows too much cleavage or whether the Dragon's Crown sorceress' boobs are too big. They just play the game.
So, your suggestion is that we do like most people, because they are most people. Is that it? Is that why we should not discuss on bikini armor?
People do not usually talk about women in music because what will be hugely relevant to women in punk (the whole riot grrrl movement) will be totally irrelevant to women in rap music, or classical music, or heavy metal, or jazz, or…
Which means that most movies that think the vikings were sexist. Need to read history.
Anyway
I love realistic women in games.
Although several female corpses were buried with weapons, the majority of the Norse women settlers mentioned in the study were found with oval brooches used to hold up their aprons, he wrote.
On the plus side, “while women buried with weapons are rare, they *are* being found,” he pointed out.
Let's not get carried away.
Also, something about that "on the plus side" bothers me immensely.
I'm not even sure that's new information so much as new evidence.
There are numerous accounts through out the history of Europe of Germanic and Norse people's concerning women with weapons in battle. The issue has typically been a lack of physical evidence outside textual sources to back up such accounts. Especially with the Romans, you have to be very careful with what they say. On the one hand it could be true, and on the other it could be Roman propaganda written to spin the tale of "those terrible barbarians sending their women out to fight!" (Yeah on top of being slave owners, Romans were really really sexist. On the plus side, they were less sexist than the Greeks )
LordofHats wrote: I'm not even sure that's new information so much as new evidence.
There are numerous accounts through out the history of Europe of Germanic and Norse people's concerning women with weapons in battle. The issue has typically been a lack of physical evidence outside textual sources to back up such accounts. Especially with the Romans, you have to be very careful with what they say. On the one hand it could be true, and on the other it could be Roman propaganda written to spin the tale of "those terrible barbarians sending their women out to fight!" (Yeah on top of being slave owners, Romans were really really sexist. On the plus side, they were less sexist than the Greeks )
I don't think I've ever seen anyone dispute that female warriors, while rare, did occur throughout history.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not even sure that's new information so much as new evidence.
There are numerous accounts through out the history of Europe of Germanic and Norse people's concerning women with weapons in battle. The issue has typically been a lack of physical evidence outside textual sources to back up such accounts. Especially with the Romans, you have to be very careful with what they say. On the one hand it could be true, and on the other it could be Roman propaganda written to spin the tale of "those terrible barbarians sending their women out to fight!" (Yeah on top of being slave owners, Romans were really really sexist. On the plus side, they were less sexist than the Greeks )
Well, the thing is, a lot of early historians/anthropologists said "if they have a sword they're male unless you find evidence to the contrary". That's really the only thing that the article linked attacks-- it doesn't actually say half of all viking warriors was female, since that article talked about settlers. The study basically says "we should use bone structure to determine gender, not the items they're buried with", which is true in that it will lead to a more accurate assertion of gender ratios in anthropological studies. Though it's quite telling that women settlers were buried with swords in their society-- certainly makes viking society quite a bit different from the rest of European society!
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Exactly what is rare? Almost never? Uncommon? Unusual but common enough that it's not that surprising when you see it? Rare is a vague word. History doesn't like vague if it can help it. And exactly how common, or how accepted, women warriors were in history is still a very vague question in a lot of places.
LordofHats wrote: I guess it's a matter of perspective. Exactly what is rare? Almost never? Uncommon? Unusual but common enough that it's not that surprising when you see it? Rare is a vague word. History doesn't like vague if it can help it. And exactly how common, or how accepted, women warriors were in history is still a very vague question in a lot of places.
I think a solid answer, if any is a long ways off. History in general has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to paying attention to women. Outside of the how it relates to video games in this context, it's telling that stuff like this always gets the most attention.
Hell, I think it's still a relatively recent discovery that China was at one time a matriarchal society (parts of it anyway) but we still have no idea exactly how that society was structured, or in what way it began to shift to the later Imperial system China is most known for. And even in that system, the roll of women has been for a long time ignored. The Imperial Harem was at times run by women, and was one of the most powerful bodies in all of China. Just look at the Wiki article on the Sultanate of Women.
130 years of Ottoman History and all they got is a paragraph!
For what it's worth, whenever I play a game with a character creation system I usually play as a girl.
With regards to the "Women always seem to be the agility or magic classes" I don't think it's sexist per se. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing after all- generally speaking, men tend to have more upper body strength than women, whilst women tend to have greater reflexes and better development in certain cognitive areas than men. Obviously this isn't an ironclad rule, but it is worth bearing in mind. So whilst I agree that women shouldn't be shoehorned into the "fragile speedster" and "mage" stereotypes all the time, it does have some basis in reality. I'd still love to see more women with greatswords though.
I'd personally like to see more transgender characters in games- preferably just as members of the cast in your average fun game, rather than the centre of some artsy indie bs where everything is about that character being dysphoric. I'd argue that the need to make a big deal of a character being female or transgender or homosexual or whatever is almost as damaging as them not being present at all. Guilty Gear did it right- Bridget actually being a guy is something that's only rarely brought up, the few times it is mentioned being for good-natured humour. Same with Poison of Final Fight fame- she's a badass fighter who just so happens to be a transsexual.
Squigsquasher wrote: For what it's worth, whenever I play a game with a character creation system I usually play as a girl.
With regards to the "Women always seem to be the agility or magic classes" I don't think it's sexist per se. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing after all- generally speaking, men tend to have more upper body strength than women, whilst women tend to have greater reflexes and better development in certain cognitive areas than men. Obviously this isn't an ironclad rule, but it is worth bearing in mind. So whilst I agree that women shouldn't be shoehorned into the "fragile speedster" and "mage" stereotypes all the time, it does have some basis in reality. I'd still love to see more women with greatswords though.
I'd personally like to see more transgender characters in games- preferably just as members of the cast in your average fun game, rather than the centre of some artsy indie bs where everything is about that character being dysphoric. I'd argue that the need to make a big deal of a character being female or transgender or homosexual or whatever is almost as damaging as them not being present at all. Guilty Gear did it right- Bridget actually being a guy is something that's only rarely brought up, the few times it is mentioned being for good-natured humour. Same with Poison of Final Fight fame- she's a badass fighter who just so happens to be a transsexual.
You know it's not so much that it is sexist. It just really grinds on you after awhile.
I would love to see some transsexual characters too. Though maybe make it a little bit of a deal.
Melissia wrote: Though it's quite telling that women settlers were buried with swords in their society-- certainly makes viking society quite a bit different from the rest of European society!
I don't know if that's necessarily true. I'm not saying that Viking culture wasn't unique, but it wasn't the only unique culture in Europe, and I would hesitate to claim that there was some sort of unified European society that Viking culture was apart from. While I don't know if they were buried with weapons (anthropology/archaeology aren't my fields) there were almost certainly female warriors in West Germanic culture as well. Brünnhilde from the Nibelungenlied springs to mind as a literary example. While she probably wasn't a real person, the fact that she is such a prominent figure in Germanic legend would suggest that the idea of a female warrior wasn't something alien to people at that time.
I just sat and read that blog that Mel posted, I agree with everything the lass said, and all of the comments had similar stories. I don't for a second doubt that people throw the word "rape"about almost instantaneously, but It did start me off thinking about something.
On the internet people love to get straight to name calling because there is no need to be as nice because you aren't risking a proper fight. Same as road rage, about five years ago I accidental stepped out in front of a bloke who was driving down my street, he was only about ten yards away and it was my fault, I was on my phone. I waved a hand and mouthed the word "Sorry!" but he went mental, called me fething arsehole and did the spanker hand gesture. If I banged into him in a pub and went "sorry" he would say "no problem" right?
Anyway, it is the same thing (to a much lesser extent obviously) because the car and the internet invokes a feeling of protection. If everyone on Dakka got together for a beer, I guarantee there would be no scrapping. I disagree with many of the people in here that I met in person at Warhammer World once, we got along better because there is an incentive to be nicer to each other.
So if we simply take it that the internet brings out the very worst in people, isn't that more evidence that in reality my gender doesnt deserve as much gak?
Like.. are most of these men genuinely misogynistic, or are they just being dicks on the internet? I don't think that is a good thing obviously, but speaking on behalf of my gender, I honestly don't think that the vast majority of men actually hate women, because what possible reason is there to dislike women? What motive? What do you gain from it?
We all come from one... and everyone loves their mom right?
Do you not agree that female representation in game includes way too much sexualization?
And that there are way, way more damsel in distress than dude in distress?
And that this makes game less appealing to women?
If you answered yes to those three questions, then congrats, you do agree with what 99% of the people who have a problem with female representation in video game think.
No
Does you have any studies on that? It's a trope, it was used that way, no harm, no foul. Video games don't make kids violent, and don't make kids want to abduct women.
No, they're the majority of gamers.
Those questions were not asked to you. Do you need a study to know that the sky is blue? If video game do not make some people stupid, the does it mean they were born that way?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Those questions were not asked to you. Do you need a study to know that the sky is blue? If video game do not make some people stupid, the does it mean they were born that way?
maybe, we'd have to do some studies to find out for sure.
But if video games do not make people violent as has been proven and well researched. Then why would anyone believe that they would make people sexist, or stupid?
sirlynchmob wrote: There have been studies to find out why the sky is blue.
To find out why. But none to find out if it was.
You are welcome to do a study on why there are more Damsels than Dudes in distress in video games.
sirlynchmob wrote: But if video games do not make people violent as has been proven and well researched. Then why would anyone believe that they would make people sexist, or stupid?
If video games did not make you create strawmen with such talents, then you must have been born this way .
... actually, people HAVE studied the sky, and quantified the exact color that its reading on the electromagnetic spectrum corresponds with. Blue is defined as a certain range of wavelengths on this spectrum, and as such, people have, in fact, studied about whether or not the sky is actually blue.
This is all silly off-topic stuff but still, your assertion is pretty much wrong
sirlynchmob wrote: There have been studies to find out why the sky is blue.
To find out why. But none to find out if it was.
You are welcome to do a study on why there are more Damsels than Dudes in distress in video games.
sirlynchmob wrote: But if video games do not make people violent as has been proven and well researched. Then why would anyone believe that they would make people sexist, or stupid?
If video games did not make you create strawmen with such talents, then you must have been born this way .
So you're claiming the sky is always blue? The sky is not blue, it sky can appear to be many different colors.
but if you want to believe games make you sexist, what is that really saying about you?
I play tons of video game, I do not think I am sexist, and I certainly do not think games made me sexist. I still stand by what I said. Now go try to understand it, so we can actually discuss it.
On the internet people love to get straight to name calling because there is no need to be as nice because you aren't risking a proper fight. Same as road rage, about five years ago I accidental stepped out in front of a bloke who was driving down my street, he was only about ten yards away and it was my fault, I was on my phone. I waved a hand and mouthed the word "Sorry!" but he went mental, called me fething arsehole and did the spanker hand gesture. If I banged into him in a pub and went "sorry" he would say "no problem" right?
There's a huge fething difference between bumping into someone at the pub and walking in front of a moving vehicle.
I play tons of video game, I do not think I am sexist, and I certainly do not think games made me sexist. I still stand by what I said. Now go try to understand it, so we can actually discuss it.
I tried, you ran on a tangent.
You claim "99% of the people who have a problem with female representation in video game"
I disagree, that is not a factual claim, that is your opinion.
There's a huge fething difference between bumping into someone at the pub and walking in front of a moving vehicle.
These are not comparable.
Bollocks! How is that massively different? It wasn't a 50mph emergency stop, it was in my street. He was doing about 20mph and I stepped out ten yards in front of him because I cant multi-task... it was a.. relatively harsh brake, nothing like a "feth me!" neck snapper.
Its the exact same! You accidentally inconvenience someone and apologize, if they cross a line and start swinging, they are still in the fething wrong even if you made an error.
Even at 20mph there's a real potential for injury for you, and also the damages to his vehicle.
This is not even slightly the same and it's hilarious you are acting as if it is.
I don't remember stating that it makes it ok to start swinging at someone. As I recall, you said all he did was shout a lot and make the spanker gesture. Why are you even mentioning that?
By rough approximate I take it you mean, you made it up, just like:
This whole damsel in distress trope having any negative effect, it is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
The idea that the way women are represented in games, makes them not want to play games. It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
Even at 20mph there's a real potential for injury for you, and also the damages to his vehicle.
This is not even slightly the same and it's hilarious you are acting as if it is.
Of course they are, maybe you think its hilarious because you are a bad tempered fether?
Its OT so lets keep it short, tell me why it is totally different by answering a simple question. I mean, surely if it is totally different, you would respond totally differently right? And they aren't uncommon events, we have both had them happen to us on more than one occasion right?
Here's what I do...
Hit the brakes, possibly tut, and perhaps even shake my head slightly.
Stop walking, possibly tut, and perhaps even shake my head slightly.
By rough approximate I take it you mean, you made it up, just like:
This whole damsel in distress trope having any negative effect, it is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
The idea that the way women are represented in games, makes them not want to play games. It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
It doesn't need negative effects. It's Cliché and sexist. That is enough of a reason to dislike it
I don't remember stating that it makes it ok to start swinging at someone. As I recall, you said all he did was shout a lot and make the spanker gesture. Why are you even mentioning that?
Well obviously it isn't the crux of the discussion, I was simply saying that cars are like the internet, they immunize people against a response.
Of course they are, maybe you think its hilarious because you are a bad tempered fether?
What gave you that idea?
Its OT so lets keep it short, tell me why it is totally different by answering a simple question. I mean, surely if it is totally different, you would respond totally differently right? And they aren't uncommon events, we have both had them happen to us on more than one occasion right?
Here's what I do...
Hit the brakes, possibly tut, and perhaps even shake my head slightly.
Stop walking, possibly tut, and perhaps even shake my head slightly.
I think that's game old chap!
You realise, some people react the same to killing a person as they would to killing a dog, so all that does is say how you would hypothetically react. Plus, it's not like I even know you're being honest.
Both are accidents, one has the potential to be really fething dangerous and the other really doesn't (except in freak cases). They are different in that regard, and that is literally all I need to say. You're being absurd by saying they're "the exact same thing".
Ok, obviously one is more dangerous than the other (unless you are very fat and walk very fast), but the point I was making was that it was the "exact same" in that the response from the aggrieved party should be pretty much identical.
i.e. I was in the wrong, but the bloke shouldn't have started fething going mental after held my hands up and apologized.
So lets leave it there eh? This is almost as OT as when I got us started on Ayatollah Khomeini in the "what did you eat today" thread.
MrDwhitey wrote: Did you see the edit at the end of my post? I agreed with you on your main point.
Haha yeah I did aye. It is true, I looked into it after noticing how often fat old men in their 70s are quick to threaten men in their twenties during a road rage incident.
sirlynchmob wrote: This whole damsel in distress trope having any negative effect, it is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
So, uh, how exactly did you go from “99% of the people that have a problem with female representation in video game dislike it because [list of reasons]” to “video game makes you sexist”? I think you had a comprehension problem, and misunderstood “99% of the people that complain about female representation in video game are not like those two examples Mattyrm like to mention” into “99% of people are turned into sexist because of video game.” I really have no idea how you managed that one.
sirlynchmob wrote: The idea that the way women are represented in games, makes them not want to play games. It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
We do have two examples of women in this very thread that do find this annoying, but please, go ahead, and show all those studies you have to prove it. Oh, wait, you do not provide studies, you merely ask for them. How damn surprising.
We do have two examples of women in this very thread that do find this annoying, but please, go ahead, and show all those studies you have to prove it. Oh, wait, you do not provide studies, you merely ask for them. How damn surprising.
A claim needs to be backed up to stand, not the other way around. There is zero evidence for any influence, as pointed out multiple times in the last few threads on the same matter. Anecdotal evidence is completely meaningless if talking about general assumptions.
The only thing that can be said about the entire thing is that video games, as all mainstream media, mirror issues already present - this applies to all -isms. The counter-assumption, that said displays constitute changes outside media, is easily made if you're already leaning into that direction, but ultimatively, there is absolutely nothing backing it up and makes it a moot assumption.
Sigvatr wrote: A claim needs to be backed up to stand, not the other way around.
Precisely. It just so happens he said “ It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong.” Emphasis mine. So, this pretty much seems like a claim from him, a claim that he should back up.
It's a counter-claim, though, not a claim. If talking about claims on general concepts that are considered correct by one side, asking for evidence to back those up is in order. If there is no evidence for it, then calling the lack of it out is a valid counter-claim. Maybe that's what he meant by "demonstrably", the lack of evidence.
Sigvatr wrote: It's a counter-claim, though, not a claim.
“It is demonstrably false” is not a claim? Okay, whatever floats your boat, man. Do not let logic ruin your fun . He did not say “There is no evidence so we cannot know either way”, right? He said it was false. In other word, he said the contraposition of this was true.
sirlynchmob wrote: This whole damsel in distress trope having any negative effect, it is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
So, uh, how exactly did you go from “99% of the people that have a problem with female representation in video game dislike it because [list of reasons]” to “video game makes you sexist”? I think you had a comprehension problem, and misunderstood “99% of the people that complain about female representation in video game are not like those two examples Mattyrm like to mention” into “99% of people are turned into sexist because of video game.” I really have no idea how you managed that one.
sirlynchmob wrote: The idea that the way women are represented in games, makes them not want to play games. It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.
We do have two examples of women in this very thread that do find this annoying, but please, go ahead, and show all those studies you have to prove it. Oh, wait, you do not provide studies, you merely ask for them. How damn surprising.
You're still on that 99% that you made up? interesting
so just 2 is enough to make a case study? or a representative population? It's 'No' btw.
Sigvatr wrote: It's a counter-claim, though, not a claim.
Okay, whatever floats your boat, man. Do not let logic ruin your fun .
Hey, I was just trying to guess what he thought, I did not speak for myself :(
/e: Sigh. Please, please, stop using the ESA as any kind of source. Their work is extremely poorly researched and biased and if used as a main point of any argumentation drastically weakens your reasoning.
Sigvatr wrote: It's a counter-claim, though, not a claim.
Okay, whatever floats your boat, man. Do not let logic ruin your fun .
Hey, I was just trying to guess what he thought, I did not speak for myself :(
/e: Sigh. Please, please, stop using the ESA as any kind of source. Their work is extremely poorly researched and biased and if used as a main point of any argumentation drastically weakens your reasoning.
that's why I listed 4 sources, there's more but I figured 4 different sources should be enough to prove the point.
sirlynchmob wrote: You're still on that 99% that you made up? interesting
So, how did you understand that 99%? 99% of WHO do WHAT?
sirlynchmob wrote: up 5% in 2 years in some significant growth, apparently games are more appealing to women. There you go, I demonstrated that you are wrong.
Nope, you just showed women were more interested in games than they used to. You did not show whether this sexualization and the damsel tropes helped, or mitigated, or had no influence whatsoever on this phenomenon.
I could just as well say that this proves the fact women really, really want to emulate me because they think I am so cool .
sirlynchmob wrote: You're still on that 99% that you made up? interesting
So, how did you understand that 99%? 99% of WHO do WHAT?
sirlynchmob wrote: up 5% in 2 years in some significant growth, apparently games are more appealing to women. There you go, I demonstrated that you are wrong.
Nope, you just showed women were more interested in games than they used to. You did not show whether this sexualization and the damsel tropes helped, or mitigated, or had no influence whatsoever on this phenomenon.
I could just as well say that this proves the fact women really, really want to emulate me because they think I am so cool .
you stated this remember?
Do you not agree that female representation in game includes way too much sexualization?
And that there are way, way more damsel in distress than dude in distress?
And that this makes game less appealing to women?
if it makes games less appealing to women, than why are more women playing? more women across all genres, do you have anything other than your opinion to back it up? You can say whatever you'd like, it doesn't make it right. It's just your opinion you have no evidence to support anything you're claiming.
Yeah, I do. You did not answered. And you left the relevant part out of your quote.
99% of WHO do WHAT?
sirlynchmob wrote: if it makes games less appealing to women, than why are more women playing?
Because more and more of them learn that I do play video games.
Now let us be serious, that sexualization and damsel tropes both are not some recent evolution. If anything, they are receding (MOBA being quite the exception, I guess). So, how you can link the increase of women players to the fact those factors are not off-puting to them is beyond me.
sirlynchmob wrote: It's just your opinion you have no evidence to support anything you're claiming.
SO still no evidence for anything you claim. Prove it, show that those factors are off putting to any significant population. 2 people is not enough for that claim.
if it makes games less appealing to women, than why are more women playing? more women across all genres, do you have anything other than your opinion to back it up? You can say whatever you'd like, it doesn't make it right. It's just your opinion you have no evidence to support anything you're claiming.
Because more older women have got involved due to the influx of casual and social games on portable devices and social media. Last I checked Candy Crush had no characters of any kind in its actual gameplay, female or otherwise.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:If anything, they are receding
I'm not so sure about that. The first generations of computer games were actually extremely innocent in that quite often you did not even have human characters at all, but just some animal or other sort of creature. Of the rest, the majority was platformers with minimum story and sports games. There's not even much room for sex or sexism to slip into a game, aside from blatantly offensive stuff like the infamous Custer's Revenge. At best, the only sort of criticism that could spring to mind was the usual prevalence of the default white male as the player character (though exceptions like Giana Sisters did exist even back then). It was "kids stuff", really. Very different from what's being sold today. Only with the advent of better graphics and more story-intensive stuff do we actually see games attempting to portray living, breathing worlds - complex simulations where you can portray actual societies - and studios attempting to capitalise on the appeal of digital bodies made available to serve the player's interests.
Rather, I would believe the rising interest in video games is quite simply an interest in the medium itself, as a consequence of society having changed sufficiently to allow more and more women to break with traditional gender expectations when it comes to hobbies/pastime. That many games aren't made with them in mind or even objectify women would not affect this general fascination. It's like asking why American movies are popular in countries that do not dub them - arguably, just because people have to watch them subtitled does not mean that no-one will watch them. Though obviously, their popularity might be even greater if they'd get a proper dub. Also, see my previous comment regarding a mental checklist. I wouldn't be surprised if this - considering both the pros and cons of a product, and making a decision based on a personal threshold of how many cons one would be able to cope with and still have fun - is the approach most players take when buying and playing games.
Lynata wrote: Only with the advent of better graphics and more story-intensive stuff do we actually see games attempting to portray living, breathing worlds - complex simulations where you can portray actual societies - and studios attempting to capitalise on the appeal of digital bodies made available to serve the player's interests.
Okay, were you talking Pong old, or Duke Nukem 3D old ?
Lynata wrote: Only with the advent of better graphics and more story-intensive stuff do we actually see games attempting to portray living, breathing worlds - complex simulations where you can portray actual societies - and studios attempting to capitalise on the appeal of digital bodies made available to serve the player's interests.
Okay, were you talking Pong old, or Duke Nukem 3D old ?
Duke Nukem definitely tried to capitalise on the appeal of digital bodies to serve the players interests, amiright?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 6 wrote:Okay, were you talking Pong old, or Duke Nukem 3D old ?
More like the time in-between the two.
I can see where you're coming from, though.
But even so, I still have a feeling that it's both more widespread but also more "insidious" now. Back then, you had a few games deliberately go for shock value, Postal-style, both with violence as well as with boobies. Nowadays, you have stuff like bikini armour in "family friendly" games (WoW) and other sexualised portrayals being considered standard, and perhaps that is what makes it harder to discuss as it's not as "in your face" anymore. Some might see it as a step forward as it's not as crass anymore, but it could also be seen as a step backwards in that it leads to acceptance of sexism just because it's been scaled down a bit and gaming itself has become "mainstream". I mean, look at what advertisement is doing to our society due to its prevalence / amount of exposure.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 6 wrote:Okay, were you talking Pong old, or Duke Nukem 3D old ?
More like the time in-between the two.
I can see where you're coming from, though.
But even so, I still have a feeling that it's both more widespread but also more "insidious" now. Back then, you had a few games deliberately go for shock value, Postal-style, both with violence as well as with boobies. Nowadays, you have stuff like bikini armour in "family friendly" games (WoW) and other sexualised portrayals being considered standard, and perhaps that is what makes it harder to discuss as it's not as "in your face" anymore. Some might see it as a step forward as it's not as crass anymore, but it could also be seen as a step backwards in that it leads to acceptance of sexism just because it's been scaled down a bit and gaming itself has become "mainstream". I mean, look at what advertisement is doing to our society due to its prevalence / amount of exposure.
Gaming felt so much more innocent 10 years ago.
It was quite innocent before this whole scandal came up.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 6 wrote:Okay, were you talking Pong old, or Duke Nukem 3D old ?
More like the time in-between the two.
I can see where you're coming from, though.
But even so, I still have a feeling that it's both more widespread but also more "insidious" now. Back then, you had a few games deliberately go for shock value, Postal-style, both with violence as well as with boobies. Nowadays, you have stuff like bikini armour in "family friendly" games (WoW) and other sexualised portrayals being considered standard, and perhaps that is what makes it harder to discuss as it's not as "in your face" anymore. Some might see it as a step forward as it's not as crass anymore, but it could also be seen as a step backwards in that it leads to acceptance of sexism just because it's been scaled down a bit and gaming itself has become "mainstream". I mean, look at what advertisement is doing to our society due to its prevalence / amount of exposure.
Gaming felt so much more innocent 10 years ago.
It was quite innocent before this whole scandal came up.
Asherian Command wrote:It was quite innocent before this whole scandal came up.
What scandal? The one where an indie dev did not receive positive kotaku reviews in exchange for sex, in spite of the internet immediately jumping to conclusions instead of doing a simple google search based on the names of the indicted, which is somehow supposed to condemn the entire industry based on a single incident?
The real scandal is how the gaming community has reacted to it. And I maintain that this is merely a symptom of an issue that has been festering like a cancer for decades.
Which is rather obvious, considering that the topic of "sexism in games" is not being hotly debated since about a week or two, but for several years.
Asherian Command wrote:It was quite innocent before this whole scandal came up.
What scandal? The one where an indie dev did not receive positive kotaku reviews in exchange for sex, in spite of the internet immediately jumping to conclusions instead of doing a simple google search based on the names of the indicted, which is somehow supposed to condemn the entire industry based on a single incident?
The real scandal is how the gaming community has reacted to it. And I maintain that this is merely a symptom of an issue that has been festering like a cancer for decades.
Which is rather obvious, considering that the topic of "sexism in games" is not being hotly debated since about a week or two, but for several years.
No more of the journalism problem that it is dying. and there is no reason to listen to it.
Not the Zoey Quinn issue.
And also the issue with Nintendo going down in numbers, and same with Microsoft with the XBOX one.
But yeah the entire sexism in games has been talked about for years. It has gotten better but we can improve further.
One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing. People get annoyed by the tumbler style PC thuggery, which seems to state that all depictions of attractive women and breasts are sexist, and need to be censored. If the objectification of women were a line then this would be one extreme, and it's understandable why people see this as oppressive. But the other extreme is really no better: total wanton objectification and sexualization of all women for the sake of it. That is just as oppressive (and not only to women).
I like looking at women as much as any man. I think characters like Witchblade are awesome-cool, I've got nothing against boob-plates. But I don't want everything to be like that all the time. Partly because it has been done to death already, but mainly because it's embarrassing. Sometimes I would like to be able to show people a thing I'm interested in without it looking like pornography. I don't want to censor anyone, I'd just like creators to show a bit more imagination and range sometimes.
Smacks wrote: One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing. People get annoyed by the tumbler style PC thuggery, which seems to state that all depictions of attractive women and breasts are sexist, and need to be censored. If the objectification of women were a line then this would be one extreme, and it's understandable why people see this as oppressive. But the other extreme is really no better: total wanton objectification and sexualization of all women for the sake of it. That is just as oppressive (and not only to women).
I like looking at women as much as any man. I think characters like Witchblade are awesome-cool, I've got nothing against boob-plates. But I don't want everything to be like that all the time. Partly because it has been done to death already, but mainly because it's embarrassing. Sometimes I would like to be able to show people a thing I'm interested in without it looking like pornography. I don't want to censor anyone, I'd just like creators to show a bit more imagination and range sometimes.
I'm afraid your balanced views are not wanted here. We only allow varying degrees of righteous indignation
Smacks wrote: One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing. People get annoyed by the tumbler style PC thuggery, which seems to state that all depictions of attractive women and breasts are sexist, and need to be censored. If the objectification of women were a line then this would be one extreme, and it's understandable why people see this as oppressive. But the other extreme is really no better: total wanton objectification and sexualization of all women for the sake of it. That is just as oppressive (and not only to women).
I like looking at women as much as any man. I think characters like Witchblade are awesome-cool, I've got nothing against boob-plates. But I don't want everything to be like that all the time. Partly because it has been done to death already, but mainly because it's embarrassing. Sometimes I would like to be able to show people a thing I'm interested in without it looking like pornography. I don't want to censor anyone, I'd just like creators to show a bit more imagination and range sometimes.
Agreed. I mean I don't watch an anime like Black Lagoon because of Revy. I don't watch it for revy's sexy costume. Because I encounter that look every SINGLE DAY. Well partially I do because she's a badass. And is dressed to kill.
Personally Modern feminism movement makes little sense. It should recast their names as Egalitarians but we are side stepping here.
But anyway so I think that we just need realistic artistry, but we don't have to get rid of the boob plates. Just as we don't need to get rid of shirtless men.
I would like to see women fighting against me.
Because currently I feel evil for only killing men.
And I know that will send haywire grenades down the tubes of some feminists. "YOU CAN KILL WOMEN! THATS SEXIST!"
One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.
nomotog wrote: One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.
Wouldn't the same be said about men then?
If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.
nomotog wrote: One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.
Wouldn't the same be said about men then?
If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.
Its not the thought behind it.
I am confused on what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.
nomotog wrote: One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.
Wouldn't the same be said about men then?
If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.
Its not the thought behind it.
I am confused on what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.
OH I thought you were making the argument that if we put a female character that we shoot at in a game it would be in someway objectifying. Sorry my fault its midnight here. I probably need to sleep.
nomotog wrote: One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.
Wouldn't the same be said about men then?
If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.
Its not the thought behind it.
I am confused on what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.
OH I thought you were making the argument that if we put a female character that we shoot at in a game it would be in someway objectifying. Sorry my fault its midnight here. I probably need to sleep.
It's OK. Communication is hard. I think I sound like some kind of nut when I say that, but it's true.
Lynata wrote: But even so, I still have a feeling that it's both more widespread but also more "insidious" now. Back then, you had a few games deliberately go for shock value, Postal-style, both with violence as well as with boobies. Nowadays, you have stuff like bikini armour in "family friendly" games (WoW) and other sexualised portrayals being considered standard, and perhaps that is what makes it harder to discuss as it's not as "in your face" anymore. Some might see it as a step forward as it's not as crass anymore, but it could also be seen as a step backwards in that it leads to acceptance of sexism just because it's been scaled down a bit and gaming itself has become "mainstream".
I have troubles integrating games like Tomb Raider into this narrative.
I got what you were saying. The portrayal of women as 'weaker' and unable to defend themselves is a sexist stereotype. If all fighters were male then you could say that the game was playing into those gender stereotypes. Unfortunately when we do get strong female characters, they are invariably the sexy femme fatale type: running across roof tops and doing roundhouse kicks in high heels. Though having said that, the depiction of men in the 'action' genre also tends to be quite shallow and one dimensional.
Smacks wrote: One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing. People get annoyed by the tumbler style PC thuggery, which seems to state that all depictions of attractive women and breasts are sexist, and need to be censored. If the objectification of women were a line then this would be one extreme, and it's understandable why people see this as oppressive. But the other extreme is really no better: total wanton objectification and sexualization of all women for the sake of it. That is just as oppressive (and not only to women).
I like looking at women as much as any man. I think characters like Witchblade are awesome-cool, I've got nothing against boob-plates. But I don't want everything to be like that all the time. Partly because it has been done to death already, but mainly because it's embarrassing. Sometimes I would like to be able to show people a thing I'm interested in without it looking like pornography. I don't want to censor anyone, I'd just like creators to show a bit more imagination and range sometimes.
It's not like that all the time. It's not even like that close to all the time. It's certainly common, but it's far from the only way women are portrayed in video gaming.
This overstatement of the case - both by people being genuine and by people like Sarkeesian - is a large part of the backlash, I think. Your argument is that you just want variety; they would counter that there already is a lot of variety.
Because currently I feel evil for only killing men.
Which kind of games are you playing? Because many, many of them will allow you to fight and kill women.
May we have a list? I can only think of 8 games where women are a standard enemy, along with their male counterparts.
That's not many; that's actually quite tiny compared to the majority of games out there.
Seaward wrote: It's not like that all the time. It's not even like that close to all the time. It's certainly common, but it's far from the only way women are portrayed in video gaming.
This overstatement of the case - both by people being genuine and by people like Sarkeesian - is a large part of the backlash, I think. Your argument is that you just want variety; they would counter that there already is a lot of variety.
I agree that there is a lot of variety, but there is also a tenancy for situations to worsen if left unchecked. For example reality TV is frankly utter mind-numbing garbage, but because it appeals to peoples inner nosiness, it consistently sucked in enough viewers, to the point where it was hard to find anything else. By the same measure, I have no doubt that "sex sells". It's the lowest common denominator. So I think there does probably need to be a bit of resistance to keep things in moderation.
Smacks wrote: One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing.
One of the things that bugs me about this issue is that if you disagree with those crying out "misogyny" or "patriarchy" for even half a second often gets you labelled as some kind of woman hating rape culture-supporting MRA supporter, often for when you don't make a big deal out of everything.
It is going to be pretty long. I am going to start with every fighting game with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all moba with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all multiplayer FPS with a female character. Then, Diablo, Diablo II, Diablo III, Path of Exile, Streets of Rage, Warcraft III, Starcraft, Starcraft II, the Hitman series ( ), every GTA game, the Saint Row's series, the Postal series, the Left 4 dead series (well, zombie women anyway), every Elder's scroll game I guess, every Heroes of Might and Magic I guess …
Fighting games don't really count; those women are not enemy NPCs as you can play as them, not to mention that they are actual characters
I mean games that feature women as a generic enemy type that actively try to kill you. Not as neutrals, not as civilians, I mean they will find you and shoot you. The saints row games where indeed among the 8 I was thinking of. Well, 2 and 3 anyway. Never played 1 though.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to parade Tomb Raider as an example of sexism, but at least for a time being the series was obviously twisting Lara into a sex-symbol. Official promo-art I'm glad that the reboot represents a more "serious" approach that does the original game more justice than its sequels, in terms of character design. Still, for every Tomb Raider- or Remember Me-style positive AAA example you can find, I think I can name two negative ones. Games with a female protagonist are ridiculously rare, anyways, given that we have devs on record stating they have trouble selling such ideas to the publishers. TotalBiscuit commented on this lack in his Remember Me-review as well. Aliens Colonial Marines attracted a bit of attention here as well, as female characters initially were not planned - which was ridiculous enough to have even some of the original actors of the multi-gendered Aliens2 Marines add their signatures to an online petition to at least make them available in multiplayer.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:I would like to see women fighting against me.
Because currently I feel evil for only killing men.
Which kind of games are you playing? Because many, many of them will allow you to fight and kill women.
That applies mostly to ones set in a sci-fi setting, I think. The majority of historical or modern ones tend to omit them - I believe because a lot of devs are still unaware of women even participating as combatants in such scenarios. Take "War of the Roses", for example, where the studio stated female characters would not be playable for historical reasons. I mean, it's not like there's a muster roll of that era in the UK Royal Armoury archives serving as proof that that women got enrolled into combat formations. But how many people are actually aware that there were female knights or female samurai? Stuff like that isn't discussed, so it's no wonder that you don't see it in games. It's like a vicious cycle where absence of exposure leads to absence of exposure.
Another issue is of course that it creates an additional strain on a game's budget, though here the studio would have to decide how much it values realism and/or wishes to promote equality. It's certainly not impossible to let such considerations flow into the planning stage, especially if you wish to advertise on one of those factors (like the various FPS that feature WW2 Stalingrad, for example). Considering what else cash is being spent on, people will just have to excuse me for not buying into that "too expensive" argument as being a valid cop-out in all cases.
And even in a sci-fi setting ... I cannot remember encountering a single female cop or merc in Deus Ex-HR for example, two named exceptions (one of whom was a detective being undercover as a whore) aside.
[edit] Damn this thread has picked up pace ...
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I mean games that feature women as a generic enemy type that actively try to kill you. Not as neutrals, not as civilians, I mean they will find you and shoot you.
I thought we were discussing those only, too. And I'm pretty sure this is what Asherian Command meant.
It is going to be pretty long. I am going to start with every fighting game with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all moba with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all multiplayer FPS with a female character. Then, Diablo, Diablo II, Diablo III, Path of Exile, Streets of Rage, Warcraft III, Starcraft, Starcraft II, the Hitman series ( ), every GTA game, the Saint Row's series, the Postal series, the Left 4 dead series (well, zombie women anyway), every Elder's scroll game I guess, every Heroes of Might and Magic I guess …
Lynata wrote: That applies mostly to ones set in a sci-fi setting, I think. The majority of historical or modern ones tend to omit them - I believe because a lot of devs are still unaware of women even participating as combatants in such scenarios. Take "War of the Roses", for example, where the studio stated female characters would not be playable for historical reasons. I mean, it's not like there's a muster roll of that era in the UK Royal Armoury archives serving as proof that that women got enrolled into combat formations. But how many people are actually aware that there were female knights or female samurai? Stuff like that isn't discussed, so it's no wonder that you don't see it in games. It's like a vicious cycle where absence of exposure leads to absence of exposure.
I'd call it more a "vicious cycle of being exceedingly rare" than anything.
Another issue is of course that it creates an additional strain on a game's budget, though here the studio would have to decide how much it values realism and/or wishes to promote equality.
I'd rather they focused on how much it wishes to promote good game play rather than equality, which I think is part of where this big divide is coming from.
Okay, scratch the multiplayer games then. Still Diablo, Diablo II, Diablo III, Path of Exile, Streets of Rage, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Starcraft II, some Hitman games I guess, Postal (2 at least, I have not played the other), the Left 4 dead games, Heroes of Might and Magic
Yes. Tomb Raider never aimed at shock value. It is “Indiana Jones with a sexy lead instead”. No more violence than in a movie that was never considered particularly violent to begin with. But it was aiming at sexy, clearly.
And it was a very big, mainstream game.
Lynata wrote: Aliens Colonial Marines attracted a bit of attention here as well, as female characters initially were not planned - which was ridiculous enough to have even some of the original actors of the multi-gendered Aliens2 Marines add their signatures to an online petition to at least make them available in multiplayer.
Vasquez. Just Vasquez. The only marine from Alien 2 whose name is remembered .
Lynata wrote: That applies mostly to ones set in a sci-fi setting, I think.
Or fantasy. See Diablo and PoE for instance.
I cannot really comment on historical and modern settings, I tend to avoid them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Technically the women in the -craft games aren't really enemies either, since you can use them yourself.
They are NPCs with no name trying to kill you, that you can kill in return. What is your problem there?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Technically the women in the -craft games aren't really enemies either, since you can use them yourself.
They are NPCs with no name trying to kill you, that you can kill in return. What is your problem there?
Just a couple of technicalities. The first is that they are not NPCs; you may control an Ultralisk in Starcraft at some point in the game, for example, but you may not control a Big Daddy in Bioshock. You may not play as a unit in a strategy game, but you do exery enough control over it for it to be considered playable. Now, if the -craft games featured an unplayable warrior-women faction, you may have a point.
The second is that they are not trying to kill the player character, as in a strategy game there is no player character, so "trying to kill you" in this context is false.
Because currently I feel evil for only killing men.
Which kind of games are you playing? Because many, many of them will allow you to fight and kill women.
May we have a list? I can only think of 8 games where women are a standard enemy, along with their male counterparts. That's not many; that's actually quite tiny compared to the majority of games out there.
It's not negative if you just deliver it with a bit of taste and awareness instead of going all-out in order to appeal to people's junk more than their brains. The original Lara Croft was sexy. Gradually increasing her boobs, shortening her clothes, and having her pose in seductive positions more suitable to an issue of Playboy, however, turns the character from a heroine into a pin-up girl. And that's objectification.
I like sexy characters. I build them myself in the games I play. I have posters of sexy characters in my room. I have little statues of sexy characters on my desk in the office.
But there's a thin line between "sexy" and "porn", and whilst there is also a place for the latter I don't want to have it feel forced in the games I play as I think it reduces the badassness of the character and (possibly) my immersion. Taking the sequels to the original Tomb Raider as an example, Eidos went from "play this cool-looking heroine's adventures" to "LOOK AT THOSE BOOBS, LOOK AT THEM".
Seaward wrote:I'd rather they focused on how much it wishes to promote good game play rather than equality, which I think is part of where this big divide is coming from.
To me, variety and (depending on the game) realism are part of good gameplay. Also, obviously it's not like you can't have both. Having female characters does not reduce a game's chance to be fun, nor does their absence increase it.
Here's a challenge: name any game that didn't feature female characters where they could be expected, and I'll suggest something else that could have been cut first.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Technically the women in the -craft games aren't really enemies either, since you can use them yourself.
Now, now - they are valid examples. Of course, there is that weirdness in how the StarCraft series forces them mostly into noncom-roles as medics and medevac pilots. Even the ghosts, of whom the most popular and well-known example is a girl, are all-male when you build them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:But it was aiming at sexy, clearly. And it was a very big, mainstream game.
Well, then I wouldn't use the series as an example of how it's supposedly gotten better. Let's hope that the newest title constitutes a fresh start, though.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Or fantasy. See Diablo and PoE for instance.
Well, I don't agree here. At least from my experience those games are exceptions rather than the rule.
H.B.M.C. wrote:What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
There's not enough of them.
illuknisaa wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
Nothing. Some poster just wanted to shoot women.
Spoiler:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Lynata wrote:Because currently I feel evil for only killing men.
Which kind of games are you playing? Because many, many of them will allow you to fight and kill women.
May we have a list? I can only think of 8 games where women are a standard enemy, along with their male counterparts. That's not many; that's actually quite tiny compared to the majority of games out there.
Psst, that wasn't me.
Though I agree with the poster, but I'm not feeling evil about it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
I'd kind of like an answer to this, too, myself.
I mean gak, the Knives of Artemis ripped players apart in CoH/V....
I could see ways for it to be a problem. Like if you only had female enemies or the only women in your game were enemies and then you characterized poorly. Like if there was a game that wanted you to kill women because the game called them sluts. Actually there is a awkward level in dishonored were you are assassinating a women because she is dating the villain and that is about it. Your never told anything she dose wrong. (You actually don't have to assassinate her, you can drug her and then give her over to a man who looks and acts like a stalker...)
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
I'd kind of like an answer to this, too, myself.
I mean gak, the Knives of Artemis ripped players apart in CoH/V....
I could see ways for it to be a problem. Like if you only had female enemies or the only women in your game were enemies and then you characterized poorly. Like if there was a game that wanted you to kill women because the game called them sluts. Actually there is a awkward level in dishonored were you are assassinating a women because she is dating the villain and that is about it. Your never told anything she dose wrong. (You actually don't have to assassinate her, you can drug her and then give her over to a man who looks and acts like a stalker...)
She's financing his army. That's why she was a target. Not to mention that she was
Lynata wrote: Of course, there is that weirdness in how the StarCraft series forces them mostly into noncom-roles as medics and medevac pilots. Even the ghosts, of whom the most popular and well-known example is a girl, are all-male when you build them.
How could you forget the valkyrie pilot and her lovely voice?
Also Banshee.
Lynata wrote: Well, I don't agree here. At least from my experience those games are exceptions rather than the rule.
Well, I find games in a fantasy setting where you get to kill male humans but not female humans rather rare. Do you have some examples?
The developers later admitted via Twitter that they had been "wrongheaded" about the idea to give Lady Boyle to her stalker, and said that "she probably wrapped that pathetic adoring creep around her finger."
That's like, admitting you did something a little bit not right, and then saying it wasn't right for the completely wrong reason. Stalkers do not work that way.
Granted, with the exception of Lydia I found the Boyle sisters completely abhorrent as people, so whatever happened to them happened
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
I'd kind of like an answer to this, too, myself.
I mean gak, the Knives of Artemis ripped players apart in CoH/V....
I could see ways for it to be a problem. Like if you only had female enemies or the only women in your game were enemies and then you characterized poorly. Like if there was a game that wanted you to kill women because the game called them sluts. Actually there is a awkward level in dishonored were you are assassinating a women because she is dating the villain and that is about it. Your never told anything she dose wrong. (You actually don't have to assassinate her, you can drug her and then give her over to a man who looks and acts like a stalker...)
She's financing his army. That's why she was a target.
Not to mention that she was
They do actually tell you why she's a target. There's a briefing before each mission.
I don't recall any of that being talked about in the briefing, so I went and looked again. It's there. I guess I must have missed it the first time. (I also forgot that was the level with the peeking thing.)
It's not negative if you just deliver it with a bit of taste and awareness instead of going all-out in order to appeal to people's junk more than their brains. The original Lara Croft was sexy. Gradually increasing her boobs, shortening her clothes, and having her pose in seductive positions more suitable to an issue of Playboy, however, turns the character from a heroine into a pin-up girl. And that's objectification.
While I will admit I don't care either way for Lara (Only game of hers I've really enjoyed was the last one), the idea of sexualization/objectification isn't inherently bad (Look at Duke Nukem) taken in moderation. The real problem with the industry is that the moderation doesn't exist, and the idea of sexualization/objectification is woefully one sided.
It's not negative if you just deliver it with a bit of taste and awareness instead of going all-out in order to appeal to people's junk more than their brains. The original Lara Croft was sexy. Gradually increasing her boobs, shortening her clothes, and having her pose in seductive positions more suitable to an issue of Playboy, however, turns the character from a heroine into a pin-up girl. And that's objectification.
While I will admit I don't care either way for Lara (Only game of hers I've really enjoyed was the last one), the idea of sexualization/objectification isn't inherently bad (Look at Duke Nukem) taken in moderation. The real problem with the industry is that the moderation doesn't exist, and the idea of sexualization/objectification is woefully one sided.
Is sexualization permanently linked to objectification?
That does not fall within the purview of my thoughts on the matter; if it does and/or doesn't, it doesn't matter that it's all one sided. That Guy Raider that was posted in one of the threads we've had going on this is a good example (I think, I dunno what the ladies like).
It's not negative if you just deliver it with a bit of taste and awareness instead of going all-out in order to appeal to people's junk more than their brains. The original Lara Croft was sexy. Gradually increasing her boobs, shortening her clothes, and having her pose in seductive positions more suitable to an issue of Playboy, however, turns the character from a heroine into a pin-up girl. And that's objectification.
Objectification makes no sense. It is so easy to do a 180 with it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Fighting games don't really count; those women are not enemy NPCs as you can play as them, not to mention that they are actual characters
I mean games that feature women as a generic enemy type that actively try to kill you. Not as neutrals, not as civilians, I mean they will find you and shoot you. The saints row games where indeed among the 8 I was thinking of. Well, 2 and 3 anyway. Never played 1 though.
Gender wars.
(runs for cover)
No seriously though. It was a real game from some 20 years ago. Look it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: If our brains were so simple we could understand them completely, they'd be so simple we couldn't.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Fighting games don't really count; those women are not enemy NPCs as you can play as them, not to mention that they are actual characters
I mean games that feature women as a generic enemy type that actively try to kill you. Not as neutrals, not as civilians, I mean they will find you and shoot you. The saints row games where indeed among the 8 I was thinking of. Well, 2 and 3 anyway. Never played 1 though.
Gender wars.
(runs for cover)
No seriously though. It was a real game from some 20 years ago. Look it up.
Oh yeah, I heard of that game.
That's the one that's meant to be a parody of that whole "War of the Sexes" nonsense, isn't it?
It is going to be pretty long. I am going to start with every fighting game with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all moba with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all multiplayer FPS with a female character. Then, Diablo, Diablo II, Diablo III, Path of Exile, Streets of Rage, Warcraft III, Starcraft, Starcraft II, the Hitman series ( ), every GTA game, the Saint Row's series, the Postal series, the Left 4 dead series (well, zombie women anyway), every Elder's scroll game I guess, every Heroes of Might and Magic I guess …
Can I just reply to this with a couple of issues.
As far as I know most of these games actually are a problem.
The Diablo games, for the most part, only show sexy female enemies. Andariel exposes her breasts. The most common female monsters are the spites(or whatever you call them) which just cast magic, a typical "female ability", and are scantily clad. Next most common are the act 1 Rogues who are all wearing thongs and boob plates. The message in those games (up until Leah and D3) is that if you are a woman who has power, you must be sexy. Also your power is not directly physical, as even Andariel, the most physical focused female combatant has poison as her main attack power.
The hitman series. That's the game where you can assasinate people, and in some levels you enter a sexy bunny club, or a sexy nun club where the enemies are female. For the most part the enemies are either sexy women, or men in normal clothes. The levels where you have to kill a drug lord have no female combatants that i saw, only unarmed women.
I have no experience with Path of Exile, but I assume it is similar to Diablo.
Streets of Rage. There were a lot of sexy costumes, but some of the men had sexy costumes. Your first female enemy has high heels, all leather and a whip with a visible thong. You first male enemies are just dressed as street gang members. Not terrible, not good though.
Warcraft 3. The only female enemy I remember is the sorceress who had a somewhat sexualised costume (high boots are totally impractical, as is a top which you will constantly pop out of on the battle field). Again, magic attacker, there's no female with physical prowess.
Starcraft games, as far as I know, are ok. Might have some armour issues, but don't remember anything that was stand out.
GTA:
So killing prostitutes who hardly ever have guns, and innocent women counts as enemies? The number of female enemies that don't fit in the below categories are so few and far in number that I'm not sure it's worth mentioning.
-sexualised much more than male counter parts
-prostitutes
-spoiled two dimensional daddies girls who just want sex with protagonist/some other guy
-sexy assasins
-useless in combat
-weaponless
Plus the advertising of GTA does not help the female cause at all.
Out of the others I've only played the Heroes of Might and Magic series, and those are actually good. Queen in command, doing her thing. Not needing sex or sexiness to do so.
It is going to be pretty long. I am going to start with every fighting game with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all moba with a female character (i.e. almost all of them), all multiplayer FPS with a female character. Then, Diablo, Diablo II, Diablo III, Path of Exile, Streets of Rage, Warcraft III, Starcraft, Starcraft II, the Hitman series ( ), every GTA game, the Saint Row's series, the Postal series, the Left 4 dead series (well, zombie women anyway), every Elder's scroll game I guess, every Heroes of Might and Magic I guess …
Can I just reply to this with a couple of issues.
As far as I know most of these games actually are a problem.
The Diablo games, for the most part, only show sexy female enemies. Andariel exposes her breasts. The most common female monsters are the spites(or whatever you call them) which just cast magic, a typical "female ability", and are scantily clad. Next most common are the act 1 Rogues who are all wearing thongs and boob plates. The message in those games (up until Leah and D3) is that if you are a woman who has power, you must be sexy. Also your power is not directly physical, as even Andariel, the most physical focused female combatant has poison as her main attack power.
The hitman series. That's the game where you can assasinate people, and in some levels you enter a sexy bunny club, or a sexy nun club where the enemies are female. For the most part the enemies are either sexy women, or men in normal clothes. The levels where you have to kill a drug lord have no female combatants that i saw, only unarmed women.
I have no experience with Path of Exile, but I assume it is similar to Diablo.
Streets of Rage. There were a lot of sexy costumes, but some of the men had sexy costumes. Your first female enemy has high heels, all leather and a whip with a visible thong. You first male enemies are just dressed as street gang members. Not terrible, not good though.
Warcraft 3. The only female enemy I remember is the sorceress who had a somewhat sexualised costume (high boots are totally impractical, as is a top which you will constantly pop out of on the battle field). Again, magic attacker, there's no female with physical prowess.
Starcraft games, as far as I know, are ok. Might have some armour issues, but don't remember anything that was stand out.
GTA: So killing prostitutes who hardly ever have guns, and innocent women counts as enemies? The number of female enemies that don't fit in the below categories are so few and far in number that I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. -sexualised much more than male counter parts -prostitutes -spoiled two dimensional daddies girls who just want sex with protagonist/some other guy -sexy assasins -useless in combat -weaponless
Plus the advertising of GTA does not help the female cause at all.
Out of the others I've only played the Heroes of Might and Magic series, and those are actually good. Queen in command, doing her thing. Not needing sex or sexiness to do so.
Warcraft 3. The only female enemy I remember is the sorceress who had a somewhat sexualised costume (high boots are totally impractical, as is a top which you will constantly pop out of on the battle field). Again, magic attacker, there's no female with physical prowess.
AS a WC3 Map maker, I find that completely false.
The entire Night elf race is made up of women. O.O
There are custom units that are female. The Ranger, The Villager, The dark ranger, Slyvanas Windrunner, Jaina Proudmoore, Lady Vashj, Naga Sirens, Naga Summoners, Succubus, Wraiths, Banshees, and then finally the high eleven villager.
There are tons of units that are female.
Please do proper research before you talk about it.
Plus the Sorceress Character. Is probably the most overpowered unit in the game with polymorph and slow. She floats around, she uses magic. She really doesn't give two craps about anything, because... Well. She kind of kicks a lot of ass if put in a proper position
All of WC3 is about positioning and micro. And intense almost OCD microing but still. A group of 15 sorceresses can change an entire army into bloody sheep and kill them with ease. Or they make the entire army invisible and sneak into someones base and kill everyone there.
The Diablo games, for the most part, only show sexy female enemies. Andariel exposes her breasts. The most common female monsters are the spites(or whatever you call them) which just cast magic, a typical "female ability", and are scantily clad. Next most common are the act 1 Rogues who are all wearing thongs and boob plates. The message in those games (up until Leah and D3) is that if you are a woman who has power, you must be sexy. Also your power is not directly physical, as even Andariel, the most physical focused female combatant has poison as her main attack power.
The Assassin and Amazon want a word with you.
All those were succubus's. They are succubus. Lets repeat that. They are succubus's. ITs sort of their job to be sexy. Andariel is the Queen of all Succubus's. So no duh she would do that. She is known to be beautiful, but also scary as gak.
GTA-
Prostitutes are actually thought to be actually in control of situations. Do you pay them to do things? No, you are required to pay them. They control you.
Who cares how they are dressed it really matters on their setting. Does it make sense. Is it within reason?
Melissia wrote: I'm an active anti-fan of blizzard and yet I still knew that wasn't true
Which bit?
The majority of the Night Elves in wc3 are women. The Sentinels were extremely active during Warcraft 3. There are only 4 playable men in the night elf army.
They were half and half. The man were simply in their long sleep cycle during the opening half of WC3, and were in the process of waking up. By the time of WoWCraft, they had all awoken.
Also, you said the ENTIRE race was made up of women, not the majority
Melissia wrote: I'm an active anti-fan of blizzard and yet I still knew that wasn't true
Which bit?
The majority of the Night Elves in wc3 are women. The Sentinels were extremely active during Warcraft 3. There are only 4 playable men in the night elf army.
I do believe you forgot about the Druids, who are men. So the entirety (which is what you claimed) of the Night Elves faction is not, in fact, composed of women...just about 95%, though that's only because the rest of the men were sleeping... Lazy buggers.
Melissia wrote: They were half and half. The man were simply in their long sleep cycle during the opening half of WC3, and were in the process of waking up. By the time of WoWCraft, they had all awoken.
Also, you said the ENTIRE race was made up of women, not the majority
Whoops my bad
I corrected my statement. But what is playable is mostly women.
Melissia wrote: They were half and half. The man were simply in their long sleep cycle during the opening half of WC3, and were in the process of waking up. By the time of WoWCraft, they had all awoken.
Also, you said the ENTIRE race was made up of women, not the majority
Whoops my bad
I corrected my statement. But what is playable is mostly women.
I think examples like the Night Elves are.... not the best. I've always found the idea of having the "Female Action" feels shaky. It's like
"Let's add some female warriors!"
"OK. Do we fully integrate them into one of our faction's armies, showing them as soldiers like any other?"
"Hmm. Naw. It's going to be like a whole faction of them on their own."
"Why... that way?"
"Oh. Like all the dudes are spellcasters and asleep . So of course they're the warriors."
"That doesn't feel like it cheapens it a bit to you?
"Oh no. Not all."
"Uh.. sure. Ok. So how what were you thinking about thematically? Maybe a dwarf off-shoot with heavy bruisers and stone-manipulation or a race of giants focused on having only a few elite units"
"Naw. New kind of elf. They're all stealthy, fragile and agile. With a moon goodness and battle bikinis and cats, and sexy battle quotes.
"Hmm. Well it wasn't really what I was thinking of when you brought up the idea. You're sure none of this feels a bit awkward or overdone?"
"No way man. This like totally fresh and totally badass"
"OK. If you're sure then I'm sure. Let's run with it."
Melissia wrote: They were half and half. The man were simply in their long sleep cycle during the opening half of WC3, and were in the process of waking up. By the time of WoWCraft, they had all awoken.
Also, you said the ENTIRE race was made up of women, not the majority
Whoops my bad
I corrected my statement. But what is playable is mostly women.
I think examples like the Night Elves are.... not the best. I've always found the idea of having the "Female Action" feels shaky. It's like
"Let's add some female warriors!"
"OK. Do we fully integrate them into one of our faction's armies, showing them as soldiers like any other?"
"Hmm. Naw. It's going to be like a whole faction of them on their own."
"Why... that way?"
"Oh. Like all the dudes are spellcasters and asleep . So of course they're the warriors."
"That doesn't feel like it cheapens it a bit to you?
"Oh no. Not all."
"Uh.. sure. Ok. So how what were you thinking about thematically? Maybe a dwarf off-shoot with heavy bruisers and stone-manipulation or a race of giants focused on having only a few elite units"
"Naw. New kind of elf. They're all stealthy, fragile and agile. With a moon goodness and battle bikinis and cats, and sexy battle quotes.
"Hmm. Well it wasn't really what I was thinking of when you brought up the idea. You're sure none of this feels a bit awkward or overdone?"
"No way man. This like totally fresh and totally badass"
"OK. If you're sure then I'm sure. Let's run with it."
I mean they do have some spellcasters. I mean the Dryads are a pain, and the Priestess of the Moon Rides a giant tiger and can call down stars falling from the sky.
I mean its pretty cool. But its farther than most games go.
bertnernie wrote: The most common female monsters are the spites(or whatever you call them) which just cast magic, a typical "female ability", and are scantily clad.
The spites?
For me, the most common female monsters are the rogues, that come in spear, hammer and shield, or archer category.
The other female enemy I remember were catwomen that attacked you either with lashes, throwing spears, or throwing flasks of poison, and harpies that used spell and kicks you with their talons.
bertnernie wrote: The message in those games (up until Leah and D3) is that if you are a woman who has power, you must be sexy. Also your power is not directly physical, as even Andariel, the most physical focused female combatant has poison as her main attack power.
Assassins can be either focused on traps or on hitting stuff very hard until it dies. Amazon can focus on either bow/javelin, or just on hitting stuff very hard with a spear. I do not really agree here.
bertnernie wrote: I have no experience with Path of Exile, but I assume it is similar to Diablo.
It is a bit different. Not outright better, though, just different. Your own character, if female, will not be sexualized at all, for instance, and you get a bunch of NPCs and tons of enemies that are not either. But you also have some that are ridiculously so, and, most prominently, you have the HUD itself, with naked women in lascivious position chained to your health and mana globe. Yeah, I know, that is pretty bad, and totally out of tone with the game.
Also female character tend to be more focused on magic or shooting too. For player classes, the female one are the full intelligence Witch designed mainly for magic, the full dexterity Ranger designed mainly for bows, and the Scion which is the hybrid, 1/3 strength 1/3 dexterity 1/3 intelligence, can-become-anything jack of all trade character.
As for enemies, the female ones tend to be more about magic/shootiness, but thankfully there are exception.
bertnernie wrote: Warcraft 3. The only female enemy I remember is the sorceress
As mentioned above, you forgot about half of the night elves units. But yeah, sadly all in sexualized outfits. The huntress and the warden being the only one hitting stuff in close combat.
bertnernie wrote: Starcraft games, as far as I know, are ok. Might have some armour issues, but don't remember anything that was stand out.
The medics had the same huge armor as the marines. The banshee pilots wear one of the most ridiculous boob armor ever. The female ghost armor is painted on them rather than put on, I guess. We only see the head of that awesome, awesome valkyrie pilot of awesome, so it is left to us to imagine some awesome armor.
Asherian Command wrote: All those were succubus's. They are succubus. Lets repeat that. They are succubus's. ITs sort of their job to be sexy.
Why do we always get tons of sexy succubus and no sexy incubus ever?
I'm saying I have generally been bored by or even actively disliked just about everything Blizzard has produced after Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness and Diablo 2.
Melissia wrote: I'm saying I have generally been bored by or even actively disliked just about everything Blizzard has produced after Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness and Diablo 2.
Not liking any Starcraft? Damn.
Asherian Command wrote: [Incubus] are basically rape professionals who make you think that you enjoy it.
But that is exactly the same as succubus, right?
Also, please, only quote the part your are responding too in case of a huge wall of text like that .
This is a fair point. It certainly did have female characters with their own stories and ones in leadership positions at that. It's a definitely solid in that regard. It also had aspects that grated on me. I certainly wouldn't give it a failing grade by any means. Games in general struggle so much the curve is pretty low.
Still It would have be nice if it'd taken approach to the difference in male/female character design that something like Final Fantasy Tactics does:
Spoiler:
Distinct, but generally not [Concept] and sexy Halloween costume of [Concept].
Asherian Command wrote: [Incubus] are basically rape professionals who make you think that you enjoy it.
But that is exactly the same as succubus, right?
Also, please, only quote the part your are responding too in case of a huge wall of text like that .
Yeah that is true. Succubus are basically known to women placed in that bit of being the extreme sexy but also being omg I hope that never happens to me.
This is a fair point. It certainly did have female characters with their own stories and ones in leadership positions at that. It's a definitely solid in that regard. It also had aspects that grated on me. I certainly wouldn't give it a failing grade by any means. Games in general struggle so much the curve is pretty low.
Still It would have be nice if it'd taken approach to the difference in male/female character design that something like Final Fantasy Tactics does:
Spoiler:
Distinct, but generally not [Concept] and sexy Halloween costume of [Concept].
I remember final fantasy tactics, most final fantasy games until recently had great female characters that were not sexualized.
Final fantasy 5 had a main cast of mostly females.
Melissia wrote: I got it for SNES and later on PS1, myself...
Yeah I only played it on the gameboy advanced. And I still consider it to be among the greatest of the final fantasy titles. Everyone always have this love for final fantasy 6. Which I did not like. It started running into that whole. Anime look.
Melissia wrote: He was an INTERESTING bad guy at least. Much better than the whiny little douche in FF9 anyway. Or the whiny little douche in FF7 for that matter.
I think that's a bit unfair on Kuja. He's actually one of my favourites as it is possible to relate to and understand his motives.
Basically his entire purpose for existing was taken away from him. He was made to kill but also had a limited lifespan whilst his replacement was made to be more powerful, longer lived and had a soul to boot. And it adds the whole older child basically being replaced in the eyes of the parents by new baby kind of aspect to it.
Melissia wrote: I got it for SNES and later on PS1, myself...
Yeah I only played it on the gameboy advanced. And I still consider it to be among the greatest of the final fantasy titles. Everyone always have this love for final fantasy 6. Which I did not like. It started running into that whole. Anime look.
I found FF5 to be immensely forgettable. I could probably name the characters by their sprites, and that's probably about it. One of them was a pirate, a dragon got involved at some point. My mind is entirely blanking on any of the antagonists, except for the fact I know Gilgamesh first appeared there.
I think it may have been that it just didn't introduce any new ideas. Same general formula as 1, 3, and 4. The character driven stuff from 2/4, plus and a minor update of the class-based approach from 1/3. Every other game in the series has always departed from the others more than 5 has. I think that's probably part of the reason why they didn't release outside JP even after 4 did pretty well.
6 was very, very different from the previous games in the series and a lot of what we'd seen come out in general, which is a lot of why it's so fondly remembered. I'm still amazed and how much was left intact given how aggressive the Nintendo censors were in that era.
EDIT: Though I'll agree FF6 and Chrono Trigger probably get a bit too much attention in my mind as well. Not because they weren't excellent, it's just a lot of other great titles from the era get overlooked.
Melissia wrote: I got it for SNES and later on PS1, myself...
Yeah I only played it on the gameboy advanced. And I still consider it to be among the greatest of the final fantasy titles. Everyone always have this love for final fantasy 6. Which I did not like. It started running into that whole. Anime look.
I found FF5 to be immensely forgettable. I could probably name the characters by their sprites, and that's probably about it. One of them was a pirate, a dragon got involved at some point. My mind is entirely blanking on any of the antagonists, except for the fact I know Gilgamesh first appeared there.
I think it may have been that it just didn't introduce any new ideas. Same general formula as 1, 3, and 4. The character driven stuff from 2/4, plus and a minor update of the class-based approach from 1/3. Every other game in the series has always departed from the others more than 5 has. I think that's probably part of the reason why they didn't release outside JP even after 4 did pretty well.
6 was very, very different from the previous games in the series and a lot of what we'd seen come out in general, which is a lot of why it's so fondly remembered. I'm still amazed and how much was left intact given how aggressive the Nintendo censors were in that era.
EDIT: Though I'll agree FF6 and Chrono Trigger probably get a bit too much attention in my mind as well. Not because they weren't excellent, it's just a lot of other great titles from the era get overlooked.
Yeah FF5 isn't the best of the series, but it is still a reasonable game.
I mean there are quite a few things in the game that were fantastic.
lolno
Spehiroth is the central enigma for most of FFVII.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
I could definitely agree that figuring out the enigma of Sephiroth is fun, and when you don't quite understand what drives him he's interesting, but then you figure it out and all the interest goes down the drain.
I personally always preferred his theme that played throughout the game, rather than One Winged Angel which was just his final boss battle theme.
Spoiler:
When you're in Cloud's past and you go down to meet him in the bottom of the Shinra Mansion. Walking through it with the drum heartbeat thumping and the bell tolling. Then Sephiroth says his speech and at the end, just after he says he's going to see his Mother, the choir kicks in. An amazing use of music.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
... if it's a generational thing, that would mean I'm tge older player, apparently, because I had been gaming for years when it was released, it wasn't really the first one to move me like that. That would be Lufia and the Fortress of Doom on SNES probably, but I don't even think that would be the fist.
His theme is pretty definitive of his character. The track musically expresses the overwhelming chaos of his personality. Remember, this was before voice acting. The score was even more important back then because it played a huge role in characterizing the cast.
This is why the theme's of Terra and Aeris are also so powerful. Speaking of Aeris, it is kind of weird that she is the real star of FF7 rather than Cloud. It would interesting to see a feminist analysis of her character.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
The facts are not on your side. We are still talking about him seventeen years later.
I still don't enjoy him. What is his reason for killing everyone? What is his end goal? Is the end goal a good thing or a bad thing?
I love the heroes journey and everything about it. But the villain is sort of required to have more reasoning than just being a badguy which most games seem to think.
In one of my stories, the main villain is annihalting humanity because he thinks its evil. And no that is not a spoiler
I didn't enjoy saphy. He felt sort of a 2d dimensional character. He wasn't rounded. He wasn't interesting.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
The facts are not on your side. We are still talking about him seventeen years later.
I didn't find Sephiroth particularly compelling, even when the game first came out. Though I'll admit it wasn't the most compelling entry in the series for me generally. Unless you count 13 (which got all of 5 minutes of play from me), it's the only game in the series I played but didn't bother to finish.
I kind of liked Red's storyline at the time and Cid is more compelling in hindsight or maybe now just that I'm older. Some of the world was cool, but the cast in general just didn't catch for me.
One of the big problems is that the 3d-models and even cut-scenes of the time were just far too wooden for what they were trying to do. Despite shallow writing and a poor translation, I got more out of the death scene from Phantasy Star IV (on the Genesis/Megadrive!) because they respected their technological limits and set up more evocative shots and the characters faces could emote.
Spoiler warning for a... 21 year old game I guess?
Spoiler:
This was better in 8, and basically entirely fixed in 9.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
... if it's a generational thing, that would mean I'm tge older player, apparently, because I had been gaming for years when it was released, it wasn't really the first one to move me like that. That would be Lufia and the Fortress of Doom on SNES probably, but I don't even think that would be the fist.
I do not remember having been moved by video game ever, personally. Maybe I have, but it left me no memory. The only think I remember is Alien versus Predator 99 being the only game that actually scared me (when playing marine) and being extremely annoyed when finding out I would still play that damn stupid Arthas for a whole campaign and that he was back to a useless level 1 character in Warcraft III. Then again I never cared for Japanese RPG.
Melissia wrote: He was an interesting villain until I learned more details about him, at which point I just couldn't take him seriously :/
Maybe it's a generational thing.
FFVII is the first video game I ever played that really pulled me 'out of reality' into the setting and a big part of that was the strength of the characters.
Spoiler:
When Sephiroth stabbed Aeris, it was like he had just stabbed me.
Perhaps these characters are less compelling to younger players but I would argue it is because they have ascended to archetypal status. Younger players take them and their influence for granted. In a way, saying Sephiroth is not interesting is kind of like saying Achilles is not interesting.
... if it's a generational thing, that would mean I'm tge older player, apparently, because I had been gaming for years when it was released, it wasn't really the first one to move me like that. That would be Lufia and the Fortress of Doom on SNES probably, but I don't even think that would be the fist.
I do not remember having been moved by video game ever, personally. Maybe I have, but it left me no memory. The only think I remember is Alien versus Predator 99 being the only game that actually scared me (when playing marine) and being extremely annoyed when finding out I would still play that damn stupid Arthas for a whole campaign and that he was back to a useless level 1 character in Warcraft III.
Then again I never cared for Japanese RPG.
Except there was a reason for that. He is a death knight and learning new ways.
Though it would of been better to give him so boost like chaos damage.
Melissia wrote: ... I'm an older player than you, apparently
I'm surprised you would say that, I thought you knew how old I am. In any case, the "immersion moment" is different for each person. Some people my age hate FF7 because they feel it gets way too much credit compared to FF6. I think that also has to do with a reaction against 32-bit graphics at the time and the fact that 16-bit graphics are very much in style at the moment. It may not seem like much now but FF7's opening cinematic was a jaw-dropper in 1997, especially given the rich sound of Uematsu's score on the PS1. Looking back now, I can agree that FF6 is a better game. But being honest with myself, FF7 made a bigger impact because it was clearly more than "just a video game." I think playing FF7 in 1997 must have been something like what it felt to see Star Wars in 1977. People can say, Darth Vader is so boring. But it's only because Darth Vader has significantly influenced how we think of villains since. And Sephiroth has played the same role for JRPGs.
Asherian Command wrote: What is his reason for killing everyone? What is his end goal? Is the end goal a good thing or a bad thing?
There are answers to those questions. They are some of the reasons Sephiroth is so interesting. Sephiroth was not just a villain because the game needed a villain. If you think so, you need to review the plot.
Melissia wrote: ... I'm an older player than you, apparently
I'm surprised you would say that, I thought you knew how old I am. In any case, the "immersion moment" is different for each person. Some people my age hate FF7 because they feel it gets way too much credit compared to FF6. I think that also has to do with a reaction against 32-bit graphics at the time and the fact that 16-bit graphics are very much in style at the moment. It may not seem like much now but FF7's opening cinematic was a jaw-dropper in 1997, especially given the rich sound of Uematsu's score on the PS1. Looking back now, I can agree that FF6 is a better game. But being honest with myself, FF7 made a bigger impact because it was clearly more than "just a video game." I think playing FF7 in 1997 must have been something like what it felt to see Star Wars in 1977. People can say, Darth Vader is so boring. But it's only because Darth Vader has significantly influenced how we think of villains since. And Sephiroth has played the same role for JRPGs.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked FF7. But in terms of personal effect of an RPG series on me, the Lufia and Chrono series' were much more important.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeh, I remember really liking the end cinematic of the Human Campaign, where Arthas goes undead and murders his father.
It was chilling.
one of my fav clips from that game as well as final one in FT
FF6 is by far one of my favorite games. I frankly think it was the best of the series.
I never got into FF7. It's probably a mixture of my annoyance at the character Barret, the mandatory mini games, and the I was playing it on the extremely buggy pc version (the 'crucial' Aeris scene randomly inverted itself so it lost all impact).
Melissia wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked FF7. But in terms of personal effect of an RPG series on me, the Lufia and Chrono series' were much more important.
Sure, I am trying to point out that FF7 was not just a personally important game to me and many others but an important moment is video game history. For good and for ill:
Spoiler:
What does it mean that one of the most famous, shocking, emotionally impactful scenes in all video games is a woman being stabbed to death?
Melissia wrote: ... I'm an older player than you, apparently
I'm surprised you would say that, I thought you knew how old I am. In any case, the "immersion moment" is different for each person. Some people my age hate FF7 because they feel it gets way too much credit compared to FF6. I think that also has to do with a reaction against 32-bit graphics at the time and the fact that 16-bit graphics are very much in style at the moment. It may not seem like much now but FF7's opening cinematic was a jaw-dropper in 1997, especially given the rich sound of Uematsu's score on the PS1. Looking back now, I can agree that FF6 is a better game. But being honest with myself, FF7 made a bigger impact because it was clearly more than "just a video game." I think playing FF7 in 1997 must have been something like what it felt to see Star Wars in 1977. People can say, Darth Vader is so boring. But it's only because Darth Vader has significantly influenced how we think of villains since. And Sephiroth has played the same role for JRPGs.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked FF7. But in terms of personal effect of an RPG series on me, the Lufia and Chrono series' were much more important.
Lufia II is one of those games I think is way overlooked. Lufia 2 was the only game to actually get me tear up. Granted I wasn't even 12 years old, but still. Even though I knew what the ending was going in it just seemed so awesome but profoundly unfair when I actually played through it. It really hit me in a way relatively few things have. I still kinda get chills when I hear that music from the last scene under the Island of Doom.
Melissia wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked FF7. But in terms of personal effect of an RPG series on me, the Lufia and Chrono series' were much more important.
Sure, I am trying to point out that FF7 was not just a personally important game to me and many others but an important moment is video game history.
It was really only important in that everyone and their mother (plus squenix) seemed to try to emulate it afterwards, often to the detriment of their games and the industry as a whole. An "important thing" that really only hurts the industry isn't something I want to celebrate (see also: starcraft).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Lufia II is one of those games I think is way overlooked. Lufia 2 was the only game to actually get me tear up. Granted I wasn't even 12 years old, but still. Even though I knew what the ending was going in it just seemed so awesome but profoundly unfair when I actually played through it. It really hit me in a way relatively few things have. I still kinda get chills when I hear that music from the last scene under the Island of Doom.
Oh, definitely. It is onbe of the best games of its era. Lufia 1, as well-- that moment when you find out that Lufia is really Eris, one of the Sinistrals, trying to redeem herself after losing her memory... I don't know. I felt such a huge amount of empathy for her.
Melissia wrote: It was really only important in that everyone and their mother (plus squenix) seemed to try to emulate it afterwards, often to the detriment of their games and the industry as a whole. An "important thing" that really only hurts the industry isn't something I want to celebrate (see also: starcraft).
It's not really fair to blame a commercial success for spawning imitators, that's what commercial successes do. It popularized the JRPG in the west in a big way it hadn't before and kind pioneered pushing big production values even if the tech wasn't really up to it. It wasn't my favorite game either, but it's really not something to dismissed.
The effects were pretty far-reaching. In the long view if not for FF7 we probably wouldn't have gotten things like Persona 3/4, Front Mission 3/4 or even stuff like the latter Dragon Quest games over here.
I dislike blatant imitations and copies enough that it materially effects my opinion of the original at times. May not be rational, but it does feel like it devalues the entire subject.
Melissia wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked FF7. But in terms of personal effect of an RPG series on me, the Lufia and Chrono series' were much more important.
Sure, I am trying to point out that FF7 was not just a personally important game to me and many others but an important moment is video game history. For good and for ill:
Spoiler:
What does it mean that one of the most famous, shocking, emotionally impactful scenes in all video games is a woman being stabbed to death?
Probably because most of the other games did as well.
Thanks. FFIV and FFVI were so critical to me when I grew up. My experience with FF7 turned me away from the series. Not jus the tech issues, but the gameplay. The stupid mini games that If you were bad would punish you in game; the active party shrinking to three; the jerk protagonist (versus Cecil and Terra); and the character abilities felt less distinct. I'd watched my friends play later ones, but I could never get into them again after seven. It felt like a step down.
Melissa,
While Total Annihilation was good, why did you not like Starcraft? My major issue was that in the craft series attacks never missed. That is one of the reasons why I liked Command & Conquer better.
Thanks. FFIV and FFVI were so critical to me when I grew up. My experience with FF7 turned me away from the series. Not jus the tech issues, but the gameplay. The stupid mini games that If you were bad would punish you in game; the active party shrinking to three; the jerk protagonist (versus Cecil and Terra); and the character abilities felt less distinct. I'd watched my friends play later ones, but I could never get into them again after seven. It felt like a step down.
Melissa,
While Total Annihilation was good, why did you not like Starcraft? My major issue was that in the craft series attacks never missed. That is one of the reasons why I liked Command & Conquer better.
Warcraft 3 they had a miss system. You could avoid spells etc. Evasion was a thing.
I know what you mean. I was super excited to get FF8 but it totally disappointed me. In comparison to the cosmo-psychic epic of FF7, FF8 felt like a teenage soap opera. I did not play FF again until 12.
So were Tifa and Aeris in their own way, although it is a shame that they are often marginalized because they don't meet the current standard of 'empowered female character.' I fear that standard could eventually become as generic as the current White Male Protagonist as soon as publishers figure out the marketing dynamics.
AdeptSister wrote: Oh. Barret and Yuffie still anger me. That ninja needed to die after stealing my stuff.
Well it is possible to go through the game without recruiting Yuffie. Or going to Wutai. Though you miss out some good stuff if you don't visit.
And at least FF7 had a black person. Even if he was one of only around 4 or 5 in the whole FF7 world and was basically Mr T with a machine gun arm
I don't remember Mr. T constantly pounding on is chest like a Gorilla. If that is what the designer thought black people were like it would be have been better not to attempt it.
Manchu wrote: So were Tifa and Aeris in their own way, although it is a shame that they are often marginalized because they don't meet the current standard of 'empowered female character.' I fear that standard could eventually become as generic as the current White Male Protagonist as soon as publishers figure out the marketing dynamics.
Aeris was pretty empowered. So was Tifa in her own way. I mean Aeris goes off on her own to beat Sephiroth in her own way (and succeeds in what she was attempting to do) and Tifa takes control of the party during a section of disc 2 and is instrumental in Cloud bringing Cloud back to himself in the Lifestream.
Also Tifa breaks the whole "female characters are ranged/spellcasters" trope by being a straight up fist fighter, which is good.
Manchu wrote: FF8 felt like a teenage soap opera. I did not play FF again until 12.
I did but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. They seemed to do a good job of capturing the sense of alienation, problems with identity and irrational thought patterns teenagers have. Though maybe it was just because I was a teenager at the time.
It's kind of a shame to skip 9. 9 was probably one of the better entries in the series. Heck I think it was probably the best the series has even been in terms of visual style, tone and music. It competes with FF12 for the best world-building.
Gah. Now that you bring FF12. It frustrates me so. It did so much so very very well, and just a few things horribly that kind of held the whole thing back. Like (back to the original subject of thread), Fran is kind of a cool character with awesome voice, why-oh-why did she have to be a Lingerie-bunny girl with those weird feet built only to fit in heels? They're actually doing kind of this cool thing where Ashe is the main thrust of the story and the character we control is just kind of this 3rd-party observer of the whole thing, but again with the character designs grah.
We're gonna build this cool world, but leave parts of it really under explored. Why was there not more information on Venat and Cid, even in side-quests or supplemental material? Why do we just get this tiny taste of the infighting and politics with the judges and the empire and the would've been so arghhh!!!!!!
Manchu wrote: So were Tifa and Aeris in their own way, although it is a shame that they are often marginalized because they don't meet the current standard of 'empowered female character.' I fear that standard could eventually become as generic as the current White Male Protagonist as soon as publishers figure out the marketing dynamics.
Aeris was pretty empowered. So was Tifa in her own way. I mean Aeris goes off on her own to beat Sephiroth in her own way (and succeeds in what she was attempting to do) and Tifa takes control of the party during a section of disc 2 and is instrumental in Cloud bringing Cloud back to himself in the Lifestream.
Also Tifa breaks the whole "female characters are ranged/spellcasters" trope by being a straight up fist fighter, which is good.
And sad to say, Tifa's fight in Advent Children was the best one in the movie. I like overthetopness, but that movie had way too much Dynasty Warriors in it for its own good.
Granted, I'm not really sure I'd call Tifa the ideal of empowered. She spends a lot of that game with her story revolving around a man (cloud). Granted the predevelopment material for her was even worse (remember my complaints about secretaries?). I kind of see Tifa in the same terms as Lara Croft at this point. Important because she was appealing and cool in a time where female characters were even more limited than now, but she's not really the end goal I think anyone was looking for. Aries/Aerith (whatever the 'real' name is) I think set a more interesting standard. She was strong, her story wasn't strictly revolving around a man's in the same way as Tifa's, and unlike tomboy Tifa, Aries was very feminine. Tomboy Action girls are fairly common, but they always end up with a sort of 'less feminine' nature about them. Aries managed to be in the action, even at its heart, while not being a tomboy action girl.
I don't think Tifa really fits into a tomboy action girl trope. Yuffie fits more into that, what with her loud character, short hair etc.
Tifa is a compassionate, caring character. I'd argue that whilst her story is centred around Cloud, for a lot of that story she is actually protecting him, maybe not physically but mentally. She's the only person who actually knew Cloud before the start of the game and when it comes down to it, she'd the only one who could save him when he was in the Lifestream, at a time when he himself was helpless.
AdeptSister wrote: So how on the whole do we think FF has done with their Female characters? And what could other games learn from them?
I wish they would learn from American McGee's Alice, rather. Who does not like a psycho running at you with a huge knife and the clear intention to remove your head from your shoulders?
AdeptSister wrote: So how on the whole do we think FF has done with their Female characters? And what could other games learn from them?
They're all over the place on character design with both good and terrible examples, often in the same games.
They've done a good job with variety, you can't put them into any one box. Heck It's not even easy to definitively put any two in the same box. They've all got different roles to play and all are as fleshed out as their male counterparts in whatever game they're in. Women have been portrayed in leadership roles, with varying levels competence. Women have been protagonists and antagonists, likable, unlikable, experienced an inexperienced. None of them even Rinoa (who is literally an inanimate object for like 30% of the game), is strictly a love-interest, or player titillation and nothing else.
With the exception of 4 & 8, none of them are reduced to mere plot devices for any period of time.
FF has probably done more right than wrong on the whole, at least to compared to the average for video games. It's just when they do things wrong they do it so spectacularly wrong it makes my head spin. You know like making a character an inanimate object for a third of the game or Fran's character design.
Over the years, many have complained that Cloud does not deserve to be the main character of FF7. I would say that is probably the point of the character. Cloud is white and male and the central protagonist. But he's also seems to criticize the white male protagonist trope given he lacks confidence and conviction and is not 'the chosen one' or even a super soldier. He turns out to be a washed-out mook.
Manchu wrote: Over the years, many have complained that Cloud does not deserve to be the main character of FF7. I would say that is probably the point of the character. Cloud is white and male and the central protagonist. But he's also seems to criticize the white male protagonist trope given he lacks confidence and conviction and is 'the chosen one' or even a super soldier. He turns out to be a washed-out mook.
But then he shows that even washed out mooks can do amazing things when they are fighting for the right things
Tifa might not be as tomboyish as Yuffie, but she's definitely a tomboy (but then maybe that just gets to the point that the idea of a 'tomboy' is itself kind of sexist?)
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Bit of a difference between living a rich emotional life, and emoting like the common brick.
There's no reason why a character can't do both. Plenty of male characters do.
And they do, and thus pretty boring as well.
It might be because I haven't played the game fully (Chapter 10, disc broke but after playing it I couldn't care to buy another to finish it), but Lightning is just one of the poorer protagonists for a FF game to me, alongside Squall though he gained a personality later.
Doesn't help that Toriyama have this obsession with her, trying to get her into everything FF now and making her the "Face" of final fantasy.
Manchu wrote: Do you just mean she is not super girlie?
That's pretty much what a tomboy is. A girl who doesn't act like a girl (hence my pondering realization that the concept itself probably isn't the most unbiased around XD, cause yeah, never really thought about that one before )
If the phrase "act like a girl/boy" is itself sexist then I would say sexism isn't necessarily a bad thing because I don't think the concept of a gender norm is bad in and of itself. But if "act like a girl" can only mean being totally passive, delicate, vulnerable, etc., that strikes me as bad. And to me, it's not sexism unless it goes further than simply restating a gender norm. I realize there are plenty of people who would say that gender norms are all negative/hurtful/oppressive and therefore are the problem but I can't agree.
Manchu wrote: But if "act like a girl" can only mean being totally passive, delicate, vulnerable, etc., that strikes me as bad.
Yeah I think this is kind of what I'm getting at, but then now that I look back, I can't even remember the last time I actually used the phrase 'tomboy' in a conversation. It must be years now for me to have no clue.
It's generally something you hear about children so it may be a time of life thing. I have recently started hearing it again now that more of my friends have kids in the 5-10 year old range.
Manchu wrote: I think Lightning from FF13 is a great character. [Full stop.]
I thought she was, too (and I especially loved it when she punched Snow) until she started basically being the mother in the Oedipus complex of that STUPID WORTHLESS *bleep* *bleep*ING *bleep*ITY *bleep*bleep*ER HOPE, WHO I JUST WANTED TO STRANGLE WITH MY BARE HANDS FOR BEING THE MOST USELESS PIECE OF TRASH I'VE EVER SEEN* IN AN RPG.
... ahem. Until she started being a mother figure for THAT THING instead of smacking him upside the face.
*And I have played a LOT of RPGs
Manchu wrote: If the phrase "act like a girl/boy" is itself sexist then I would say sexism isn't necessarily a bad thing because I don't think the concept of a gender norm is bad in and of itself. But if "act like a girl" can only mean being totally passive, delicate, vulnerable, etc., that strikes me as bad. And to me, it's not sexism unless it goes further than simply restating a gender norm. I realize there are plenty of people who would say that gender norms are all negative/hurtful/oppressive and therefore are the problem but I can't agree.
IF the gender norm is sexist, trying to enforce it is also sexist. And a lot of gender norms ARE sexist-- for both men and women.
The above may be one of the most tolerant appraisals of Hope I've seen on the internet
And everyone hates Hope is really all I remember about that game XD. I found it so utterly forgettable I never finished it, and can't even remember what the character's were like, though... I remember Snow having really big feet.
LordofHats wrote: The above may be one of the most tolerant appraisals of Hope I've seen on the internet
And everyone hates Hope is really all I remember about that game XD. I found it so utterly forgettable I never finished it, and can't even remember what the character's were like, though... I remember Snow having really big feet.
Yeah. Final Fantasy 13 was the first Final Fantasy game my friend had ever played. So I leant him Final Fantasy VII. Took him a while to get the hang of it (he died like 10 times against the roboscorpion, literally the first boss ) but once he got going, he loved it.
Can remember I got a facebook message from him immediately after he'd finished disc one. He'd somehow managed to avoid all of the spoilers on the internet so his reaction to the in game events was the same as players from when it first came out.
Once he'd finished it I asked him which game he thought was better, 7 or 13. He agreed with me that 7 was the better game and that 13 suffered from corridor syndrome for a lot of it.
Snow was an eternal idiot who said things like "real heroes don't need plans!" right before getting his ass kicked.
Sounds like he just wasn't manly enough to be Kamina;
Nah, the only Final Fantasy I remember is VII. VIII, X, and XIII I played didn't like, never finished, and have apparently completely purged from mind.
JRP's just don't fit with me (except for Pokemon )
A Town Called Malus wrote: So I leant him Final Fantasy VII. Took him a while to get the hang of it (he died like 10 times against the roboscorpion, literally the first boss ) but once he got going, he loved it.
Yeah I played the others after XIII. Only JRPG I think I ever really enjoyed was Skies of Arcadia. I liked VII enough, but I can't really say playing it in 2013 really makes for an enjoyable experience. The times were not kind. I'm sure I'd be more found of it if I played it when it first came out.
He'd somehow managed to avoid all of the spoilers on the internet so his reaction to the in game events was the same as players from when it first came out.
That lucky bastard
I honestly thought the worst part of XIII was the combat system though. The characters were boring (evident that I remember none of them) but the combat system I do remember because I thought it was so atrociously boring.
Chongara wrote: I can't believe so many people in this thread actually got deep into 13. I lasted all of 5 or 10 minutes. I feel weak.
I am in that party as well. I have no idea what these people talk about. It just felt like an average Anime rip off to me. So I stopped playing and went on started playing WC3.
Chongara wrote: I can't believe so many people in this thread actually got deep into 13. I lasted all of 5 or 10 minutes. I feel weak.
I am in that party as well. I have no idea what these people talk about. It just felt like an average Anime rip off to me. So I stopped playing and went on started playing WC3.
Which show specifically? I wasn't really picking on any specific inspirations when I dropped it. For me it was having no idea what was going on with the combat system.
Chongara wrote: I can't believe so many people in this thread actually got deep into 13. I lasted all of 5 or 10 minutes. I feel weak.
I am in that party as well. I have no idea what these people talk about. It just felt like an average Anime rip off to me. So I stopped playing and went on started playing WC3.
Which show specifically? I wasn't really picking on any specific inspirations when I dropped it. For me it was having no idea what was going on with the combat system.
I don't it felt sort of similar. I couldn't put my finger onto it, but felt similar to an average anime where the main character is a female and leads a rag tag crew of peeps.
How did you manage to think you were the only one who hated FF13? Whenever the game is mentioned (as here) people come out of the woodwork just to mention how much they hate it.
Manchu wrote: How did you manage to think you were the only one who hated FF13? Whenever the game is mentioned (as here) people come out of the woodwork just to mention how much they hate it.
I don't know. Probably because among a few of my friends it was popular, and among my colleagues they said it was a fantastic game.
Anyway kind of notice we're getting really off topic here, for like six pages... maybe this needs a lock or a redirect back to the topic somehow? Id on't know...
Asherian Command wrote: Probably because among a few of my friends it was popular, and among my colleagues they said it was a fantastic game.
Strange that you have apparently never seen the game discussed online. Here on Dakka (but by no means only here) it is a go-to example of a terrible game, the words "hallway" and "corridor" being used almost every single time the game is mentioned. It is a pity the game gets such a bad rap because Lightning is an awesome character, although she does fall back on punching people way too often. Maybe it's because she kind of personifies a certain amount of fan frustration with the FF series to date.
Melissia wrote: Anyway kind of notice we're getting really off topic here, for like six pages... maybe this needs a lock or a redirect back to the topic somehow? Id on't know...
Well, the mods seem pretty okay with the off-topic. Since Machu has been greatly contributing to it, I mean .
Shhh. Don't say that. People might think you got the mod that lets you kill the children in Skyrim just so you could pile their corpses in the middle of Whiterun alongside all the Sweet Rolls you stole
Asherian Command wrote: Well are talking about misrepresentation of female characters in games, and final fantasy 13 is a great example of what not to do.
Great. Now if us non-JRPG players could have any information about what this is about, we would be able to take part on the conversation, maybe .
Asherian Command wrote: Well are talking about misrepresentation of female characters in games, and final fantasy 13 is a great example of what not to do.
Great. Now if us non-JRPG players could have any information about what this is about, we would be able to take part on the conversation, maybe .
Oversexualized characters that were extremely degrading to the entire female species.
Discussing the FF series is far from OT as it has contributed many interesting female characters. What makes characters, male or female, interesting is also not OT. I'll thank the lot of you to leave the moderation up to the moderators.
Asherian Command wrote: Well are talking about misrepresentation of female characters in games, and final fantasy 13 is a great example of what not to do.
Manchu wrote: Discussing the FF series is far from OT as it has contributed many interesting female characters. What makes characters, male or female, interesting is also not OT. I'll thank the lot of you to leave the moderation up to the moderators.
Asherian Command wrote: Well are talking about misrepresentation of female characters in games, and final fantasy 13 is a great example of what not to do.
What makes you say that?
Compare final fantasy 1-6 with all the female characters, and compare them to final 13.
Final 13 most of the characters mostly female all wear interesting clothing styles. Its more revealing and less useful to combat.
Asherian Command wrote: Oversexualized characters that were extremely degrading to the entire female species.
Which FF13 characters were oversexualized? What do you mean by "oversexualized"? What is the "female species"? What is your actual argument? (Please don't simply post a couple of pictures and assume your POV is obvious or that doing so proves your point.)
Asherian Command wrote: Oversexualized characters that were extremely degrading to the entire female species.
Which FF13 characters were oversexualized? What do you mean by "oversexualized"? What is the "female species"? What is your actual argument? (Please don't simply post a couple of pictures and assume your POV is obvious or that doing so proves your point.)
More of that the guys have more clothing than the girls do.
That is my argument. Basically I think they don't really condone what happens.
Their characteristics may be strong, but is there a reason for them to be cladded such?
Is there any reason for them to be dressed like that?
I mean if it makes sense.
IF they actually have a reason for it then, I will back off my argument.
Look at that pic of the cast from Final Fantasy XII. Now look at the one for XIII. Now back at XII. Back to XIII. XII again. Now look at me. Now look at Vaan and how whoever designed her character didn't put a bra on her
The character designs for 13 are pretty damn swell. Looking them over again, it's a wonderful little set of designs, not just because they look cool but because they look like things real human beings might actually wear. WTF is with Ashe's outfit up there, seriously XD It's like someone just drew up Fran and Ashe to show as much skin as possible and feth how ridiculous they look.
Asherian Command wrote: Final 13 most of the characters mostly female all wear interesting clothing styles. Its more revealing and less useful to combat.
FF-style clothing across the decades has never been ... realistically suited to combat. Or doing anything, for that matter. Like their hair, the clothing FF characters (male and female) wear is 100% about style. As to whether the FF13 ladies wear more revealing clothing -- do you mean because you can see more of the skin on their shoulders and arms? I guess I don't equate bare arms with sexualization.
I will say, however, that the female characters in FF13 tend to be more emotionally strong and confident than the male characters, who are more repressed and convoluted. Perhaps the visual design reflects this.
LordofHats wrote: Look at that pic of the cast from Final Fantasy XII. Now look at the one for XIII. Now back at XII. Back to XIII. XII again. Now look at me. Now look at Vaan and how whoever designed her character didn't put a bra on her
The character designs for 13 are pretty damn swell. Looking them over again, it's a wonderful little set of designs, not just because they look cool but because they look like things real human beings might actually wear. WTF is with Ashe's outfit up there, seriously XD It's like someone just drew up Fran and Ashe to show as much skin as possible and feth how ridiculous they look.
FF-style clothing across the decades has never been ... realistically suited to combat. Or doing anything, for that matter. Like their hair, the clothing FF characters (male and female) wear is 100% about style. As to whether the FF13 ladies wear more revealing clothing -- do you mean because you can see more of the skin on their shoulders and arms? I guess I don't equate bare arms with sexualization.
I will say, however, that the female characters in FF13 tend to be more emotionally strong and confident than the male characters, who are more repressed and convoluted. Perhaps the visual design reflects this.
I agree with all these statements. I will back off the argument though. I was just raising this argument.
I don't actually believe in that argument at all. (So no one else will EVER Can use that argument)
LordofHats wrote: Look at that pic of the cast from Final Fantasy XII. Now look at the one for XIII. Now back at XII. Back to XIII. XII again. Now look at me. Now look at Vaan and how whoever designed her character didn't put a bra on her
With the FF series, we can actually talk about what characters think, say, and do rather than just how they dress.
Lightning for example built a new identity when her parents died, naming herself Lightning. She is more complex than just her sisters guardian. She recognizes that lightning cannot protect but can only destroy. She also says that lightning burns bright but fades fast. I mean, just in those few lines of thoughtful, reflective monologue we get a lot of complex characterization.
Manchu wrote: With the FF series, we can actually talk about what characters think, say, and do rather than just how they dress.
Lightning for example built a new identity when her parents died, naming herself Lightning. She is more complex than just her sisters guardian. She recognizes that lightning cannot protect but can only destroy. She also says that lightning burns bright but fades fast. I mean, just in those few lines of thoughtful, reflective monologue we get a lot of complex characterization.
Well the main bit I think is that a character can still be complex. No matter what they are wearing. They can be scantly cl added, but that does not destroy the message for the character or make the character worse.
Its just clothing.
See I believe that you can dress anyone. Any bloody way,and you could still pull of a fantastic character. Because clothing does not make the character.
Clothing is a big part of character design, especially in games where the character's appearance does not change very much throughout (as in the FF series, where getting new kinds of armor doesn't affect what the character looks like). But it is not solely determinative and I think it matters less to the extent that there is more characterization in terms of story and dialogue.
LordofHats wrote: Look at that pic of the cast from Final Fantasy XII. Now look at the one for XIII. Now back at XII. Back to XIII. XII again. Now look at me. Now look at Vaan and how whoever designed her character didn't put a bra on her
Vaan is a dude...
If you say so
I'm joking obviously. I remember when that game was coming out and I saw Vaan, Ashe, and Fran and was just like "omg they look so ridiculous." I've liked the art work for the final fantasy series a lot (I had one of the old art books). X had some wonderfully amazing character designs, but XII was just wtf. Only character I really liked the look of in XII is Penelo.
With the FF series, we can actually talk about what characters think, say, and do rather than just how they dress.
Asherian Command wrote: [Well the main bit I think is that a character can still be complex. No matter what they are wearing. They can be scantly cl added, but that does not destroy the message for the character or make the character worse.
Its just clothing.
See I believe that you can dress anyone. Any bloody way,and you could still pull of a fantastic character. Because clothing does not make the character.
So, are you saying that these characters do not choose the way they are dressing, or that their choice of clothing is not giving ideas about their personality? For instance, representing a tender and compassionate character in some nazi-like uniform would not shock you as a bad design decision (unless it is actually a plot device)?
Manchu wrote: Clothing is a big part of character design, especially in games where the character's appearance does not change very much throughout (as in the FF series, where getting new kinds of armor doesn't affect what the character looks like). But it is not solely determinative and I think it matters less to the extent that there is more characterization in terms of story and dialogue.
Well I think actions, make the character.
Not the clothing.
A simple reaction or emotion determine and make the character.
In animation we learned that the design really doesn't matter, you can make it a freaking lamp
That is a character. That has personality and emotion.
Asherian Command wrote: [Well the main bit I think is that a character can still be complex. No matter what they are wearing. They can be scantly cl added, but that does not destroy the message for the character or make the character worse.
Its just clothing.
See I believe that you can dress anyone. Any bloody way,and you could still pull of a fantastic character. Because clothing does not make the character.
So, are you saying that these characters do not choose the way they are dressing, or that their choice of clothing is not giving ideas about their personality? For instance, representing a tender and compassionate character in some nazi-like uniform would not shock you as a bad design decision (unless it is actually a plot device)?
Sometimes it could be, but sometimes it could be the time and place, it shows us what the world is like.
It could show it, but very few games ever go that route. Some do, but they are usually done for very good reasons.
As an example Spec Ops: The Line. It tells us a story. It gives us insight into the character, and possibly a look at the character himself. See how he degrades?
Throughout the game his choice of clothing and how his gear slowly degrades and become more damaged, might be an insight into his degrading personality and mind.
That he is one step closer to the brink of destruction.
It is the goal of the designer to use all the tools available to them to tell a story.
That is the first thing we learn in animation, and in Story-line structuring.
It sounds like you are arguing against yourself. I wonder if you believe either line of reasoning or if you are just baiting the thread as you were about clothing in FF13.
! There are many way to build up your character, and some of them include turning Elodie into a damn killing machine capable of bludgeoning to death anyone in a duel. But, spoiler, that might not help you much if you do not have other skills at your disposal 
.
.
