Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I wonder how Black Window would be perceived if she had half as much sex with half as many partners as James Bond…
Now you are getting into some interesting territory and this kind of double-standard is exactly why I think we should keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with being sexy for men or women. Sometimes, the response to feminist critiques is wanting to throw blankets over women to "protect" them from sexism when that itself is just more sexism. It is okay for women to be sexy. It is not okay for women to be treated or depicted as objects or dehumanized (called sluts or skanks) because they are sexy.
Yes. Yes, I am saying strength is not inherently sexual. Why, does that surprise you?
Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling, were evolved apes, there is a perfectly logical and natural reason for this, and there is no reason we have to feel guilty about it either.
Yes. Yes, I am saying strength is not inherently sexual. Why, does that surprise you?
Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling, were evolved apes, there is a perfectly logical and natural reason for this, and there is no reason we have to feel guilty about it either.
Yes. Yes, I am saying strength is not inherently sexual. Why, does that surprise you?
Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling, were evolved apes, there is a perfectly logical and natural reason for this, and there is no reason we have to feel guilty about it either.
That said, valuing strength over virtue, justice, and so on can easily lead to some very, very bad decisions and objectionable things in a story that give a lot of unfortunate implications which aren't always really based in fact. And a lot of media seems to do this.
Yes. Yes, I am saying strength is not inherently sexual. Why, does that surprise you?
Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling, were evolved apes, there is a perfectly logical and natural reason for this, and there is no reason we have to feel guilty about it either.
For what it's worth, a lot of straight woman and gay men I know definitely go for the slim pretty-boy look. Almost all of them, now that I think of it. I can only think of one person I've met that I'm aware actively prefers big/strong to slim/toned.
Yes. Yes, I am saying strength is not inherently sexual. Why, does that surprise you?
Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling, were evolved apes, there is a perfectly logical and natural reason for this, and there is no reason we have to feel guilty about it either.
For what it's worth, a lot of straight woman and gay men I know definitely go for the slim pretty-boy look. Almost all of them, now that I think of it. I can only think of one person I've met that I'm aware actively prefers big/strong to slim/toned.
Oh yeah, too big is definitely not preferable, probably for the same reason, I suppose the ape in us thinks that anything too large (say like Arnold) looks a little freakish and wouldnt be able to run down a deer or escape from a predator. I suppose that explains the common aversion to the obese as well. But "slim pretty boy" is also "pretty" so thats hardly an argument against is it? Plus, slim is not skinny. Slim is healthy, too skinny, is too skinny.
And I said Mens Health because generally they look actually healthy, not stupidly muscular. Someone like Cristiano Ronaldo or Beckham for example, really are "slim and pretty" they arent fething beasts.
Melissia wrote: That said, valuing strength over virtue, justice, and so on can easily lead to some very, very bad decisions and objectionable things in a story that give a lot of unfortunate implications which aren't always really based in fact. And a lot of media seems to do this
Absolutely, but that's precisely because we ARE stupid chimps. We always judge people by how they look, even though we know its preposterous and the most evil person ever can have a pretty face. Or as Frodo put it, "I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler."
Chongara wrote: For what it's worth, a lot of straight woman and gay men I know definitely go for the slim pretty-boy look.
Also FWIW my argument was that big muscles on a male character generates sex appeal for a straight male target demographic.
Well, I was more addressing the specific comment I was quoting than anything it was referencing from earlier up-thread. I'd probably tend to agree with this statement depending on how we define "sex appeal". Honestly though I'd be willing to bet we're not quite working from the same definition, as I think our views on how to frame all this are a fair bit different.
That said, I'm not sure that analyzing how straight men perceive and relate to depictions of other straight men as a matter of their sexuality is the best thing to focus on in a thread about the perceptions of women.
Yeah. And it is okay for men too. But just like you would not do it all the time for men, you should not do it all the time with women. I think basically, if you are not discriminating on gender, it means somehow you are doing better than if you were.
mattyrm wrote: Come on man, the bloke on the cover of Mens Health appeals to the vast majority of gay men/straight women more than some 90lb weakling
Yes. And still, it is George Clooney rather than Arnold Schwarzenneger who is considered one of the sexiest men. And then, actual weight-lifter like this:
Sexy? Who are you kidding?
It is rather a question of being fit than being strong.
Chongara wrote: For what it's worth, a lot of straight woman and gay men I know definitely go for the slim pretty-boy look. Almost all of them, now that I think of it.
My Iranian friend told me they have an expression with her sister for very muscled men that translate roughly to vase. And they do not like that. They find that they look ridiculous. I remember her commenting that way about some guy at the pool .
Really, I think the idea that male super hero are sexualized because they are strong is just based on a misconception from men what their power fantasy is what women find attractive. It is not.
Chongara wrote: For what it's worth, a lot of straight woman and gay men I know definitely go for the slim pretty-boy look.
Also FWIW my argument was that big muscles on a male character generates sex appeal for a straight male target demographic.
Well, I was more addressing the specific comment I was quoting than anything it was referencing from earlier up-thread. I'd probably tend to agree with this statement depending on how we define "sex appeal". Honestly though I'd be willing to bet we're not quite working from the same definition, as I think our views on how to frame all this are a fair bit different.
That said, I'm not sure that analyzing how straight men perceive and relate to depictions of other straight men as a matter of their sexuality is the best thing to focus on in a thread about the perceptions of women.
I think its very relevant really, I think that as always we wind up casting people into certain bands or parties for ease of debate but its a very complex question because ultimately everyone is different and has wildly differing tastes. Its relevant because some men like playing as ridiculous big ass ultra-men and some like playing as very normal looking guys, its all shapes and sizes and colors, so why not the same with how women are represented?
Some men like women in their games to look very regular and plain like the OC in Space Marine, others like highly sexualized, kinky looking ones. There is no easy answer to the question because we all have very different tastes.
Some women like playing as super sexy women, some like playing as men, some like playing as creatures, the members of my wow guild attest to that. Lots of the women like playing as sexy Night-Elves though, its escapism after all.
So I suppose its all down to personal preference. Personally I think I prefer playing as men, but have little issue with playing as a woman as long as it isn't over the top kinky. I suppose its because that's the way I've always been, In Iraq two Page 3 girls visited the camp and I ran off to the gym and managed to completely avoid them, I didn't like seeing pretty women 4 months into a tour, especially when all I will get is a peck on the cheek. The same went for Christmas decorations, I always liked the complete isolation method of dealing with a tour of duty, each to their own.
Basically what I'm saying is that I don't like seeing it because I dont want to start thinking about sex unless I am going to be having sex. My wife says I'm very stereotypical British because she has to pester me about it..... I never would have saw that coming when I was 18
I take it as a compliment. I don't like to see tits and ass when I'm trying to solve puzzles, so I prefer women to look like normal everyday women, and I like Victoria Miniatures female guard much more than many of the slutty models with no clothes on for the same reason, but I suppose I can conceive why people of both genders feel differently.
Yes. And still, it is George Clooney rather than Arnold Schwarzenneger who is considered one of the sexiest men.
Of course, I agree, but you didn't say that, you said "strength is not inherently attractive" and it is. George Clooney doesn't look weak.
I specifically picked Mens Health because they are almost always below 200lbs, not Arnold or Lou Ferigno or some hulking 320lb muscle head for that reason, you want a weight lifting magazine for that kind of thing. People like lithe and toned and strong because it harks back to when we had to run away from wolves regularly.. Massive and muscular is about the same as obese and fat it seems, both are rarely considered attractive. I never, and wouldn't, say that women like massive muscly blokes, because they don't.
They DO like strong though. Show any straight woman or gay man Brad Pitt with his shirt off in fight club and they almost always go "phwoar!" he doesn't look "weak" does he? He looks strong and fit, just not stupidly massive like a bodybuilder.
And that is pretty much the generic desirable male for most people, slim and lithe, but definitely strong, and sensibly sized.
- Write message
- Get into a Strife game
- Post message
- Read thread
Damn! Message completely out of date!
mattyrm wrote: Of course, I agree, but you didn't say that, you said "strength is not inherently attractive" and it is.
Well, being fit is inherently attractive, that I can support. But saying that Hulk is sexualized because he looks strong, that is not something I would agree with, and from what you wrote, I think you agree with that. Remember, I was writing this in a context. And I wrote taht strength is not inherently sexual .
Manchu wrote: Also FWIW my argument was that big muscles on a male character generates sex appeal for a straight male target demographic.
I am not very sure what you mean by sex appeal, given that by definition this demographic is not sexually attracted to male characters. They do like them as a power fantasy, and because they do like them, they tend to assume women would like them to. That is about it.
Chongara wrote: I'm not sure that analyzing how straight men perceive and relate to depictions of other straight men as a matter of their sexuality is the best thing to focus on in a thread about the perceptions of women.
It's not that I want to focus on it. I've had to go through this hullabaloo to demonstrate a point about sexualization.
To summarize, using sexualization as a synonym for dehumanization or objectification can and does result in confusing sexiness/sex appeal/sexual attractiveness (whatever those terms might mean) with sexism/marginalization. A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Furthermore, grounding sexualization in an uncritical concept like "sexual attractiveness" ignores that the concept hinges on intersubjectivity. That a given person does not find the Hulk sexually attractive in the sense of having sexual fantasies about the Hulk does not mean the Hulk is not sexualized. Once we can admit that both characters are indeed sexualized, we can continue with a more informed investigation of how their sexualization differs and why.
Chongara wrote: I'm not sure that analyzing how straight men perceive and relate to depictions of other straight men as a matter of their sexuality is the best thing to focus on in a thread about the perceptions of women.
It's not that I want to focus on it. I've had to go through this hullabaloo to demonstrate a point about sexualization.
To summarize, using sexualization as a synonym for dehumanization or objectification can and does result in confusing sexiness/sex appeal/sexual attractiveness (whatever those terms might mean) with sexism/marginalization. A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Furthermore, grounding sexualization in an uncritical concept like "sexual attractiveness" ignores that the concept hinges on intersubjectivity. That a given person does not find the Hulk sexually attractive in the sense of having sexual fantasies about the Hulk does not mean the Hulk is not sexualized. Once we can admit that both characters are indeed sexualized, we can continue with a more informed investigation of how their sexualization differs and why.
Thing is, I've never really seen the word "Sexualization" used as you're using it here. The dictionary definitions available are nebulous at best and the only definition cited so far: from Hybrid's wikipedia link, certainly isn't in-line with the way you're using. The definitions I've seen are usually much closer to the one hybrid cited, if not so inherently negative. It's very hard to get on board with your terminology because I suspect it's not how most of us have learned to use the language.
I mean I think I can kind of digest your points here, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. However, I can't be certain I'm reading you correctly because you're using these terms so differently than I'm used to. If accept your premise I (and I suspect others), won't be able to continue the discussion effectively because I won't have the proper reference points.
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, grounding sexualization in an uncritical concept like "sexual attractiveness" ignores that the concept hinges on intersubjectivity. That a given person does not find the Hulk sexually attractive in the sense of having sexual fantasies about the Hulk does not mean the Hulk is not sexualized. Once we can admit that both characters are indeed sexualized, we can continue with a more informed investigation of how their sexualization differs and why.
But the Hulk is not sexualized. On the other hand, androgynous characters can be sexualized, and sometime are sexualized (many examples in manga). At least with the usual definition. If you want to use an alternate definition, please just define a new word. Call it sexualized2, or revisilatation, or anything else that will avoid confusion with the pre-existing definition, so we can have a chance to understand you.
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
nomotog wrote: I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
It's also a case of a character just not meshing with their visual design. If you're character is in an outfit held together by wishful thinking, it gets really awkward when she gets upset about people noticing. It's a pretty sure sign "this character was designed to give you a boner and nothing else about her is going to matter in this story." EDIT: And oh god does this get cliche really fast in anime and manga.
And yes, Bayonetta was a great break from this. I think one of our own posters once said in another thread on this subject something like "Yeah she wants it, but you're sure as hell not good enough to give it to her" and that just seems so accurate now that I've played the game.
nomotog wrote: I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
It's also a case of a character just not meshing with their visual design. If you're character is in an outfit held together by wishful thinking, it gets really awkward when she gets upset about people noticing. It's a pretty sure sign "this character was designed to give you a boner and nothing else about her is going to matter in this story." EDIT: And oh god does this get cliche really fast in anime and manga.
And yes, Bayonetta was a great break from this. I think one of our own posters once said in another thread on this subject something like "Yeah she wants it, but you're sure as hell not good enough to give it to her" and that just seems so accurate now that I've played the game.
The social phenomenon we are talking about are very well entrenched in our culture but talking about them critically is relatively novel. The terminology is understandably clumsy, not least of all because it is so burdened by the near invisible bonds of ideology. A concept like "sexual attractiveness" is bound up with a specific point of view. One thing we are beginning to understand is that we cannot take a given point of view for granted and measure everything else by it.
But there is wide consensus in our culture that adults are the proper subjects of sexual behavior. And sexually speaking, adults differ from children in terms of the development of secondary sexual characteristics. Unsurprisingly, contemplation of these characteristics is a prominent aspect of appraising sexual appeal. Analyzing the way they are depicted, especially in the absence of non-visual elements of characterization, is therefore clearly a useful basis for discussing _____.
I would put the term "sexualization" in that blank space. But others would object because "sexualization" can only signify something inherently negative. If you agree with that perspective, I welcome any suggestions for an alternative term. As I have already explained, I picked the term "sexualization" precisely to rehabilitate it -- to liberate it from the kind of sex-negative usage that you claim is the standard.
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
Seriously that's weird mate.
I mentioned the V-W dichotomy in my PM to you, this is probably as good an example of the weird effects it has on media as I can get without putting forth any effort of my own (which, I think you'll agree, is a preferable situation for me )
Melissia wrote: I mentioned the V-W dichotomy in my PM to you, this is probably as good an example of the weird effects it has on media as I can get without putting forth any effort of my own (which, I think you'll agree, is a preferable situation for me )
Oh I understand the concept, I'm just saying I personally think its weird because I don't play games in any way, shape, or form to get aroused, so I'm not really bothered about the women present looking very sexy, let alone actually adding the whole aggressive flirtation or sexual arousal deal into the game, it just.. doesn't really concern me. I mean, admittedly I did get pretty in to Mass Effect, but the whole romance thing was about 1% of it, I spent waaaay more time chasing the fething resources around the galaxy with that cool yet somewhat annoying blippy scanner mini-game (I forget which ME game that was) than I did chatting to the women. In fact, I used to skip the chatter and keep tapping the mouse to flick through it all.
mattyrm wrote: So I suppose its all down to personal preference. Personally I think I prefer playing as men, but have little issue with playing as a woman as long as it isn't over the top kinky. I suppose its because that's the way I've always been, In Iraq two Page 3 girls visited the camp and I ran off to the gym and managed to completely avoid them, I didn't like seeing pretty women 4 months into a tour, especially when all I will get is a peck on the cheek. The same went for Christmas decorations, I always liked the complete isolation method of dealing with a tour of duty, each to their own.
You got Page 3 girls? The carrier got Ben Affleck. Nice guy, fun to smoke with, interested as hell in everything, but I'd still have opted for Page 3 girls.
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
Oddly, apart from outliers like Kinzie from Saints Row (where her sexuality is played for laughs a bit), the only real example of a female video game character who enjoys sex that I can think of is Morinth from Mass Effect 2, and in her case her enjoyment of sex meant that she was a villain. Part of this might be because I generally enjoy more lighthearted games more than super serious games, but still, I'm surprised that I really can't think of any.
A virgin is good, loved, and pure, a whore is evil, hated, and impure, and each woman must be classified as one or the other.
As a result of this viewpoint being quite widespread, the view by many devs appears to be female character must be sexy, but not like sex, because then the assertion is that the player wouldn't like her because she'd be W of the V-W dichotomy.
Manchu wrote: A more nuanced understanding of sexualization is necessary to avoid the endless red herring arguments about high heel height, bra size, and square inches of bare skin as well as the overarching "sexy must be bad" conclusion. The "throw a blanket over her" solution (so-called), whether deployed sincerely or in bad faith, is not only sex-negative but also downright sexist.
Has anyone here actually argued that “sexy must be bad”?
I was about ready to talk about how I kind of want to see more sexy characters that are actually sexual creatures. As in they like sex. You really don't see that. Games have a lot of titillation and characters who look sexy, but not many characters who like sex. It's often the trope that a character dresses very sexy well being almost violently opposed to actually having sex. (Actually movie bob had a little video where he talked about bayonetta being one of the few female characters that wants sex.)
Oddly, apart from outliers like Kinzie from Saints Row (where her sexuality is played for laughs a bit), the only real example of a female video game character who enjoys sex that I can think of is Morinth from Mass Effect 2, and in her case her enjoyment of sex meant that she was a villain. Part of this might be because I generally enjoy more lighthearted games more than super serious games, but still, I'm surprised that I really can't think of any.
Isabella from the Dragon Age series comes to mind. She is very...adventurous when it comes to that sort of thing. She is also not a villain.
Yup. Female characters who enjoy sex usually are villains in games. It's annoying and reminds me back to the days when movies used sexual "deviancy" as a shorthand for "this guy is a bad guy."
It's also called the Madonna-Whore Complex. Not Madonna the singer, Madonna as in the virgin Mary. It's also closely tied to (and probably is in a circular feeding cycle with) Sensible Heroes, Skimpy Villains which just makes it more problematic because the underlying connotation is that only evil women like sex.
Isabella from the Dragon Age series comes to mind.
She is very...adventurous when it comes to that sort of thing.
She is also not a villain.
Yeah, but at least up till the end of act 2, she sure doesn't give a damn that her actions are really really screwing people, and;
Spoiler:
If she comes back, it's because Hawk convinces her too, not because she decided to stop being a less than good person of her own volition
EDIT: Spoiler tag failure.
Granted in DA:O Morrigan isn't exactly a prude, and she's by far the darkest of the protagonists in the game, a role Isabella shares in the sequel until the big you know what moment and we all look at that one character with a "wtf did you just do?!" face. The connotation remains that 'bad girls' like sex, and good girls are chaste/modest.
You seem to be completely missing the point. Melissia did not mean she will consider a woman as one or the other, just that a woman will be considered one or the other. Not by her, by society in general. And that it is not a good thing.
Sigvatr wrote: In DA:O, Morrigan is the easiest hit to land by a long shot, if you catch my drift
But thus my point Compare her to Leliana, the sort of not exactly a nun character, Alistair, and even Zevran who himself isn't exactly a light sided character and you kind of see what I'm getting at. Granted, I love Morrigan's character. By far I liked her the most of the DA:O cast in part because she's darker and edgier (also, Leliana's voice actress suuuuucks) and her morals and personality just set her apart from the standard protagonist line up.
The same thing happens in ME2, where the most sexually open women are Jack and Morinth, and Morinth just runs off Death by Snoo Snoo. And then there's Jack, whose a complete emotional and mental roller coaster throwing in the stereotype that girls with rotten childhoods become sluts on top of the cake XD
Though now that I think about it, Tali probably stands out in ME2 as a complete subversion of the complex. She's portrayed as a fairly modest and positive young woman, but once the relationship kicks off she certainly wants to have sex (something that for her is risking death no less).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: I reject your false dichotomy as it's inherently nonsense.
Good. The Madonna-Whore complex is a false dichotomy and should be rejected
sirlynchmob wrote: [Well if each woman MUST be one or the other, I guess that says a lot about you.
Only the sith deal in absolutes.
I reject your false dichotomy as it's inherently nonsense.
You seem to be completely missing the point. Melissia did not mean she will consider a woman as one or the other, just that a woman will be considered one or the other. Not by her, by society in general. And that it is not a good thing.
She brought it up, she stated they must be one or the other, so it is being done by her.
It's not a good thing. and society isn't doing it, Freud said "some" men do, some men is a small percentage of men, not all society.
but if society is doing it as well and 1/2 of society is made up of women, then women are doing it. feminist make up a part of society, so they are doing it as well. It's what you and mel are claiming.
Do you actually think Melissia operates under that idea or you intentionally being incredibly obtuse and ignorant?
I have to say I just find the interspecies romance thing downright bizarre, especially in cases where the biology is so different. Like here's a freaky bird-guy with bodily fluids that'll kill you. Gotta tap that ass. Whatever.
So long as we're listing examples here If I'm recalling correctly, Xenogears goes so far as to have a character point out that having sex is part of what makes her human.. though I played that game a long time ago. They definitely do it though.
At end of some of the romance paths in Persona 3/4, it's heavily implied some of the female characters are seeking to have sex with the protagonist. Though given the games are about high school kids, it's never out and stated explicitly.
I've seen a few games touch on women having sex without being cast as morally dubious indirectly. Theres a minor plot point in FF6 where two minor NPCs are in love and the girl winds up Teen Pregnant. Like they don't have sex on screen and the character is too minor to voice views on sex. However they make it clear it's something they mutually go after, and ultimately things work out OK for her - healthy baby and she lives to see the world get un-apocalypsed.
I'm straining to think of others, a couple examples come to mind for married characters but that doesn't really count.
EDIT: I just wanna say that this thread is the first to have made me use the forums ignore feature ever. Twice even.
Maybe you guys should quit coming to her rescue and let her clarify her point
I think she'd give me an ear full for trying, and honestly, you missed the point by such a wide margin I'm not sure why she'd bother clarifying it I'm just wondering if you'll even notice by how much you missed
Come on, MrDwhitey. Remember Rule #1. We all think his whole reasoning make no sense whatsoever, but we should say it in a respectful and friendly manner.
That cute princess damsel seems in distress from people mocking her online. Quick, get me my white horse and my white armor, so I can slay that hat-wearing, misocanine troll!
I find it depressing that someone thinks I brought up the V-W dichotomy because I believed in it, rather than me using it as 1: an education tool, and 2: naming the idea in order to criticize it.
I brought it up because it effects how some (or even many) game developers view their characters. Common sense says that it should go without saying that I oppose the dichotomy.
And I do. I think that this is a horrible thing, which encourages violence and hate towards women who do not fit perfectly in to the Madonna/Virgin part of the dichotomy.
Melissia wrote: I agree. If you're in to casual sex, that's cool as long as you do it safely and make sure you are careful with consent.
Yeah, my opinion too. To go back to the topic (I would hate to see this thread closed), it is also true that the frame of many game is just not appropriate to include sexual relationship anyway. Many game do not even really have stories to speak of (I am thinking about fighting games or MOBA, for instance). And really, in most title I play, I do not miss them.
Melissia wrote: I agree. If you're in to casual sex, that's cool as long as you do it safely and make sure you are careful with consent.
Yeah, my opinion too. To go back to the topic (I would hate to see this thread closed), it is also true that the frame of many game is just not appropriate to include sexual relationship anyway. Many game do not even really have stories to speak of (I am thinking about fighting games or MOBA, for instance). And really, in most title I play, I do not miss them.
The topic of how do you fit sex in or if you should is kind of a wide reaching one I guess. Often I hear you just can't include it. Sex doesn't fit in this style of game or in this setting or in this story and a fair amount of the time they are right. You can't fit it in a MOBA for example. Kind of the ugly side to it is titillation always seems to fit. You have the mounds of skimpy outfits in MOBAs for example. You end up with lots of titlation, but not much behind it and that loops it back to what I said before.
The you can fit in sex touches on other things too. Like I have been told you can't include gay characters in games because you can't include sex, or you can't include transgender characters because you can't include sex(or nudity). I don't really buy these arguments myself, but I hear them a lot.
The you can fit in sex touches on other things too. Like I have been told you can't include gay characters in games because you can't include sex, or you can't include transgender characters because you can't include sex(or nudity). I don't really buy these arguments myself, but I hear them a lot.
Those sound more like excuses for bad/lazy character writing than anything else.
The you can fit in sex touches on other things too. Like I have been told you can't include gay characters in games because you can't include sex, or you can't include transgender characters because you can't include sex(or nudity). I don't really buy these arguments myself, but I hear them a lot.
Those sound more like excuses for bad/lazy character writing than anything else.
Yep, but I am also a bad/lazy writer so I can't really think up any good counter arguments. There is that question of how do you inform your audience that a character is such and such. I don't really have good answers to that. I just have odd ideas.
I am playing valkyria chronicles and they have a neat thing were what gender a character is into is actually a gameplay mechanic. You can find a unit who fancies men or fancies women well also being a man or woman themselves. (There is even one unit that fancies both.) There is some ambiguity with this it's not 100% clear what this trait means exactly weather romantic or simply buddy buddy.
nomotog wrote: Kind of the ugly side to it is titillation always seems to fit. You have the mounds of skimpy outfits in MOBAs for example.
For me this is more of a lazy/bad character design thing. That and/or the character designer have issue on how he/she view women in real life. There are plenty of possible awesome design that do not need, and would not work well, with skimpy outfits. For instance, I really like the “evil faerie queen” concept of Malady from Strife, and it does not work with skimpy outfits.
Spoiler:
Seriously, got to love that feel of total superiority that exudes from her!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: Like I have been told you can't include gay characters in games because you can't include sex
If (genereic) you cannot show or imply a romantic relationship without including sex, I am going to question your writing abilities . I mean, even for a MOBA: throw in some man in a refrigerator (and tons of bios from MOBA include refrigerating someone) and bang, you are done, without even giving the love interest any characterization whatsoever, and without having to deal with it ever again .
I find it depressing that someone thinks I brought up the V-W dichotomy because I believed in it, rather than me using it as 1: an education tool, and 2: naming the idea in order to criticize it.
I brought it up because it effects how some (or even many) game developers view their characters. Common sense says that it should go without saying that I oppose the dichotomy.
And I do. I think that this is a horrible thing, which encourages violence and hate towards women who do not fit perfectly in to the Madonna/Virgin part of the dichotomy.
Yeah I'm always up for a robust debate, but there is some really needless pedantry going on here. I'm pretty sure everyone does actually understand what you mean.
Personally I think its less of an important issue than you do, and I honestly don't think it encourages much violence and hate towards women in real measurable terms, because I don't think almost anything illegal or morally repugnant laid at the door of "video gaming" actually does 90% of the harm that the fething wishy washy constantly offended politically correct self loathing arbiters of society (and the media) says it does, but I fully understand what you mean.
I find it depressing that someone thinks I brought up the V-W dichotomy because I believed in it, rather than me using it as 1: an education tool, and 2: naming the idea in order to criticize it.
I brought it up because it effects how some (or even many) game developers view their characters. Common sense says that it should go without saying that I oppose the dichotomy.
And I do. I think that this is a horrible thing, which encourages violence and hate towards women who do not fit perfectly in to the Madonna/Virgin part of the dichotomy.
Yeah I'm always up for a robust debate, but there is some really needless pedantry going on here. I'm pretty sure everyone does actually understand what you mean.
Personally I think its less of an important issue than you do, and I honestly don't think it encourages much violence and hate towards women in real measurable terms, because I don't think almost anything illegal or morally repugnant laid at the door of "video gaming" actually does 90% of the harm that the fething wishy washy constantly offended politically correct self loathing arbiters of society (and the media) says it does, but I fully understand what you mean.
I think the major issue though is that if woman complain about certain 'representation' of woman in games. Such as in Red Dead Redempetion. You know a game set in the old west. Where not many women were either cow girls, or you know.. Independent. If you see a whore in a game, its a whore. If a woman is beat up, that is showing domestic violence, which is a very serious issue. If you think that the game designers are purposefully putting it into their game to depict women as stupid or evil. I suggest you walk out the door, because you don't know how many artists are women.
It is stupid to think well there are many. No there aren't. Very few times has there been historical women who have raised a sword or a gun. Those that have are far in between.
There are some major Women, but lets face it there aren't that many examples of women through history with warrior abilities.
Another major thing. And this is mostly my reaction to Antia's second video on damsels of distress. Where Hitman Absolution was brought up.
Me being someone who played the game for its stealth elements, realized that she misrepresented the game.
Though one of the things she did bring up was actually quite correct. That damsels in distress are fairly common in games. That is an excellent point. But I think it happens on both sides, where both males and females are both put into a damsel situation or in peril.
Melissia wrote: So you don't get any enjoyment out of horror games?
He said not fun. You get enjoyment out of many things other then fun.
It is a strange world that I find myself hearing that enjoyment isn't having fun.
Ir's mostly a wording thing. When you say fun, it conjures up things like explosions and excitement. Enjoyment is more vague. Like you can get enjoyment form a mundane task like cleaning house, but that doesn't make cleaning house fun.
Basically games can invoke a lot of different feelings and can be used for a lot of things other then simple fun.
Melissia wrote: So you don't get any enjoyment out of horror games?
He said not fun. You get enjoyment out of many things other then fun.
It is a strange world that I find myself hearing that enjoyment isn't having fun.
I think the better term for "Good but not fun" is probably something being engaging rather than it being enjoyable. I've had all kinds of worthwhile experiences with media that have been engaging in different ways like sad, illuminating, or frightening all without ever being enjoyable or fun. In video games there have been plenty of times where I've been having a controlling-throwing difficult time with a game and I'm engaged and definitely getting something out of it, but I'm certainly not having fun. I think it's something games could stand to explore a bit more in general. I'm not sure the fact games are interactive and present goals means they have to be fun or enjoyable to be good, no other form of media is held to that particular standard. What matters is that you walk away from the experience better for having had it.
Asherian Command wrote: I think the major issue though is that if woman complain about certain 'representation' of woman in games. Such as in Red Dead Redempetion.
Has Red Dead Redemption been singled out? I mean, complained about for itself rather than used as an example in a long list of examples to illustrate some tropes and trends?
Do you mean some GTA-like game set in a fantasized version of the Far West were realism is completely sacrificed for the sake of fun? Are you actually telling me than having cowgirls would ruin your enjoyment because historical accuracy, but zombies are okay? Seriously? That is some very, very bad faith going on.
The total war games? Though they did stray from historical accuracy a few times (Praetorians were NOT used as regiments), they are mostly accurate to history, even going so far as to have special little events show up at the exact same time. For example, in Medieval Total War 2, there is the world is round event in 1492, which corresponds to the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus.
Red Dead Undead Nightmare is a bad example. That is not part of the main game and is a separate story unto itself. It is not really canonical. If there were zombies in the game proper, you would have a point.
Also, what is wrong with a developer wanting to make a game with some semblance to history? Yes, games should be fun. That does not mean that historical accuracy or the overall tone of the setting should be thrown out window for the sake of lolz.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Also, what is wrong with a developer wanting to make a game with some semblance to history?
Nothing wrong with that, it just makes having the game be enjoyable harder. What is wrong though is a developer who is not caring about history when it comes into the way of making stuff fun, but still uses it as a pretext to not include good female representation.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Also, what is wrong with a developer wanting to make a game with some semblance to history?
Nothing wrong with that, it just makes having the game be enjoyable harder. What is wrong though is a developer who is not caring about history when it comes into the way of making stuff fun, but still uses it as a pretext to not include good female representation.
The total war series disagrees. I find those games very enjoyable. I agree with that sentiment about the developer; it does seem inconsistent. However, I do not think that is applicable to the developers of Red Dead. Are there zombies and nonsense in the base game, excluding easter eggs? It appears to be a fairly straight forward cowboy-Western game.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Red Dead Undead Nightmare is a bad example. That is not part of the main game and is a separate story unto itself. It is not really canonical.
If there were zombies in the game proper, you would have a point.
Adopted from the Grand Theft Auto series, Red Dead Redemption has a modified wanted system. When the player commits a crime such as killing people near witnesses, some will run to the nearest police station. The player can bribe them or kill them before they reach the station. If a crime is committed near a police officer, the wanted meter immediately appears along with a bounty count which increases with each crime committed. If Marston's bounty becomes high enough he will be pursued by either the U.S. Marshals or by the Mexican Army depending on his locations. To evade law enforcement in pursuit, John Marston must escape a circular zone until the wanted meter disappears. Alternatively, the player character can kill all lawmen in a town to have the wanted meter disappear. Despite the chase being aborted, a bounty is placed upon John which will cause bounty hunters to come after him in the wilderness. It is impossible to surrender to these bounty hunters by putting away Marston's weapon and standing still as they will kill him regardless. Only law enforcement in towns and a posse will accept surrenders. The law will continue to chase Marston unless he pays his bounty at a telegraph station or presents a pardon letter. When arrested, Marston pays off his bounty and is then released. If the player does not have enough money to pay back the bounty, the law will assign bounty hunting activities.
Yeah, historical accuracy! That is totally how stuff worked back then!
Red Dead Redemption spans two fictitious United States counties and a fictitious Mexican state: New Austin, West Elizabeth, and Nuevo Paraiso. New Austin and West Elizabeth are adjacent to each other and share a southern border with Mexico. Nuevo Paraiso is a Mexican state, separated from U.S. territory by the San Luis river.
Fictitious state are so totally historically accurate!
First of all, Zombie Nightmare is different from the regular game as it's not even canonical. And it has zombies.
The game might be harder to enjoy >> for you << , but it obviously was a lot of fun for the vast majority of all gamers. Females in Western times weren't equal to men, far from it, and RDR did a good job at displaying it being the way. At the same time, however, it introduced believable and strong female characters as well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The total war series disagrees. I find those games very enjoyable.
I said harder, not impossible.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: However, I do not think that is applicable to the developers of Red Dead. Are there zombies and nonsense in the base game, excluding easter eggs?
It appears to be a fairly straight forward cowboy-Western game.
I do not think cowgirls is anywhere near the same level of “non-sense” as zombies. I am pretty sure there are tons of historical inaccuracies or liberties taken from realism in order to make the game more fun. It is taken place in the fantasy version of history made popular by western spaghetti rather than aiming at historical accuracy, and this is pretty damn obvious even just from the cover.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: The game might be harder to enjoy >> for you << , but it obviously was a lot of fun for the vast majority of all gamers.
If you are talking about RDR, you are misunderstanding me. I was saying keeping the game historically accurate was very restrictive and that doing so would prevent the developers from adding fun arcade stuff or shortcut through actual tedious part of real life. Certainly RDR does not count as a game that kept historical accuracy among its chief value, and had no problem adding unrealistic stuff or cutting through tedious part of real life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me put it another way. Who among you would in good faith tell me that their enjoyment of RDR would have been reduced if there was more cowgirl? And if so, why?
Let me put it another way. Who among you would in good faith tell me that their enjoyment of RDR would have been reduced if there was more cowgirl? And if so, why?
On the contrary, I wouldn't mind if it had more cowgirl.
I can understand why they didn't add them though.
As they are remaining faithful to their source of inspiration, technically they were justified in their decision.
That's not to say they couldn't. One could argue that a 100% carbon copy of a source is dull and lacks creativity.
But one could just as easily argue that straying too far from the source is unfaithful.
Melissia wrote: So you don't get any enjoyment out of horror games?
He said not fun. You get enjoyment out of many things other then fun.
Fun is defined as "amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable". If something isn't fun, it must therefor be none of these things.
Personally, I find horror games quite enjoyable. They are not "light-hearted fun", which is likely what you are thinking of, but they're still fun regardless because I enjoy them.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: As they are remaining faithful to their source of inspiration, technically they were justified in their decision.
Nope, if their source of inspiration was wrong in the first place and they are remaining faithful to it, they are wrong too. If they had been referencing early western rather than western spaghetti, it would not have made the horribly racist treatment of Indians okay.
Asherian Command wrote: I think the major issue though is that if woman complain about certain 'representation' of woman in games. Such as in Red Dead Redempetion.
Has Red Dead Redemption been singled out? I mean, complained about for itself rather than used as an example in a long list of examples to illustrate some tropes and trends?
Do you mean some GTA-like game set in a fantasized version of the Far West were realism is completely sacrificed for the sake of fun? Are you actually telling me than having cowgirls would ruin your enjoyment because historical accuracy, but zombies are okay? Seriously? That is some very, very bad faith going on.
Yet Red Dead Redemption is meant to be fun, so your argument is moot.
But please, provide examples of games that are actually meant to teach history.
What the hell. How did you get to that conclusion
Gettysburg, several several games, they are called historical games. Search it up yourself. You are the one who needs the burden of truth here lies on your head to prove me wrong. But otherwise there are tons of games like that. Historical games are a niche market, they teach people certain events throughout history. And then they teach through gameplay mechnanics and story.
There are World War 1 historical games and several others. There is even a middle ages version where you are a knight crusade and you are fighting against the muslims.
So you can take your idiocy and play those games.
They worked on that game and set it in the west, but they researched it and didn't make cowgirls in it. Is that sexist? No that is historically accurate, They may put things that are fantasized but the main plot has very little fantasy elements.
And no, it wouldn't ruin my enjoyment of the game, I would just find it odd. That doesn't mean I am sexist. That would stray a little past the wait what bit? Also that undead bit, that is DLC, after the game was officially released.
Personally, I find horror games quite enjoyable. They are not "light-hearted fun", which is likely what you are thinking of, but they're still fun regardless because I enjoy them.
I find horror games entertaining, but they are not fun. Silent Hill 2 for example is in no way fun, it is entertaining.
Fun in the terms of this fight are to get enjoyment from lighthearted pleasure.
Entertainment is something that is an event, performance, or activity designed to entertain others.
Or give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling)
Then their argument for not adding more cowgirls were not good, right?
It would of strayed a little too much from what the creators intended for the world. This game was about one character and one character only. The Main character and his adventures.
Yeah, historical accuracy! That is totally how stuff worked back then!
Considering how accurate they are with depictation of the area and age and time period. Also that is to display this whole idea of that there are certain things that happened in this time period, you build unfame and more people want to hunt you down, because you are worth something dead.
Fictitious state are so totally historically accurate!
They may be fictitious but they used a historical period.
Your argument keeps say. Its a fantasy! When in truth that is not what I have been saying it was teaching a time period. Not a place.
Does that mean they couldn't of added cowgirls? No, they just didn't. It would of been a singularity that would of make little sense in this world they had created.
It is the creators decision to put things into the game.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: As they are remaining faithful to their source of inspiration, technically they were justified in their decision.
Nope, if their source of inspiration was wrong in the first place and they are remaining faithful to it, they are wrong too. If they had been referencing early western rather than western spaghetti, it would not have made the horribly racist treatment of Indians okay.
Ehhh.
Wrong. You have not played the game apparently XD.
If you have not played the game you cannot comment on it.
Asherian Command wrote: Gettysburg, several several games, they are called historical games.
And Red Dead Redemption is not one of them.
Asherian Command wrote: There are World War 1 historical games and several others. There is even a middle ages version where you are a knight crusade and you are fighting against the muslims.
And Red Dead Redemption is not one of them.
Asherian Command wrote: They worked on that game and set it in the west, but they researched it and didn't make cowgirls in it. Is that sexist? No that is historically accurate, They may put things that are fantasized but the main plot has very little fantasy elements.
Does the game not involve a guy that can survive during month without ever eating? Or can he not survive a number of gunshot that would reduce a normal man into a very dead man?
Asherian Command wrote: And no, it wouldn't ruin my enjoyment of the game, I would just find it odd.
Really? You would find cow girls odd? Odder than “New Austin, West Elizabeth, and Nuevo Paraiso”? I mean, how many cowgirls were there historically in New Austin, actually? Oh wait, I know: this question makes no sense because New Austin is a fictional setting that never existed. Hence why claiming “historical accuracy” seem pretty hypocritical.
Asherian Command wrote: Considering how accurate they are with depictation of the area and age and time period.
If by “area and time period”, you mean the fictional area and time period where western spaghetti happened, maybe. But if you mean actual United States/Mexico at the time, I really highly doubt they are that much accurate.
Asherian Command wrote: When in truth that is not what I have been saying it was teaching a time period. Not a place.
Teaching? You got to be kidding me! And you cannot teach a time period without a place, because guess what: this whole stuff did not happen in Europe, or Africa. Completely different stuff happened there.
RDR was never meant to be a historical game, it used the Western theme as an inspiration to build a game upon. Its scenario was based on what "Western" was perceived as as it excels at doing said job.
As with every source material, you can make amendments ir not, big and small amendments. Cowgirls would have been a giant amendment and it is fully understandable that they chose not to include them. Bonnie, as a strong female character who takes over and manages an entire farm was a small amendment as far as I can tell.
Sigvatr wrote: RDR was never meant to be a historical game, it used the Western theme as an inspiration to build a game upon. Its scenario was based on what "Western" was perceived as as it excels at doing said job.
As with every source material, you can make amendments ir not, big and small amendments. Cowgirls would have been a giant amendment and it is fully understandable that they chose not to include them. Bonnie, as a strong female character who takes over and manages an entire farm was a small amendment as far as I can tell.
I think I never claimed RDR was a historical game. I don't know where he was getting that idea. XD
No, it's not. It's not based off of a historical period, it's based off of a genre of fiction which itself is based off of peoples' historically inaccurate fantasies about how a historical period went.
Melissia wrote: No, it's not. It's not based off of a historical period, it's based off of a genre of fiction which itself is based off of peoples' historically inaccurate fantasies about how a historical period went.
Okay then.
Then what makes you think there should be a cowgirl in these games?
Does it make the game any better? Does it change the game?
Yes, being able to customize the protagonist would make the game better.
Frankly, I'm insulted by your idea that it's okay for men to be included without question, but you think I have to justify including women.
Screw that. And the horse it rode in on.
Can I say I don't care what gender I play as?
That doesn't make it worse of a game. Oh no I can't play a female in a game whatever shall I do?
I don't care. The game is about the character. Not your want to play a female.
The game would not work with a female perspective character. It just wouldn't. You could but the writing that was put into it would be moot, it wouldn't make sense.
You say it would make the game better, but I don't think it would. It would be trivial. It wouldn't be revolutionary.
A good game has nothing to do with customization of their player character. I don't care. A good game or a great game is one that restricts choice, and gives out the illusion of choice, and makes the player do things that they normally wouldn't do.
A great game is one that makes you ponder.
A game that transcends what it means to be a game.
Would Spec Ops: The Line be more of a good game because it had a female Captain Walker?
Would Amnesia be better of a game because you can be female?
NO.
That is trivial. Who cares what gender you play! They are characters! NOT Blank SLATES for you to put your personal fantasy into.
This is not about you, its about the characters.
Who cares what gender Master Chief is. Who cares about gender.
Because at the end of the day we are human beings.
All this want for more representation of females thats great, but it doesn't mean a game would become better because they added a female to a game as a skin choice. Who cares what gender you pick.
I do not play games to boost my ego. I play games to be entertained by the story and characters within it and how they are presented.
Yes, you can. It would not hold a lot of weight, because you almost always get to play a white male, but you can. Except that you just contradict that just below, which further weakens your argument.
You know, it seems pretty easy to dismiss other people's concern as petty when you never found yourself in a similar situation…
Asherian Command wrote: Would Spec Ops: The Line be more of a good game because it had a female Captain Walker?
Would Amnesia be better of a game because you can be female?
NO.
It would not make you like them. But maybe they would make them better to other people. So if it would not make them worse for you, why not do this change that would not make them worse to you but would make them better to others.
Yes, you can. It would not hold a lot of weight, because you almost always get to play a white male, but you can. Except that you just contradict that just below, which further weakens your argument.
You know, it seems pretty easy to dismiss other people's concern as petty when you never found yourself in a similar situation…
Asherian Command wrote: Would Spec Ops: The Line be more of a good game because it had a female Captain Walker?
Would Amnesia be better of a game because you can be female?
NO.
It would not make you like them. But maybe they would make them better to other people. So if it would not make them worse for you, why not do this change that would not make them worse to you but would make them better to others.
I am saying its trival which you have misinterperted AGAIN.
That doesn't dismiss my argument that makes it stronger.
Its called comparing and contrasting.
When I say Would it make playing walker as a female walker make the game better?
No. Because there is no difference between a Male and females.
I said it and I am staying with that train of thought because screw you all. Because if you get down to it, minus physically, men and women think exactly the same. They would do the same stupid actions as each other.
Because in the end they are human beings.
They make stupid things up
both sexes can be serial killers.
But that doesn't mean that if add a character and make them female that it instantly makes the game better.
That is stupid. That is a flawed idea.
adding diversity into a game does not make a game better.
Zod the game by the Anti-Jewish terrorist organization had great representation of all races, you know before you beat them into submission and strangled a homosexual with your bare hands. That game is horrible. Its a propaganda game. It didn't give two hoots about diversity in the game because the message was horrible.
You can't think that adding something into a game just because you need more representation makes a game better.
Both your arguments are flawed in that regard.
Spec Ops: The Line or any game with a strong character in the center, is a univerisal character, you love the main character because they stand for an idea, and are a character, they are rounded, who cares what gender they are, Because changing their gender would not make that character better.
It doesn't add anything.
So it is quite useless to think well lets add females to this game because we need more female representation.
AdeptSister wrote: I think people have made it clear that people care. Just because you don't care does not mean other people don't.
I personally think it doesn't add to the game, it is a useless idea to change a gender of a character, because they are human beings and either gender would make the same decisions as the other gender.
That doesn't add anything to the story, gameplay or to anything but your own personal want. I see it as quite useless and not even worth the time.
And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design? Well Jegus G Tapdancing Christ on a Pogo Stick, wish someone told me that.
I don't care about gender. Neither gender is better than the other.
Making a character female or male doesn't really matter. You remember the character for their deeds and what they do. Not for what gender they are.
You don't look at Dr. Frankestien and think wow dr. frankestien thank god you were a male. It added so much to the story. When the author of that book was an 18 year old girl. I remember the person, because that person was a girl and was 18 at a time when women weren't allowed to go to school and it was a very oppressive time for women.
I don't remember characters for their gender because at the end of the day, they are what the creators made them to be. They are meant to be similar to you and me, but it doesn't matter what gender they are.
Melissia wrote: And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design?
Well, it is a game designer telling us that we do not get to choose what we want and what we enjoy, but that we should just enjoy what the game designer decide we must enjoy. Compulsory enjoyment or something.
Asherian Command wrote: When I say Would it make playing walker as a female walker make the game better?
No.
So, you get to decide for us what is better for us, right?
Asherian Command wrote: Because if you get down to it, minus physically, men and women think exactly the same. They would do the same stupid actions as each other.
So then, it should not be a problem to do a gender swap. You just said men and women act the same way and are the same, how freaking hard could this be?
Asherian Command wrote: But that doesn't mean that if add a character and make them female that it instantly makes the game better.
That is stupid. That is a flawed idea.
Well, there are many stupid people with stupid tastes that would like this change to be made. They are customer. They pay your check, in the end. How about making those peoples happy, since doing so would not make your game any worse? I mean, gender does not matter anyway, it cannot make your game worse, right?
Asherian Command wrote: Spec Ops: The Line or any game with a strong character in the center, is a univerisal character
Got to love the idea that a universal character is necessarily a white male .
Melissia wrote: And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design?
Well, it is a game designer telling us that we do not get to choose what we want and what we enjoy, but that we should just enjoy what the game designer decide we must enjoy. Compulsory enjoyment or something.
Yeah well if I wanted that I'd go watch a movie. But I'm not watching a movie. I 'm playing a game.
Welcome to gaming where the player is given a set task of things they can and cannot do.
You have fallen into the first pit trap of what is known as The Illusion of choice, and the illusion of agency. You may choose only a predetermined set amount of decisions.
This is mostly due to the limits of the game engine. If you think your choices matter in a game. You are soley mistaken.
Melissia wrote: Yeah well if I wanted that I'd go watch a movie.
That is not even how it works for movie. If for some reason I do not want to see a movie, I will not see it. Even if the movie maker think my reasons for not wanting to see the movie are stupid, I do not care, I will just not go see his or her movie.
Aaaand before the obvious comment that I see coming, the presence of female characters is just one thing in a long, long list of pros and cons for a game, not the sole determining factor. Yeah.
RDR and other "historical" games where you play an extraordinary citizen (rather than a soldier) are perfect candidates to include female PC's. Doing so opens up whole new worlds of exploration and gameplay - allowing the player to experience the kinds of adversity that affected both regular women of the time, as well as the issues that went with trying to work in a "man's world".
In the case of RDR, the back story and main storylines would be almost identical, but now you could experience not just being a stranger going into a hostile bar, but a woman going into a hostile bar trying to accomplish the same goal of, say, getting information out of a suspect while the attitudes of everyone towards your sex impeed (or possibly even help) you...
Asherian Command wrote: When I say Would it make playing walker as a female walker make the game better?
No.
So, you get to decide for us what is better for us, right?
Asherian Command wrote: Because if you get down to it, minus physically, men and women think exactly the same. They would do the same stupid actions as each other.
So then, it should not be a problem to do a gender swap. You just said men and women act the same way and are the same, how freaking hard could this be?
Asherian Command wrote: But that doesn't mean that if add a character and make them female that it instantly makes the game better.
That is stupid. That is a flawed idea.
Well, there are many stupid people with stupid tastes that would like this change to be made. They are customer. They pay your check, in the end. How about making those peoples happy, since doing so would not make your game any worse? I mean, gender does not matter anyway, it cannot make your game worse, right?
Asherian Command wrote: Spec Ops: The Line or any game with a strong character in the center, is a univerisal character
Got to love the idea that a universal character is necessarily a white male .
I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time. Outside of the triple A market there are more diversified characters.
It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.
You all forget that it takes time and resources to make another gender in the game for a playable thing. Studios have a budget and making character rigs and models is expensive. Its not like adding a new skin to a character. You need a completely different rig. You can't just change the face, it would look completely off.
Games like spec ops would of suffered if they added another gender in. Somewhere someplace the game would of suffered because they put in more time into making a female character.
The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.
There are very limiting options that go into a game.
Its like adding multiplayer into a game. Its a useful extra. But who really cares, its multiplayer. Multiplayer is not the no.1 thing people look for anymore, they look for gameplay and mechanics.
And that is the issue when you make the male as the default that you don't want to change. If it doesn't matter, then just randomized the gender of background NPCs. We already do that for race is some games.
Asherian Command wrote: I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time.
Yeah, there are many animals/monsters too!
Asherian Command wrote: It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.
So then, just make female the only choice. See, no more coding or character modeling required, and surely nobody will be angry that it is a female character because gender do not matter at all?
Asherian Command wrote: The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.
So, you do agree that this is a thing. Because your first sentence seemed to imply this was an outdated myth.
AdeptSister wrote: And that is the issue when you make the male as the default that you don't want to change. If it doesn't matter, then just randomized the gender of background NPCs. We already do that for race is some games.
Yes and no. It matters on what is the message in the game.
You could be a female lead and could be leading a massacre.
Does it make a big difference that your female, no not really, your still doing a horrible. horrible thing.
Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.
There should be inclusion of both genders, but that doesn't make the message better or worse.
Or the game for that matter better because you added a gender or a new race.
Asherian Command wrote: I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time.
Yeah, there are many animals/monsters too!
Asherian Command wrote: It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.
So then, just make female the only choice. See, no more coding or character modeling required, and surely nobody will be angry that it is a female character because gender do not matter at all?
Asherian Command wrote: The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.
So, you do agree that this is a thing. Because your first sentence seemed to imply this was an outdated myth.
But what does that add to the game apart from a new gender to play?
Does that really make the game a better more entertaining game.
Does it give you something we can all enjoy?
A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.
I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.
Asherian Command wrote: Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.
You told us a billion time already what matter to you. Can you look outside of your own self for a second and care to learn what matter to other people? Or can you not understand how they could dare have other opinions, interests and feelings that yours?
Asherian Command wrote: Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.
You told us a billion time already what matter to you. Can you look outside of your own self for a second and care to learn what matter to other people? Or can you not understand how they could dare have other opinions, interests and feelings that yours?
Oh I am listening,
But I define games as an art form.
Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well. And I saying that it doesn't add anything to the game other playing as a new gender. You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.
I really don't care what gender we play, but it doesn't mean that it makes a better game.
Why do you care? You said it doesn't matter to you, so clearly it shouldn't bother you.
Because what does it add? Apart from a new gender? Thats nothing new or exiciting it doesn't change gameplay or mechanics. Its just a visual feature. Its just a look or appearance of a character. Who cares. Its just resources used at the wrong place. You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.
Da Boss wrote: You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.
Why on earth would anyone be against that?
Completely mind boggling.
Adding a female protagonist isn't as easy as you imagine. In the case of RDR, the in-game problems have already been explained. Furthermore, it adds a metric ton of additional programming. How would that be justified? I sincerely doubt that the addition of a female protagonist in a genre that is largely dominated by by male players who prefer to play male characters would justify the immense plus of developing effort. Far from it.
More entertaining to you, no. You made it abundantly clear. To other people, yes it would.
Have you even tried to ask them why? And I mean, not as a rhetorical question. I mean, have you tried to understand why they would get more enjoyment from the game rather than telling them that you know what would be more entertaining to them?
Asherian Command wrote: A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.
There is a saying I have seen about software. Not games, software in general. It says that if you remove every feature that is used by less than 10% of people, then 3 out of 4 people that use your software will loose a feature that they use. Please think about it for a moment.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.
So, you can cater to some people while not making the experience worse for anyone else. Why not do that?
After seeing all the arguing I wish they would just make every game with a female lead, it ties in well with my love of stoicism.
I have always argued against reverse-racism and reverse sexism and the "reverse" anything they love to crow on about on Fox News because none of it seems to touch me as a confident white male. The power of the state was never against me, whenever an ill-tempered lesbian rubgy player throws insults and occasionally punches (happened to me at least three times in the thuggish town of my youth) at me, or a black or asian guy throws a racial slur in my direction I could always laugh it off, It didnt touch me for more than a fleeting moment, and I would regale my friends of the tale and we all would laugh about it. I fully concede it is not so easy a thing to deal with if you are a woman or a minority.
So, I would happily deal with playing every single game ever made as a woman if it would stop televangelist style, shrewd, yet morally bereft businesswomen from taking money off good hearted but ill-informed feminists!
More entertaining to you, no. You made it abundantly clear. To other people, yes it would.
Have you even tried to ask them why? And I mean, not as a rhetorical question. I mean, have you tried to understand why they would get more enjoyment from the game rather than telling them that you know what would be more entertaining to them?
Asherian Command wrote: A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.
There is a saying I have seen about software. Not games, software in general. It says that if you remove every feature that is used by less than 10% of people, then 3 out of 4 people that use your software will loose a feature that they use. Please think about it for a moment.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.
So, you can cater to some people while not making the experience worse for anyone else. Why not do that?
How does that make it a better game though?
I keep asking you this but you keep saying it adds a female character.
All your logic can be summed up as.
If I add a playable Female Character the game is instantly a better, more entertaining game.
What? How? How does that do that? That sounds like magic. It doesn't work like that.
Da Boss wrote: You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.
Why on earth would anyone be against that?
Completely mind boggling.
It depends on the setting. Does it make sense in the setting for the player character to be a man / woman?
For example, say there is a game where the main character is an Amazon. Would it make sense for the player character to be a man in a warrior society dominated by women? Likewise, would it be possible to play as a woman legionary in a game about Imperial Rome, keeping in mind that Rome was a horribly patriarchal society? What if the game is about a specific character, either real or fictional, or one who is adapted from another source? Would it be fine to determine Samus's gender? Or to make Ichabod Crane a woman?
If the setting or the source of inspiration does allow for the possibility of either gender, then yes, if possible there should be an option upon game start / character creation, provided it does not raise too many inconsistencies. That does not mean that all games must have this option.
On the grand scheme of things, your singular opinion is worth nothing. If there is a large group asking for a specific change, people might listen, but singular opinions are voices in the wind.
I've made 8476 posts in the video game forum (including this one). At least two thirds of them have been me advocating for the inclusion of women.
Stop asking "who cares", because you already know my fething answer to that.
I am fine with adding female representation.
But it is stupid to say.
A game becomes better when you put a female into the game.
It didn't make destiny or diablo 3 or several other games better because they had female characters. It didn't make the mechanics better, it just added a different appearance.
Do not confuse me for saying that I don't think there shouldn't be more women in games.
I think there should be. But it does not change the game or make it a better or universal game for people to play. Because at the end of the day, I don't think the average gamer will give two gaks what gender they are playing.
If they play a female character thats great, a male character thats great.
But saying that just because you have a female character in a game, so that instantly makes the game better, is just bonkers crazy, and shows ignorance in the subject.
Adding a female character into a game, is better for the community. But not for the game.
I call BS. You're not fine with it. You are only fine with "assume male as default and then only add women when there's a compelling reason to do so". You've constantly argued against inclusion of female characters, and I'm not gonna just let it slide that you try to act like you aren't doing so.
I call BS. You're not fine with it. You are only fine with "assume male as default and then only add women when there's a compelling reason to do so".
Oh my god. Please for the love of.....
I write stories. And 3/4's of them the main character is female.
So do not tell me, I am not fine with it. I have a very long list of female characters I have written. But if I put a male character into that role it doesn't change much.
Asherian Command wrote: Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well.
But if people do not want the opposite, and it costs nothing to do it the way we want, then this is a net benefit for no cost, right? Why would you not do that?
Asherian Command wrote: You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.
And it is the customer that will buy or not buy it. Hence the publisher will pressure the designer to cater to the customer. Hence you will complain about how you are forced to include female character. But remember, those people that force you to include them, they are the one paying your salary ultimately.
Asherian Command wrote: You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.
Asherian Command wrote: Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well.
But if people do not want the opposite, and it costs nothing to do it the way we want, then this is a net benefit for no cost, right? Why would you not do that?
Asherian Command wrote: You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.
And it is the customer that will buy or not buy it. Hence the publisher will pressure the designer to cater to the customer. Hence you will complain about how you are forced to include female character. But remember, those people that force you to include them, they are the one paying your salary ultimately.
Asherian Command wrote: You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.
Go with a single gender and make it female then!
Thats fine, but saying changing the gender of the character adds to the game and makes it better is a flawed statement.
You have spent this entire thread arguing against the inclusion of women, and arguing FOR the assumption of men as the default and women only being included if there's some special reason for the character to not be male. That's all you've been doing.
That's all you're STILL doing.
Your experiences as a writer are irrelevant to what you've been arguing for in this thread-- which is that the only reason women should be included is if there's a compelling narrative reason-- otherwise, have a man in the role instead, there's no reason, according to your argument, to justify including a man in the story, because men are default.
If you want to back off of this position and admit you were wrong, go ahead. But you're not going to get away with simply claiming you never took that position to begin with.
Da Boss wrote: You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.
Why on earth would anyone be against that?
Completely mind boggling.
It depends on the setting. Does it make sense in the setting for the player character to be a man / woman?
For example, say there is a game where the main character is an Amazon. Would it make sense for the player character to be a man in a warrior society dominated by women?
Likewise, would it be possible to play as a woman legionary in a game about Imperial Rome, keeping in mind that Rome was a horribly patriarchal society?
What if the game is about a specific character, either real or fictional, or one who is adapted from another source? Would it be fine to determine Samus's gender? Or to make Ichabod Crane a woman?
If the setting or the source of inspiration does allow for the possibility of either gender, then yes, if possible there should be an option upon game start / character creation, provided it does not raise too many inconsistencies.
That does not mean that all games must have this option.
What does it bother you if a single player game has male and female options? If you think the female option is stupid, don't choose it. It's not included for you.
As to the dev costs, I am sceptical that it is a "ton of extra programming time". I'm pretty sure any game that already includes female NPCs could use the same or similar models for a PC. It might cost a bit, sure, but it would be worth it to start making back some of the ridiculous gender skew in games. There are way bigger money sinks in AAA games right now than an extra skin for the protagonist.
I keep asking you this but you keep saying it adds a female character.
All your logic can be summed up as.
If I add a playable Female Character the game is instantly a better, more entertaining game.
What? How? How does that do that? That sounds like magic. It doesn't work like that.
You are not trying to understand, you are just trying to prove to us that we are wrong. Is that not true?
I am pretty sure I will know when you actually start trying to understand. That will be when you change from “Why would this make the game better” to “Why would you enjoy the game more”. Then I will consider that maybe, maybe you are trying to understand.
You have spent this entire thread arguing against the inclusion of women, and arguing FOR the assumption of men as the default and women only being included if there's some special reason for the character to not be male. That's all you've been doing.
That's all you're STILL doing.
Your experiences as a writer are irrelevant to what you've been arguing for in this thread-- which is that the only reason women should be included is if there's a compelling narrative reason-- otherwise, have a man in the role instead, there's no reason, according to your argument, to justify including a man in the story, because men are default.
That is not what I am saying.
Adding a female character or a male character in a certain role in a previous role owned by another gender. Does not add anything to the game. Other than an appearance.
It is good to add a female character to a role as main character, but making it so you can choose aesthetically whether to be female doesn't add anything.
But putting a female character into a role as main character, giving them character, giving them more than just a blank slate is better than just changing their appearance. Because all you have said is adding it and making them a female character is better and adds more. No it doesn't.
Adding a female character. A character, and fleshing them out, and giving them personalities unique to them and make it so that they are more than just a different appearance is different than adding being able to play as a female character. If the box art shows only a female character.
And the female character is more than a blank slate. That has my support. But it does not mean adding a new appearance look for aesthetics makes it a better game.
None of you have said that. That I would agree with. That is a valid statement and something I've said.
And yes my experiences as a writer are relevant, because I will be changing the industry to include more women as central characters, but I will make it more than aesthetic choice.
I keep asking you this but you keep saying it adds a female character.
All your logic can be summed up as.
If I add a playable Female Character the game is instantly a better, more entertaining game.
What? How? How does that do that? That sounds like magic. It doesn't work like that.
You are not trying to understand, you are just trying to prove to us that we are wrong. Is that not true?
I am pretty sure I will know when you actually start trying to understand. That will be when you change from “Why would this make the game better” to “Why would you enjoy the game more”. Then I will consider that maybe, maybe you are trying to understand.
Oh I fully understand but you aren't talking about it, you have all said that making a female character makes a game more enjoyable. You haven't delved into the detail INTO WHY.
I've asked you for pages upon pages. ASTO WHY. And you keep repeating statements.
Your argument starts with the assumption of a male character, never questioning why that character HAS to be male, and then asks women characters to justify their existence.
This is the argument of someone who wants to exclude female characters.
Your argument starts with the assumption of a male character, never questioning why that character HAS to be male, and then asks women characters to justify their existence.
This is the argument of someone who wants to exclude female characters.
Because this argument I mentioned? That IS the argument you've been making this entire thread. Hell, you're still making it in the post above, claiming that men should be default and women should only be added if you think they are justified-- that we shouldn't add the option to choose differently than the normal "blank slate" male character because you think it "adds nothing" (ignoring the numerous people whom have said they enjoy the addition for its own sake, even). That men don't have to have character to justify inclusion, but women do.
If you believe that your previous arguments are wrong, then go ahead, admit that.
Asherian Command wrote: Oh I fully understand but you aren't talking about it, you have all said that making a female character makes a game more enjoyable. You haven't delved into the detail INTO WHY.
I've asked you for pages upon pages. ASTO WHY. And you keep repeating statements.
No, you have never asked. What you have asked is “How would this make the game better”, which basically means “How would this make me enjoy the game more”. But you have never asked “Why would this make the game more enjoyable to you”. All the while, you have tried to develop arguments to prove this would not make the game better, have you not? And why would you want to prove to us that we do not know what would make a game enjoyable to us?
You are not interested in understanding, you are only interested in proving your point.
I honestly couldn't care about wether I play a man or a woman, as long as it fits the setting.
Is it a game in medieval Europe, where you're a knight? Man. Female knights don't exist.
Game set in a matriarchal society? Yeah, I'll be a woman.
You get the idea.
I'm a female in Destiny, since I didn't wqnt to be a robot, and giving my character blonde hair meant giving my character massive yellow eyebrows, which isn't really cool. No boob armor, by the way (as far as I, as a Titan, have seen anyway).
I generally pick my character for what I think is the coolest, and/or the most fitting.
Melissia wrote: Hell, you're still making it in the post above, claiming that men should be default and women should only be added if you think they are justified-- that we shouldn't add the option to choose differently than the normal "blank slate" male character because you think it "adds nothing" (ignoring the numerous people whom have said they enjoy the addition for its own sake, even).
Let me ask this question. Asherian Command, suppose that there is a old-school generic shooter being made. Demons are attacking in a near or far future, or there is a tournament, or whatever. This game includes no character development whatsoever. The main character will just blow up everything in his/her path while shooting one-liners at most. Should the character be male, female, or should you be given the choice?
Using that same argument, we shouldn't have Knights at all in a medieval warfare game, instead we should have you play as a peasant with a dinky spear and maybe a shortsword, shield, and leather jacket if you're lucky.
I have laid the trail for you to follow. Be it vague or little of understanding. But I have laid it. I have said my piece and I will walk away from this, till the two posters here have learned what I was saying.
I have said exactly what I have meant to, and neither took the time to look at the argument that I have created and have only frothed at their mouths and ran their lips without thinking and responding correctly.
1. I have said I do support it.
2. Asethically or character or wise.
3. neither of you have been specific. I have repeated the question several times. I will not repeat again.
4. There are times when it makes sense, and when it doesn't.
5. How does it improve gameplay.
6. What does it add? Other than being female.
I personally think. That adding a female just because is the worst way you can approach this issue.
You can say the following. Which is a repeat of what I have already said. Several times.....
"But putting a female character into a role as main character, giving them character, giving them more than just a blank slate is better than just changing their appearance. Because all you have said is adding it and making them a female character is better and adds more. No it doesn't. Adding a female character. A character, and fleshing them out, and giving them personalities unique to them and make it so that they are more than just a different appearance is different than adding and being able to play as a female character. If the box art shows only a female character. And the female character is more than a blank slate. That has my support. But it does not mean adding a new appearance look for aesthetics makes it a better game. "
I have said that on this very page. And neither of you acknowledged that.
No, you have never asked. What you have asked is “How would this make the game better”, which basically means “How would this make me enjoy the game more”. But you have never asked “Why would this make the game more enjoyable to you”. All the while, you have tried to develop arguments to prove this would not make the game better, have you not? And why would you want to prove to us that we do not know what would make a game enjoyable to us?
You are not interested in understanding, you are only interested in proving your point.
thenoobbomb wrote: Is it a game in medieval Europe, where you're a knight? Man. Female knights don't exist.
Yes they did.
How many of them were fighting though? I could not find information about knightly women who fought in battle.
That's not to say there can't be a game wherein you play as a female knight in medieval Europe. As long as the game points out that it's an unusual circumstance there should be no inconsistency.
thenoobbomb wrote: So, how commonplace were they, then? And how well were they treated?
If you do not know, do not use history as an argument .
thenoobbomb wrote: If you'd make a game set in feudal England about an average knight, it most certainly would not be a woman.
Why would you make your main character average? Makes no sense to me.
Average is something we can relate to, and more people would identify with the character than a rich noble men.
Let me ask this question. Asherian Command, suppose that there is a old-school generic shooter being made. Demons are attacking in a near or far future, or there is a tournament, or whatever. This game includes no character development whatsoever. The main character will just blow up everything in his/her path while shooting one-liners at most. Should the character be male, female, or should you be given the choice?
It doesn't matter then. Its just a skin and appearance then. But that is still the worst way to approach it.
Then the idea of playing a cowgirl in RDR shouldn't bother you. But it does.
Heres a thing, does it make the experience greater for you.
Does it make better for you?
What about other people
Does adding a cowgirl make the experience more entertaining?
No. It doesn't. Its a gender. Who cares. This is a character, with its unique setting.
That was the designers decision. They decided for a genre, and that genre rarely has strong females with guns. It just doesn't.
Its not that type of genre.
You know one of the funny stats I have learned about gender and gameing is that men play as women more then women play as men. (When given a choice.) In that sense, you whould better please the most people by using female characters. Just one of my nutty thoughts.
Using that same argument, we shouldn't have Knights at all in a medieval warfare game, instead we should have you play as a peasant with a dinky spear and maybe a shortsword, shield, and leather jacket if you're lucky.
But then it wouldn't be about knights now, wouldn't it?
Yes, I know there have (despite the wording of my previous posts) been a couple of female knights (not too sure on them actually being knights as the King'd have to bestow that on them), but I think you'd be hard pressed to name more than ten.
Also, a counter question. How about games where you can only be a woman? Is that fine, or should there be an option to play a massive man filled with steroids, too?
I'm guessing at roughly 1%-30% of the armed forces were women in the medieval period, depending on a few things-- which war, which nation, which time period within the era, etc. In spite of the traditional biases of historians, there's records of women fighting in the infantry for Britain and France, as well as women knights marching with the army and even leading armies.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I could not find information about knightly women who fought in battle.
The lack of documentation of women in history is not really a new thing. Historians have, historically, ignored or downplayed the contributions of women in all but the most exceptional of cases.
Then the idea of playing a cowgirl in RDR shouldn't bother you. But it does.
Heres a thing, does it make the experience greater for you.
Does it make better for you?
What about other people
Does adding a cowgirl make the experience more entertaining?
No. It doesn't. Its a gender. Who cares. This is a character, with its unique setting.
That was the designers decision. They decided for a genre, and that genre rarely has strong females with guns. It just doesn't.
Its not that type of genre.
You know one of the funny stats I have learned about gender and gameing is that men play as women more then women play as men. (When given a choice.) In that sense, you whould better please the most people by using female characters. Just one of my nutty thoughts.
I always play as a female character, I don't know why I just gravitate towards it.
Its more interesting to do so. I don't think though it really adds anything to the community or the genre for aesthetically to add that choice. But if you made it more meaningful, sort of like ME where there are subtle differences between the male and female shepherds.
thenoobbomb wrote: So, how commonplace were they, then? And how well were they treated?
If you do not know, do not use history as an argument .
thenoobbomb wrote: If you'd make a game set in feudal England about an average knight, it most certainly would not be a woman.
Why would you make your main character average? Makes no sense to me.
Average is something we can relate to, and more people would identify with the character than a rich noble men.
All knights were rich and noble. You didn't get a steel sword and plate armour if you weren't rich.
So, bit of a fail there.
Not to mention you need someone to teach you how to use that sharp piece of metal, as well as a couple of people to help you put that armor on.
War is expensive. Which is why the average infantry man back then was given a spear.
Not to mention you need someone to teach you how to use that sharp piece of metal, as well as a couple of people to help you put that armor on.
War is expensive. Which is why the average infantry man back then was given a spear.
True, but not all of them were rich. It really matters where you were from, But average in the sense of not middle class but an average everyday knight in that community from that time and place.
Asherian Command wrote: I personally think. That adding a female just because is the worst way you can approach this issue.
And I disagree.
Asherian Command wrote: But putting a female character into a role as main character, giving them character, giving them more than just a blank slate is better than just changing their appearance.
Which you've never said about a male character, ever. You've never asked anyone to justify the existence of a male character-- it's only women which you demand a justification for the inclusion of.
Asherian Command wrote: Because all you have said is adding it and making them a female character is better and adds more.
Why Because I don't think asethically adding something to the game says anything, it doesn't add anything.
I am arguing that adding it asethically IT doesn't add anything. So why have it.
it's only women which you demand a justification for the inclusion of.
No, I think certain roles do not make sense for a woman to be in, such as that of a father or of a son, or of a war hero in the united states military who is in delta force and has a wife and kids and is a son at war.
Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman? Because it adds to your enjoyment? Really?
Asherian Command wrote: Thats just aesthetically I don't care then. You can do it, but it doesn't add representation.
Good. Because you kept telling Melissia and me that “We should not do that because it adds nothing”.
I still think its useless and it doesn't add representation so why have it.
But adding it to ALL games is a stupid idea. Making a certain character female does not add anything into the game. You can add it, I just think it sends the wrong idea
If want to have a female character that is fine.
but when I play a game I want them to know what gender they are, and to prove gender stereotypes as wrong.
No, I think certain roles do not make sense for a woman to be in, such as that of a father or of a son, or of a war hero in the united states military who is in delta force and has a wife and kids and is a son at war.
Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman? Because it adds to your enjoyment? Really?
No, I think certain roles do not make sense for a woman to be in, such as that of a father or of a son, or of a war hero in the united states military who is in delta force and has a wife and kids and is a son at war.
Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman? Because it adds to your enjoyment? Really?
A son. The Character Captain walker is a father, a son.
The entire meaning of the story is assuming you are one of those call of duty fan. Assuming the role of captain walker. The entire thing was on purpose.
The message would of not sold as well if it was a female walker. The character wouldn't of been as relatable. He is treated like a son by Commander Konrad.
That is what I was getting at.
Do not think I am saying women cannot be a delta force operative, I know someone across seas who is a girl and she flies helicopters.
I don't really get why poeple would be interested in seeing a female option for gordon freeman? In an fps where you don't see yourself in during cutscenes and your personality is non existant, so why would you need to see your boobs when you can't even see your dick? I'm pretty most npc refer to you only as Freeman so you can't really tell if you are a dude.
illuknisaa wrote: I don't really get why poeple would be interested in seeing a female option for gordon freeman? In an fps where you don't see yourself in during cutscenes and your personality is non existant, so why would you need to see your boobs when you can't even see your dick? I'm pretty most npc refer to you only as Freeman so you can't really tell if you are a dude.
How vain can you be?
Because as Melissia puts it "It adds to her enjoyment to the game."
illuknisaa wrote: I don't really get why poeple would be interested in seeing a female option for gordon freeman? In an fps where you don't see yourself in during cutscenes and your personality is non existant, so why would you need to see your boobs when you can't even see your dick? I'm pretty most npc refer to you only as Freeman so you can't really tell if you are a dude.
How vain can you be?
There has not been a single reason presented yet bar "Because I like it!" so we'll just have to watch and see.
illuknisaa wrote: I don't really get why poeple would be interested in seeing a female option for gordon freeman? In an fps where you don't see yourself in during cutscenes and your personality is non existant, so why would you need to see your boobs when you can't even see your dick? I'm pretty most npc refer to you only as Freeman so you can't really tell if you are a dude.
How vain can you be?
There has not been a single reason presented yet bar "Because I like it!" so we'll just have to watch and see.
Its like asking I want to play lara croft but I want to be a dude. Really? Why?
Asherian Command wrote: Why Because I don't think asethically adding something to the game says anything, it doesn't add anything.
This is so wrong it hurts. If aesthetics meant nothing in video game, we would know. People would stop paying so much money on graphic cards, and companies would stop paying millions of dollar on game engines.
illuknisaa wrote: I don't really get why poeple would be interested in seeing a female option for gordon freeman? In an fps where you don't see yourself in during cutscenes and your personality is non existant, so why would you need to see your boobs when you can't even see your dick? I'm pretty most npc refer to you only as Freeman so you can't really tell if you are a dude.
Please enlighten why she is a "badass"? Last time I looked you don't get a "badass" status if you join the military.
If freeman was female, then we wouldn't of had that awkward go make babies with my daughter line in half life 2. Gee was that disturbing. Freeman as old as Alex's father. The thing about the faceless protagonist is that they aren't as faceless as people think they are. I even talked about this before. They have very little characterization, but often enough that we know they are a man.
Oh and fun fact, on the PS2 port of half life 1, you did play as a woman. They included a extra Co-Op game were you played as the people in the other two hazard suits.
Asherian Command wrote: Why Because I don't think asethically adding something to the game says anything, it doesn't add anything.
This is so wrong it hurts. If aesthetics meant nothing in video game, we would know. People would stop paying so much money on graphic cards, and companies would stop paying millions of dollar on game engines.
And yet everything is brown. Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.
Quake 2 was very graphically advanced for it's time. That does not stop it from being a very ugly game to look at.
But people liked the 3D models and effects, so it caught on.
So, what about Blizzard latest game, which you can play for free, but getting a new model for your hero, that does not in any way improve graphical quality, will cost you up to 20€?
Asherian Command wrote: Why Because I don't think asethically adding something to the game says anything, it doesn't add anything.
This is so wrong it hurts. If aesthetics meant nothing in video game, we would know. People would stop paying so much money on graphic cards, and companies would stop paying millions of dollar on game engines.
Asherian Command wrote: The message would of not sold as well if it was a female walker. The character wouldn't of been as relatable.
Ah, there! Being relatable. That is the answer to the question you would not ask.
This the message: The I am sorrywe have not be representing females message. I see it as kind of dumb the whole slew of things. Let the market move and let it continue as it slowly adds it in. Where we will get more equal representation.
Aesthetics are different from graphics.
Aesthetics are menial they don't make a different. Like what clothing you wear or what tooth paste you use or what skin you are playing as in heroes of the swarm it doesn't add anything, its just a different skin.
Graphic engines are required in this day and age.
Why would you want him to be a man. Please do answer that question.
Because he is relatable he or walker is the representation or idea of the average video game player from two years ago, or those who mostly play call of duty. They based the look of the times and used it as a constant reminder of this is you and this is your fault. And hit the message harder. Though personally it would of been cooler and hit harder if the character's appearance changed. Sometimes male, sometimes female, but it wouldn't add anything just aesthic. Originally Walker was going to have black hair, but instead they gave blue eyes and blonde hair. This is a wink at the 'master race' idea in the gaming community. It is making fun of the entire genre as a whole though.
So, what about Blizzard latest game, which you can play for free, but getting a new model for your hero, that does not in any way improve graphical quality, will cost you up to 20€?
Now that is an appropriate example Also, 20 euros for a new skin? That's more than what Riot charges
So, what about Blizzard latest game, which you can play for free, but getting a new model for your hero, that does not in any way improve graphical quality, will cost you up to 20€?
It doesn't add anything. Its just a skin. Not a new model.
A skin is the outside of a model, it is easier to make new skins, than new models. That requires programming and artist ability.
Skins only require an artist. It is fairly easy to make a skin.
Such as in minecraft. I made my own skin in five minutes.
So, what about Blizzard latest game, which you can play for free, but getting a new model for your hero, that does not in any way improve graphical quality, will cost you up to 20€?
It doesn't add anything. Its just a skin. Not a new model.
A skin is the outside of a model, it is easier to make new skins, than new models. That requires programming and artist ability.
Skins only require an artist. It is fairly easy to make a skin.
Such as in minecraft. I made my own skin in five minutes.
I believe you could create a female character by making a basic model and applying the relevant skin onto it though.
I may be mistaken, however.
So, what about Blizzard latest game, which you can play for free, but getting a new model for your hero, that does not in any way improve graphical quality, will cost you up to 20€?
It doesn't add anything. Its just a skin. Not a new model.
A skin is the outside of a model, it is easier to make new skins, than new models. That requires programming and artist ability.
Skins only require an artist. It is fairly easy to make a skin.
Such as in minecraft. I made my own skin in five minutes.
I believe you could create a female character by making a basic model and applying the relevant skin onto it though. I may be mistaken, however.
You are
Females have different body types and ranges, we can't copy over a female skin onto a male model. It would look quite strange.
Take for example this.
If we were going to put kats skin on to say.....
Emile
The model would look stretched and not as fine and would be unnerving to the eye. It would be traveling down the road to being unrelatable and unnerving.
So the main argument why not just switch skins from a male and a female would not work, because the female body has certain areas that are different such as the waist and muscle mass. Muscle mass gathers in different areas for women and men.
This is not in anyway sexist its just biology. And as a designer we have to ensure that we are right or else it would be very noticeable.
Its how we can so easily tell who is a female and who is a guy in real life. There may be sometimes when it is harder but I can tell an average woman apart from a man, even if they are wearing full armor. Its how they move and how they walk.
But an experiment I have always wanted to try was to shave all the heads of a large group of twelve year olds, get rid of their make up and make them the wear the same thing like bulky clothing and overalls, they would be almost inextinuishable from each other in terms of finding out their gender. There might be a few, but the majority would look the same.
The whole "different gender" issue cannot be generalized. It depends on the game. In RDR, it would not make sense to have a female protagonist as cowgirls break with the Western scenario and the character's main motivation would be weaker as the DiD thingy works differently with men and women. Not to mention target group etc. Same as any The Witcher game. A female would not make any sense.
In any random MMO / DotA-game - sure, why not? Gender does not matter at all in those games and could be freely exchanged. Claudessa might just as well be a regular male knight and Rook might just as well be a woman like Sylvanas (Strife characters).
Asking for video game characters to be female just because they should be female is positive sexism, yo.
Sigvatr wrote: The whole "different gender" issue cannot be generalized. It depends on the game. In RDR, it would not make sense to have a female protagonist as cowgirls break with the Western scenario and the character's main motivation would be weaker as the DiD thingy works differently with men and women. Not to mention target group etc. Same as any The Witcher game. A female would not make any sense.
In any random MMO / DotA-game - sure, why not? Gender does not matter at all in those games and could be freely exchanged. Claudessa might just as well be a regular male knight and Rook might just as well be a woman like Sylvanas (Strife characters).
Asking for video game characters to be female just because they should be female is positive sexism, yo.
Agreed. But saying it adds enjoyment to the game is crazy talk for I don't know what I am talking about.
Asherian Command wrote: Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman? Because it adds to your enjoyment? Really?
I find that hard to believe.
I find your assertion that you don't care to be hard to believe, given your arguments here.
Should I believe that you really don't care? If so, you should believe that I actually do get more enjoyment out of it.
If you're going to assert that I am a liar, I'll return the assertion.
If you cannot respect me saying "I enjoy games more when I can play as a female protagonist", then I certainly have no reason to respect you claiming you don't really care about the issue when you've made a ton of very long posts about the topic-- or, for that matter, your assertion that you do believe inclusion of women is a good thing, which you still haven't proven, and have provided every reason for me to believe is not true.
If you want to call me a liar about what kinds of games I enjoy, just go flat out and say it.
Because some people believe being more inclusive is a good thing for games. The simple ability to b able to choose the sex of your character can be fun, even if it does not have a mechanical effect on the game. Like you said, it might just be a skin, but it has been demonstrated multiple times that consumers want that flexibility (and will pay for it). It's an option and players like options.
You keep saying that it does not make the game better, but IMHO, giving the player agency to make the simple swap to the protagonist is empowering. If you are saying that option does not fit into the story you wish to tell, ok. Just note that you might be excluding some of your possible audience.
The same goes for the world you create. Designers make choices, but please don't use "realism" as the argument. Is it realistic that young children are rare in most sandbox games? Nope. It was a designer choice. Same when a sizable portion of the women you can interact with (meaning more that a single line) are prostitutes.
Asherian Command wrote: Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman? Because it adds to your enjoyment? Really?
I find that hard to believe.
I find your assertion that you don't care to be hard to believe, given your arguments here.
Should I believe that you really don't care? If so, you should believe that I actually do get more enjoyment out of it.
If you're going to assert that I am a liar, I'll return the assertion.
If you cannot respect me saying "I enjoy games more when I can play as a female protagonist", then I certainly have no reason to respect you claiming you don't really care about the issue when you've made a ton of very long posts about the topic-- or, for that matter, your assertion that you do believe inclusion of women is a good thing, which you still haven't proven, and have provided every reason for me to believe is not true.
If you want to call me a liar about what kinds of games I enjoy, just go flat out and say it.
I dare you.
Why would I think you a liar?
Why would you get light hearted pleasure out of playing a female character?
So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
Because some people believe being more inclusive is a good thing for games. The simple ability to b able to choose the sex of your character can be fun, even if it does not have a mechanical effect on the game. Like you said, it might just be a skin, but it has been demonstrated multiple times that consumers want that flexibility (and will pay for it). It's an option and players like options.
You keep saying that it does not make the game better, but IMHO, giving the player agency to make the simple swap to the protagonist is empowering. If you are saying that option does not fit into the story you wish to tell, ok. Just note that you might be excluding some of your possible audience.
The same goes for the world you create. Designers make choices, but please don't use "realism" as the argument. Is it realistic that young children are rare in most sandbox games? Nope. It was a designer choice. Same when a sizable portion of the women you can interact with (meaning more that a single line) are prostitutes.
Well no. There are certain times when I just want to tell a story, I do not have to have a mandatory gender swap because I need to.
The problem I think is that it shouldn't just be aesthetic, if you want true representation then make female character that the centre of the story. Not just because you want to have females.
Multiplayer you can have asethic choosing but singleplayer it has to be one or the other. OR else it is just a fill in your own character. I don't like that, that is just an RPG game, which is fine, but I don't want all games to be like that.
I want some games to have a centre character that is a character. Not what the player wants it to be. (Like them usually)
We don't play lara croft to feel agency, we play to see her stories in action and experience them first hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote: So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
thenoobbomb wrote: So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
You know I am going to take this and say it depends, but it doesn't depend on the story or on the what the dev wants. It depends on what the game is and how it wants to engage the player. If a game wants to suck the player into the world, then I say a customizable character or neutral character is called for. If the game wants to entertain the player with someone else story, then I say a more defined character is called for. I'll also add that if that defined character is boring, plain or uninteresting it's a problem that makes the game less entertaining. Kind of look at it as who is the star of the show.
thenoobbomb wrote: So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
You know I am going to take this and say it depends, but it doesn't depend on the story or on the what the dev wants. It depends on what the game is and how it wants to engage the player. If a game wants to suck the player into the world, then I say a customizable character or neutral character is called for. If the game wants to entertain the player with someone else story, then I say a more defined character is called for. I'll also add that if that defined character is boring, plain or uninteresting it's a problem that makes the game less entertaining. Kind of look at it as who is the star of the show.
So you think Lord of the Rings is boring then?
Or you know God of War.
Defined characters are good characters. Captain Walker and Far Cry 3's main characters are defined characters. And they sold really well and are a lot of fun to play. I like defined characters, I hate customizable character. Thats just me trying to live in a world outside of my own reality that is true escapism and I don't like that.
I don't think games should be where we escape to. I think its where we learn about ourselves and other people and have them teach us something.
The witcher games are defined as well. Though personally I hate the mechanics that I stop playing.
Neutral character, like the game shovel knight are great games, but there is a lot of implications here and there.
I think rounded characters are needed more than unrounded.
Like we need good characters, not just characters.
Saying that defined characters are boring I think is missing the intent of everything.
Its like books, the more defined and well rounded. The better the character. The less defined and the more generic, the worse the character is.
Ash (if you don't mind me calling you that), I think we are not that far apart. For some games, character is central to the story. And for those games, the character`s sex sometimes matters for the story the designer wants to tell.
But, some games has the sex of the character not matter. Why does it default to "white male?" Right now, a sizeable number of games tell a story from a single groups pov. Some people (enough to make a fuss) like getting a different pov than the "default."
thenoobbomb wrote: So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
You know I am going to take this and say it depends, but it doesn't depend on the story or on the what the dev wants. It depends on what the game is and how it wants to engage the player. If a game wants to suck the player into the world, then I say a customizable character or neutral character is called for. If the game wants to entertain the player with someone else story, then I say a more defined character is called for. I'll also add that if that defined character is boring, plain or uninteresting it's a problem that makes the game less entertaining. Kind of look at it as who is the star of the show.
So you think Lord of the Rings is boring then?
Or you know God of War.
Defined characters are good characters. Captain Walker and Far Cry 3's main characters are defined characters. And they sold really well and are a lot of fun to play. I like defined characters, I hate customizable character. Thats just me trying to live in a world outside of my own reality that is true escapism and I don't like that.
I don't think games should be where we escape to. I think its where we learn about ourselves and other people and have them teach us something.
I said if they are boring, then it's a problem. If they are inserting characters with interesting arcs, then it's a good thing.
I would actually single out the new lara croft as kind of a dull character. It's kind crazy when you think about it, but she has no development in the game in spite of all that happens. There is a line midway were one of the characters tells her she doesn't know what sacrifice is and by the end of the game that is still true. She is the same person at the start of the game as she is at the end of it.
Actually far cry 3 is kind of neat when you think about it. Most games in FP use a neutral character, but far cry 3 dose have a character and they do get a neat arc. The fun part is how that arc mirrors the players. When you play a game like a sand box, you tend to start out really focused on the story and not a bastard who runs people over at random, but after awhile you get more use to being a bastard and less into the story. This mirrors brody's arc were he becomes less worried about saving his friends and more into the killing
AdeptSister wrote: Ash (if you don't mind me calling you that), I think we are not that far apart. For some games, character is central to the story. And for those games, the character`s sex sometimes matters for the story the designer wants to tell.
But, some games has the sex of the character not matter. Why does it default to "white male?" Right now, a sizeable number of games tell a story from a single groups pov. Some people (enough to make a fuss) like getting a different pov than the "default."
I think its mainly because the industry thinks the main buyers want to represent the industry standard character.
Once they change that ideal then games will start having different POVs.
I don't know. your'e the one that said you doubted my honesty. Why don't you tell me why you insinuate that I'm a liar.
Asherian Command wrote: Why would you get light hearted pleasure out of playing a female character?
I never said "light-hearted pleasure". I said "fun". Which I have defined in this thread as "amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable".
I unashamedly find games more enjoyable wehen I can play as a female protagonist. Thus, more fun.
If you want to ask why, the simple answer is "immersion", as I have said dozens of times before-- including to you. While immersing myself in a game with a male protagonist is not impossible, I am able to immerse myself in a character easier when the character is female. As a result, those games are superior to me than other games. Other aspects of a game may make up for this lack of a female protagonist, such as in the case of Half Life*. But given two games of equal quality, one of which offers a female protagonist or a protagonist I can customize, one of which offers a male protagonist?
I will skip the later for the former every time.
*(which still would have been better if I hadn't been reminded of Freeman's gender every five minutes by the NPCs talking about him)
thenoobbomb wrote: So, if every game should have the option to play as a female character, should there be an option to be, say, Lary Croft instead of Lara Croft? A male Bayonetta? Man-Faith? And so forth..?
You know I am going to take this and say it depends, but it doesn't depend on the story or on the what the dev wants. It depends on what the game is and how it wants to engage the player. If a game wants to suck the player into the world, then I say a customizable character or neutral character is called for. If the game wants to entertain the player with someone else story, then I say a more defined character is called for. I'll also add that if that defined character is boring, plain or uninteresting it's a problem that makes the game less entertaining. Kind of look at it as who is the star of the show.
So you think Lord of the Rings is boring then?
Or you know God of War.
Defined characters are good characters. Captain Walker and Far Cry 3's main characters are defined characters. And they sold really well and are a lot of fun to play. I like defined characters, I hate customizable character. Thats just me trying to live in a world outside of my own reality that is true escapism and I don't like that.
I don't think games should be where we escape to. I think its where we learn about ourselves and other people and have them teach us something.
I said if they are boring, then it's a problem. If they are inserting characters with interesting arcs, then it's a good thing.
I would actually single out the new lara croft as kind of a dull character. It's kind crazy when you think about it, but she has no development in the game in spite of all that happens. There is a line midway were one of the characters tells her she doesn't know what sacrifice is and by the end of the game that is still true. She is the same person at the start of the game as she is at the end of it.
Actually far cry 3 is kind of neat when you think about it. Most games in FP use a neutral character, but far cry 3 dose have a character and they do get a neat arc. The fun part is how that arc mirrors the players. When you play a game like a sand box, you tend to start out really focused on the story and not a bastard who runs people over at random, but after awhile you get more use to being a bastard and less into the story. This mirrors brody's arc were he becomes less worried about saving his friends and more into the killing
(except for the ending) but
And yes I agree. Lara Croft is so under developed its hilarious.
But still the industry as a whole doesn't write that well.
I admittedly can say, that even my writing is not that grand. But most designers are focused on making this childhood fantasy character, instead of telling a story, and using different colors other than white.
AdeptSister wrote: Ash (if you don't mind me calling you that), I think we are not that far apart. For some games, character is central to the story. And for those games, the character`s sex sometimes matters for the story the designer wants to tell.
But, some games has the sex of the character not matter. Why does it default to "white male?" Right now, a sizeable number of games tell a story from a single groups pov. Some people (enough to make a fuss) like getting a different pov than the "default."
I think its mainly because the industry thinks the main buyers want to represent the industry standard character.
Once they change that ideal then games will start having different POVs.
And we get locked into vicious circle: Industry makes games for a certain group, yet doesn't understand why it can't expand outside that group. Its a matter of getting out of one‘s comfort zone (a thing that is mandatory for a lot of minorities and women to interact with society.)
The Telltale Walking Dead games did something different. Why not others? The market exists.
A skin is the outside of a model, it is easier to make new skins, than new models. That requires programming and artist ability.
Skins only require an artist. It is fairly easy to make a skin.
Such as in minecraft. I made my own skin in five minutes.
Actually, it is a new model, not a new texture. But still does not change the fact you have to be pretty blind not to notice that this may be nothing to you, but it is something your customer (you know, the people that pay their money so you can have stuff) do care.
Sigvatr wrote: In RDR, it would not make sense to have a female protagonist as cowgirls break with the Western scenario and the character's main motivation would be weaker as the DiD thingy works differently with men and women.
It would evolve the western scenario, yes. Is that a bad thing? Also, can you develop why the DiD works differently with men and women, and if this is a good thing?
Asherian Command wrote: There may be sometimes when it is harder but I can tell an average woman apart from a man, even if they are wearing full armor. Its how they move and how they walk.
Feminist/SJW: WE DON'T KNOW! Wasn't it because it's sexist? I thought men were scum? I need to go, big bang is starting.
This is interesting, please tell me more about it!
Asherian Command wrote: OR else it is just a fill in your own character. I don't like that, that is just an RPG game, which is fine, but I don't want all games to be like that.
That is how basically every good old FPS game worked, and it was very good. You keep saying that only gameplay matters, so why do you care about character development?
That is how basically every good old FPS game worked, and it was very good. You keep saying that only gameplay matters, so why do you care about character development?
Because character development adds more, you need a combination of all things related to a game in order to have a good game. You can have the best gameplay in the world, but if you don't have a story or good characters. I will not call you a good game.
ctually, it is a new model, not a new texture. But still does not change the fact you have to be pretty blind not to notice that this may be nothing to you, but it is something your customer (you know, the people that pay their money so you can have stuff) do care.
Its a new skin texture. In heroes of the storm, its not a new model. Its a new skin texture. Do not say it isn't. Because it is a skin texture. I can tell a skin texture from a model pretty easily. Some are new models but not all of them are new models. Most of them are textures.
Also those videos, I can tell from their legs and forearms they are women
But it adds nothing to gameplay, it does not improve gameplay in any way, story do not matters, it is not going to make the game more fun! Who cares about character development? Adding character development is wasting resources that should be spent somewhere else.
Asherian Command wrote: you need a combination of all things related to a game in order to have a good game.
Yes, you need gameplay and aesthetic. Painkiller has both and that is why it is so awesome. But nobody cares about story, it adds nothing to gameplay, and it will not make the game better, right? Who cares about story?
But it adds nothing to gameplay, it does not improve gameplay in any way, story do not matters, it is not going to make the game more fun! Who cares about character development? Adding character development is wasting resources that should be spent somewhere else.
Asherian Command wrote: you need a combination of all things related to a game in order to have a good game.
Yes, you need gameplay and aesthetic. Painkiller has both and that is why it is so awesome. But nobody cares about story, it adds nothing to gameplay, and it will not make the game better, right? Who cares about story?
I personally perfer story and character development, because it shows you tried in that department.
You can say its not needed, but at the same time it gives meaning to the game. It gives this idea that there is more than fun to be had in a game. Story gives subistence and gives a deeper idea other than to have fun.
You are using my argument against me. And you will fail spectacularly
Asherian Command wrote: Its a new skin texture. In heroes of the storm, its not a new model. Its a new skin texture. Do not say it isn't. Because it is a skin texture. I can tell a skin texture from a model pretty easily. Some are new models but not all of them are new models. Most of them are textures.
Asherian Command wrote: The message would of not sold as well if it was a female walker. The character wouldn't of been as relatable.
People don't like characters solely for relatability, the characters you admire in enjoy in video games are most likely nothing like you. I doubt you have much in common with a female power armoured warrior shooting down aliens, a pudgy plumber traveling a psychedelic world to save a
Asherian Command wrote: Its a new skin texture. In heroes of the storm, its not a new model. Its a new skin texture. Do not say it isn't. Because it is a skin texture. I can tell a skin texture from a model pretty easily. Some are new models but not all of them are new models. Most of them are textures.
Spoiler:
Only Raynor is only a skin.
Otherwise known as: you failed.
Those are skins XD
Not new models.
Oh my goodness they are not completely new models. They added an attachment to the skin. Hahahaha. Oh dear you have not taken animation classes.
Asherian Command wrote: I personally perfer story and character development, because it shows you tried in that department.
Yeah, you personally prefer it. But who cares about it? Noone! It adds nothing to the game. Will it improve my gameplay? Will it make the game look better? No, therefore it is useless!
Asherian Command wrote: You can say its not needed, but at the same time it gives meaning to the game.
But horror games have story that are not light-earthed enjoyment, so stories do no bring fun to game. They are boring and we should never have game with stories!
Asherian Command wrote: Story gives subistence and gives a deeper idea other than to have fun.
Tetris. Pong. Super Hexagon.
You are wrong.
Also note that the only games without any kind of aesthetic are those that are entirely text-based, like Depression Quests, and those are way rarer than games with no story.
Tetris. Pong. Super Hexagon.
You are wrong.
Also note that the only games without any kind of aesthetic are those that are entirely text-based, like Depression Quests, and those are way rarer than games with no story.
Check my post again. I said its rare to have games that do not have stories... READ BEFORE YOU POST
Tetris. Pong. Super Hexagon.
You are wrong.
Also note that the only games without any kind of aesthetic are those that are entirely text-based, like Depression Quests, and those are way rarer than games with no story.
Check my post again. I said its rare to have games that do not have stories... READ BEFORE YOU POST
Entertainment - To be enterained or give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Those are bizarre and unusual definitions. Also, your definition of entertainment is self-referential, making it a bad definition.
Standard definitions are as such: Fun: amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable. Amusement: the state or experience of finding something funny. Entertainment: the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment. Enjoyment: the state or process of taking pleasure in something
Asherian Command wrote: The model is changed, but its not a new model. Its still the same base model, just attachments have been made.
Therefor, it is more than a reskin, it is a remodel-- a change to the model itself.
Entertainment - To be enterained or give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Those are bizarre and unusual definitions. Also, your definition of entertainment is self-referential, making it a bad definition.
Standard definitions are as such:
Fun: amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable.
Amusement: the state or experience of finding something funny.
Entertainment: the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment.
Enjoyment: the state or process of taking pleasure in something
Asherian Command wrote: The model is changed, but its not a new model. Its still the same base model, just attachments have been made.
Therefor, it is more than a reskin, it is a remodel-- a change to the model itself.
Oh I just thought about saints row 2 again. It kind of brakes my outline I came up. It's a character driver story. You really play most of the game just so you can see what evil thing the boss will do next, but it also lets you customize them to the nines and yes you can change their gender. It really lets you have both a neat character and the ability to have a customized character.
What is the difference? Unless you do believe evolution is always good?
"Evolve" means that it's a positive thing. How can you say that Western now getting more female leads would objectively be a good thing? I don't think that anyone could foresee it being a good change, so I prefer the neutral approach to it.
So, no social construct at all? Are we really speaking about Damsel in Distress?
Yarrrr. The trope was created / reinforced because of sexual dimorphism. Men work differently than women and one difference is how they react to certain situations. There are quite lengthy explanations on those and they include stuff like DiD.
Sigvatr wrote: "Evolve" means that it's a positive thing.
No, not necessarily. It does have a positive connotation, but this is just a connotation, not an integral part of the meaning.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolution
Sigvatr wrote: The trope was created / reinforced because of sexual dimorphism. Men work differently than women and one difference is how they react to certain situations. There are quite lengthy explanations on those and they include stuff like DiD.
I do question how much of it is innate, and hence actual dimorphism, and how much is acquired, and therefore just a social construct.
Melissia wrote: I'm guessing at roughly 1%-30% of the armed forces were women in the medieval period, depending on a few things-- which war, which nation, which time period within the era, etc. In spite of the traditional biases of historians, there's records of women fighting in the infantry for Britain and France, as well as women knights marching with the army and even leading armies.
I admit, I am a bit curious where you are getting the higher end of this estimation from.
- you aren't counting non combatants and camp followers are you?
I do question how much of it is innate, and hence actual dimorphism, and how much is acquired, and therefore just a social construct.
As with everything in neurology, there always is a biological foundation, in this case dimorphism, that can certainly be influenced to a certain degree. What remains, however, is that appealing to it will fall upon fertile ground.
Melissia wrote: Yes, being able to customize the protagonist would make the game better.
Not it wouldn't, and I'm sick of hearing gak like that. Story informs character. The story is about John Marston and everything that happened to him, in his past, in his present, and in the future of his son. It is not about "Blank Genderless Canvass #332".
Melissia wrote: I'm guessing at roughly 1%-30% of the armed forces were women in the medieval period, depending on a few things-- which war, which nation, which time period within the era, etc. In spite of the traditional biases of historians, there's records of women fighting in the infantry for Britain and France, as well as women knights marching with the army and even leading armies.
I admit, I am a bit curious where you are getting the higher end of this estimation from.
- you aren't counting non combatants and camp followers are you?
1% would be the higher end of the estimation. 30% is hilariously ludicrous.
It depends on the culture. Germanic women were always fighting with men when trying to settle down in another country. They were far outnumbered, of course, but they knew how to fight and defend their home / families.
That being said, they have always been more badass than the central European dudes hiding in a prison of stone.
Bromsy wrote: I admit, I am a bit curious where you are getting the higher end of this estimation from.
The upper end is a rough estimate based off of what I've read about various cultures such as Vikings and Scythians which had a strong tradition of a class of warrior-women participating in their battles. We can see that in other parts of the world as well, such as the (in)famous Dahomey warriors in Africa.
A rough estimate is really all that I'd try to guess at-- exact records haven't always survived and aren't always complete anyway, though they DO indicate that women peasants were recruited alongside male peasants in medieval armies, some of them coming with their own equipment, and some not. Women nobles have joined battles as well, including as knights and as commanders of armies, though the percentage is likely lower amongst nobles than amongst peasants (women peasants were quite physically fit anyway, given a lifetime of farm labor, compared to most noblewomen).
Melissia wrote: Yes, being able to customize the protagonist would make the game better.
Not it wouldn't, and I'm sick of hearing gak like that. Story informs character. The story is about John Marston and everything that happened to him, in his past, in his present, and in the future of his son. It is not about "Blank Genderless Canvass #332".
I hate games with blank slates.
I call any game with a customization character blank slates.
AS fill in your information here is usually what happens.
It is more difficult to make a fleshed out character than a customizable character.
I never got the attraction is it because you want to live out your fantasy of kicking ass? (I say mostly yes)
A lot of games are about building you up as this hero type and reinforcing that idea. (Actually as a designer we are told that is specifically what we need to do)
But personally I think that is a load of bullocks.
See in horror games which usually have the best characters. (Silent Hill 2, Spec Ops: The Line, Home, I have no mouth and I must Scream, and Someone has To die) The characters are fleshed out, they are not dependent on you as the player. They are still characters they are independent.
Their actions are defined but thats not necessarily boring. Thats interesting because in all games you have a sense of agency and control over your character. IN horror and stealth games that is removed from you, and you are just the puppeteer fixed to a routine. But it may not always be the same rountine but the end result is always the same.
Bromsy wrote: I admit, I am a bit curious where you are getting the higher end of this estimation from.
The upper end is a rough estimate based off of what I've read about various cultures such as Vikings and Scythians which had a strong tradition of a class of warrior-women participating in their battles.
Women back then weren't actual vikings. They weren't part of raids as they were too valuable to die in battle or get captured by the enemy. Women were, however, trained in battle as it was up to them to defend their home when being attacked. The weren't, however, warriors in the sense of being used as "warrior material". There definitely were women who were meant to go into battle, but those were mostly women who were found to be unsuitable for the homestead.
A lot of information about warrior women floating around is false information based on romantized reports.
Bromsy wrote: I admit, I am a bit curious where you are getting the higher end of this estimation from.
The upper end is a rough estimate based off of what I've read about various cultures such as Vikings and Scythians which had a strong tradition of a class of warrior-women participating in their battles.
Women back then weren't actual vikings. They weren't part of raids as they were too valuable to die in battle or get captured by the enemy. Women were, however, trained in battle as it was up to them to defend their home when being attacked. The weren't, however, warriors in the sense of being used as "warrior material".
True. None of them became leaders of the vikings, they were always considered second class. Even when they drew a sword.
Vikings highly respected their wives / women. While men had their place on the battlefield, hunting etc., women ruled the house. Literally. THEY had the last word and everything that happened in at home was controlled by women.
It's a common misconception, but women were valued very highly back then.
Women were not considered as valuable fights as men simply because women aren't built for physical battle, or, rather, their physique is inferior to men. Lower muscle mass, higher adrenaline resistance etc.
Sigvatr wrote: No, women were NOT considered second class!
Vikings highly respected their wives / women. While men had their place on the battlefield, hunting etc., women ruled the house. Literally. THEY had the last word and everything that happened in at home was controlled by women.
It's a common misconception, but women were valued very highly back then.
Women were not considered as valuable fights as men simply because women aren't built for physical battle, or, rather, their physique is inferior to men. Lower muscle mass, higher adrenaline resistance etc.
Hmmm interesting looks like my teacher lied to me then
Of course reading the writings of that arabian author probably diluted my thoughts on vikings.
Celtics had also had a strong female warrior class and females had lots of rights, but less 150 years ago females were still regarded secondary citizens and unless you were royalty.
So i am all for more female characters in games, as long as it is period correct, in fantasy and SF games and contemporary games strong female leads.
Yeah there were female knights, like Jean of Arc, you know what happened to her.
Depends on the scale. Women were advisors to their fellow husbands in a lot of cases. And yes, often, while men acted, women were behind them, giving advice and insight.
Women were considered weaker than men back in the times because of the huge importance of physical battle where men are simply superior at. A won battle meant huge riches, influence and power and since men excelled at it, they had the most power.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Celtics had also had a strong female warrior class and females had lots of rights, but less 150 years ago females were still regarded secondary citizens and unless you were royalty.
So i am all for more female characters in games, as long as it is period correct, in fantasy and SF games and contemporary games strong female leads.
Yeah there were female knights, like Jean of Arc, you know what happened to her.
Joan*
not jean
I remember reading lots of females in celtic mythology.
Like Morgan La Fey being the chief badass of woman of all time. Even though she is just a myth.
Sure you do. You need to acknowledge people have different tastes and opinion than you do, sometime, and making games for those people is no less important than making games for you.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Yeah there were female knights, like Jean of Arc, you know what happened to her.
Joan*
not jean
Jeanne, actually. For reference, what happened to her is that she became a symbol for our far-right movements, which are not exactly feminists. But still, she had games made about her.
Sure you do. You need to acknowledge people have different tastes and opinion than you do, sometime, and making games for those people is no less important than making games for you.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Yeah there were female knights, like Jean of Arc, you know what happened to her.
Joan*
not jean
Jeanne, actually. For reference, what happened to her is that she became a symbol for our far-right movements, which are not exactly feminists. But still, she had games made about her.
So what you guys like writing in a blank slate, but that doesn't mean all games have to follow that. Games should do more than Empower you, or give you a fantasy you want to live in.
A game does not become better because I can customize my character to my liking, I didn't like skyrim because of customization, I stayed with generic character that you get in the box art, because I don't think that is what is important.
I want a character. I want to see how these characters, I want to see the world and how people live in it. Not the way my mind thinks it should be.
Enough with this childish nonsense that you want to make this world your own.
I am tired of seeing this cliche of building your own ego up in every single game that comes out.
Enough already, I don't want to give a player a blank slate, because so what, its a blank slate, that doesn't help the story along, it makes unnecessarily dull. I have had enough of these stupid 'choices'. This light side and this dark side of choices.
You know what I want a game which punishes you for being good, and rewards you for being bad. Because good things never come easily. They come from sacrifice.
I am tired of this blank slate that all you push for. That is not in the best interest of games itself. You will get bored of that stupid blank slate, they are just faceless characters, that are just you running around the world wrecking stupid things.
Also on Joan of Arc.
She is called Jeanne of Arc in french, but this is the united states, and as such she is called Joan. That is the correct term for English.
Plus I believe Joan was quite possibly insane after hearing the voices of god and all of his angels.
Asherian Command wrote: A game does not become better because I can customize my character to my liking, I didn't like skyrim because of customization, I stayed with generic character that you get in the box art, because I don't think that is what is important.
Do you also hate pen and paper RPG because of that?
Me too. I just enjoy creating it.
Just for reference:
http://www.argentarchives.org/node/109841 That is just to show how people can actually be inspired by customization to create, and develop, their own character.
Asherian Command wrote: Enough already, I don't want to give a player a blank slate, because so what, its a blank slate, that doesn't help the story along, it makes unnecessarily dull.
Some game do not need stories. Other games want to give you control over that story. Even back to “You are the hero” books.
Asherian Command wrote: I have had enough of these stupid 'choices'. This light side and this dark side of choices.
It can be made way better than just “good” or “evil”
Asherian Command wrote: You will get bored of that stupid blank slate, they are just faceless characters, that are just you running around the world wrecking stupid things.
I will never get bored of Doomguy, or Daniel, because I was never interested in them in the first place. They just fade before gameplay. I will not get bored by Arzubaelle either, because I designed her and made her interesting and cool, at least to me.
Asherian Command wrote: A game does not become better because I can customize my character to my liking, I didn't like skyrim because of customization, I stayed with generic character that you get in the box art, because I don't think that is what is important.
Do you also hate pen and paper RPG because of that?
Me too. I just enjoy creating it.
Just for reference:
http://www.argentarchives.org/node/109841 That is just to show how people can actually be inspired by customization to create, and develop, their own character.
Asherian Command wrote: Enough already, I don't want to give a player a blank slate, because so what, its a blank slate, that doesn't help the story along, it makes unnecessarily dull.
Some game do not need stories. Other games want to give you control over that story. Even back to “You are the hero” books.
Asherian Command wrote: I have had enough of these stupid 'choices'. This light side and this dark side of choices.
It can be made way better than just “good” or “evil”
Asherian Command wrote: You will get bored of that stupid blank slate, they are just faceless characters, that are just you running around the world wrecking stupid things.
I will never get bored of Doomguy, or Daniel, because I was never interested in them in the first place. They just fade before gameplay. I will not get bored by Arzubaelle either, because I designed her and made her interesting and cool, at least to me.
Asherian Command wrote: Plus I believe Joan was quite possibly insane after hearing the voices of god and all of his angels.
Religion in a nutshell.
I personally don't think gaming will evolve and become better through blank slate characters. It needs to evolve past that, I am not saying get rid of all blank slate characters. But we have been stuck in that mindset for a very long time. Only recently have we started to get beautifully created characters.
Like the Walking Dead games, which have more character in them than any blank slate character ever will.
It combines choice and hard decision making and punishes you. But it still is more involving than a blank slate ever will be.
I prefer them. Ninety nine percent of the time, they're better than other games.
Just the act of having character customization, allowing me to create a character of my own, to let me give them personality within the confines of the storyline instead of forcing their personality on me, makes the game a thousand times better than games which do not have that ability.
Basically, I like games. You know, interactive media. Not static, unchangeable media.
It comes to taste. Sometimes people want immersion and to create their story. Sometimes you want a specific narrative. It just can get annoying if industry keeps presenting the same story/pov.
Project Zomboid is one of the best zombie horror games ever made. Only the tutorial has anything other than a blank slate of a character.
Yet again debatable. I disagree.
I hate the zombie genre as a whole as it is just a reuse over and over again. As the horror genre is sort of gone down hill, there are some good games out there but for every walking dead game we have we have 12 call of duty zombie game rip offs.
I know your opinion. Clearly, I believe it to be wrong.
So when you sit down to write a story, do you prefer to let other people go and tell you how to do it, to dictate how the characters act, no matter how much you wish they might act in a different way? Or do you prefer to write it from your own imagination or creativity?
I know your opinion. Clearly, I believe it to be wrong.
So when you sit down to write a story, do you prefer to let other people go and tell you how to do it, to dictate how the characters act, no matter how much you wish they might act in a different way? Or do you prefer to write it from your own imagination or creativity?
I think long and hard what I want to write about. And build a story with a central theme.
Sometimes I let others dictate.
Sometimes I free write.
It is the flexibility that I like.
I want an equal representation of everything, but over a multidude of other things. I want there to be equal amounts of access to all types of things, either they have more female characters as central to the story, or a blank slate character.
I do not think all games should follow and be dictated because people like blank slates. I do not want to see that. I want to see that equal representations of all ways that a story can be told.
So why shouldn't the players for your game want flexibility? The player is the one moving the story forward, not you the writer. You're just there to give the player a good interactive experience.
Melissia wrote: Project Zomboid is one of the best zombie horror games ever made. Only the tutorial has anything other than a blank slate of a character.
Downloading the demo, I will test it out!
Asherian Command wrote: I do not think all games should follow and be dictated because people like blank slates. I do not want to see that. I want to see that equal representations of all ways that a story can be told.
To sum it up, you want to have both blank slates games where the main character's gender is customizable, and fixed character games where about half the games feature a female character and the other half a male character, is that right? Because I am pretty sure we could all agree on that as being a pretty damn fine situation.
So why shouldn't the players for your game want flexibility? The player is the one moving the story forward, not you the writer. You're just there to give the player a good interactive experience.
Because in the end the player does not write the story. The designer and the writer make the story.
The gamer is a variable, I can replace that variable with any number I want and it will still end up with the same result.
In programming variables are merely plug in here and plug in here. No numbers or mathematics are changed in this way.
You can plug in anything and it won't change the story.
You are the player you are not in control of your destiny in this game.
All paths are predetermined. I as the story writer planned for all the paths you pick.
It is something that alot of players confuse. This illusion of choice happens alot in games.
I have said this many times. We should not have a market dominated by blank slate characters.
Melissia wrote: Project Zomboid is one of the best zombie horror games ever made. Only the tutorial has anything other than a blank slate of a character.
Downloading the demo, I will test it out!
Asherian Command wrote: I do not think all games should follow and be dictated because people like blank slates. I do not want to see that. I want to see that equal representations of all ways that a story can be told.
To sum it up, you want to have both blank slates games where the main character's gender is customizable, and fixed character games where about half the games feature a female character and the other half a male character, is that right? Because I am pretty sure we could all agree on that as being a pretty damn fine situation.
Through the player's actions, the player writes the story. Each player's story is different from the next, each player's experience is different from the next because each player makes different decisions, or goes about fulfilling those decisions in a different way.
That is what sets games apart from other media. And what makes games, in my opinion, better.
daedalus wrote: Actually, what about stuff like Terraria and Minecraft? You write your own story in those, basically.
Ahh. A ninja!
Or The Elder Scrolls, where you can make your own damn story however you please. Hell, if you want, in TES2: Daggerfall, you can buy a house, settle down, and become a pacificistic trader for a living if you want.
And you can do that in Skyrim now, too. Same goes for the X universe-- the player makes their own story in X3: Albion Prelude. You can be a warlord conquering the universe, a small time smuggler running from the law, an explorer, a patriot, or a galactic trade conglomerate with a finger on the pulse of the galaxy's economy... or a thousand other things.
Through the player's actions, the player writes the story. Each player's story is different from the next, each player's experience is different from the next because each player makes different decisions, or goes about fulfilling those decisions in a different way.
That is what sets games apart from other media. And what makes games, in my opinion, better.
I do not usually consider them to be apart of the story bits. Where characters make their own stories, mostly due to giving the player a lot of freedom, But personally I like those games a lot hell. Minecraft is one.
I just do not think that we should force all games to be like that.
Speaking of Mass Effect, would it be an example of a game where the writers inject a portion of their intent into the Shepard character while still giving the player a degree of freedom to create their own experience?
You can't have it both ways really. Without a blank slate character, these games simply wouldn't exist.
Not true. You can enjoy the game for certain things but it doesn't mean you have to enjoy the entire game.
If Mojang tried to force the player to play "Steve's Story" in Minecraft, it would necessitate removing the freeform "decide your own story" gameplay of Minecraft for something else.
Dshrike wrote: Speaking of Mass Effect, would it be an example of a game where the writers inject a portion of their intent into the Shepard character while still giving the player a degree of freedom to create their own experience?
Yes I call it a balanced Blank Slate Round Character - Balanced meaning it has both input from the developer and the player.
It is an example of that and think its a great model. But I don't think that is the best part of the series.
You can't have it both ways really. Without a blank slate character, these games simply wouldn't exist.
Not true. You can enjoy the game for certain things but it doesn't mean you have to enjoy the entire game.
If Mojang tried to force the player to play "Steve's Story" in Minecraft, it would necessitate removing the freeform "decide your own story" gameplay of Minecraft for something else.
Melissia wrote: By saying you always hate blank slate characters, you're suggesting that the game could be made better without them.
Not at all. I just personally do not agree with it. But I don't think it makes the game better or worse. Its just an approach to a game. As long as a character exists I am fine with it. I just do not agree with giving that much power to a player.
Ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine percent of all written characters are cliched regardless.
Call of Duty? Cliched characters. Heavy Rain? Cliched characters. Quake? Cliched characters . Mass Effect? Cliched characters. Lord of the Rings? Cliched characters, even at the time they were written. Games Workshop? A legion of characters all shrouded in a whirlwind of cliches.
As the old saying goes, "there's nothing new under the sun"-- everything is derivative to some extent. What matters is execution, and more often than not, I find games with blank slate and character customization allow me to execute a story I find more enjoyable than anything produced by most authors, any director in hollywood, or just about anyone in the videogame industry.
Ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine percent of all written characters are cliched regardless.
Call of Duty? Cliched characters. Heavy Rain? Cliched characters. Quake? Cliched characters . Mass Effect? Cliched characters. Lord of the Rings? Cliched characters, even at the time they were written. Games Workshop? A legion of characters all shrouded in a whirlwind of cliches.
As the old saying goes, "there's nothing new under the sun"-- everything is derivative to some extent. What matters is execution, and more often than not, I find games with blank slate and character customization allow me to execute a story I find more enjoyable than anything produced by most authors, any director in hollywood, or just about anyone in the videogame industry.
I don't think you understand my point and reasoning
I think that it is cliched as a game designer to think .YEah lets make that. We only need that.
Quake has characters? I thought it merely had enemies to paint the wall with.
Yep. I was mentioning the series as a whole, but Quake 3 is what I had in mind, and it had a ton of really interesting characters. Still cliched though.
Quake has characters? I thought it merely had enemies to paint the wall with.
Yep. I was mentioning the series as a whole, but Quake 3 is what I had in mind, and it had a ton of really interesting characters. Still cliched though.
Asherian Command wrote: I think that it is cliched as a game designer to think .YEah lets make that. We only need that.
And I think it's one of the best, if not THE best, game design choices a developer can make.
Again debatable, its the default for game developers. They are lazy enough that they don't want to write a story focused character, one who evolves and changes over time.
.
.
.
.
