Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You know a game set in the old west.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Gaming is not always meant for fun.

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.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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!

Full stop here.

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?

Ah, gotcha

Ah, well then, it's still remaining faithful to the source material, is it not?

Also, in case anyone was wondering, there were indeed outlaw women. Here's a list

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/12-renowned-women-of-the-wild-west.htm#page=0

It would be pretty interesting if a game would follow the exploits of Calamity Jane.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:




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.

Obligatory SNL reference incoming

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ah, well then, it's still remaining faithful to the source material, is it not?

Yeah, not providing an improvement is a bit sad, is it not? Because damn that source material was not progressive.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
On the contrary, I wouldn't mind if it had more cowgirl.

Then their argument for not adding more cowgirls were not good, right?

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.

nomotog wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You know a game set in the old west.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Gaming is not always meant for fun.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Wrong. You have not played the game apparently XD.

Uh, what?

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

Because you said it was a historical game.

I mean honestly that's been your entire argument for the past two pages.

 Melissia wrote:
Because you said it was a historical game.

I mean honestly that's been your entire argument for the past two pages.

It has?

I said it was based in a historical period. I don't think I called RDR a historical game.

Historical games have certain quality to them that RDR lacks. It may be fictitious but it still is based in a certain time period.

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?

Does it do something revolutionary?

Does it improve gameplay?

Does it make the character more interesting?

Does it make the game more fun or entertaining?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Then what makes you think there should be a cowgirl in these games?

For their own sake.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does it make the game any better?

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Then what makes you think there should be a cowgirl in these games?

For their own sake.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does it make the game any better?

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I say I don't care what gender I play as?

Then the idea of playing a cowgirl in RDR shouldn't bother you. But it does.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I say I don't care what gender I play as?

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I say I don't care what gender I play as?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does adding a cowgirl make the experience more entertaining?

No. It doesn't. Its a gender. Who cares.

So, now you are answering for other peoples? Clearly, some people care. Even when they shout at you, you do not noticed them, though.

I think people have made it clear that people care. Just because you don't care does not mean other people don't.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a thing, does it make the experience greater for you.

Does it make better for you?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
What about other people

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does adding a cowgirl make the experience more entertaining?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No. It doesn't. Its a gender. Who cares.

Apparently, you do.

 Asherian Command wrote:
That was the designers decision

And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design? Well Jegus G Tapdancing Christ on a Pogo Stick, wish someone told me that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I say I don't care what gender I play as?

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a thing, does it make the experience greater for you.

Does it make better for you?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
What about other people

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does adding a cowgirl make the experience more entertaining?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No. It doesn't. Its a gender. Who cares.

Apparently, you do.

 Asherian Command wrote:
That was the designers decision

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.