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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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?

I find that hard to believe.

http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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?

I find that hard to believe.

http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

Read it again.

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.

Either gender can.

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?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

Please enlighten why she is a "badass"? Last time I looked you don't get a "badass" status if you join the military.

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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?

"Because I like it."

 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:
Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman?

Why would you want him to be a man. Please do answer that question.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I still think its useless and it doesn't add representation so why have it.

Stop thinking “Why have it”. Start thinking “Why not have it”. So, why not have it?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But adding it to ALL games is a stupid idea.

What about having only 3/4 of the game have a main female character, whether as one possibility or as the only choice? Would that be less stupid?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You can add it, I just think it sends the wrong idea

What wrong idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

 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?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.

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€?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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:
Why would you want to make someone like Captain Walker a woman?

Why would you want him to be a man. Please do answer that question.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I still think its useless and it doesn't add representation so why have it.

Stop thinking “Why have it”. Start thinking “Why not have it”. So, why not have it?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But adding it to ALL games is a stupid idea.

What about having only 3/4 of the game have a main female character, whether as one possibility or as the only choice? Would that be less stupid?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You can add it, I just think it sends the wrong idea

What wrong idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.

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

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.

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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aesthetics is not the same as graphical quality.

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.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

Please enlighten why she is a "badass"? Last time I looked you don't get a "badass" status if you join the military.

Guess you missed the part where she participated in 40 battles and escaped capture by confederate forces by killing her would be captors?

All without any one of her fellow soldiers realising she was a woman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/01/14/top-10-most-badass-female-warriors-in-history/slide/11

She seems pretty badass and delta force to me.

Please enlighten why she is a "badass"? Last time I looked you don't get a "badass" status if you join the military.

Guess you missed the part where she participated in 40 battles and escaped capture by confederate forces by killing her would be captors?

All without any one of her fellow soldiers realising she was a woman.

This is off topic please kept it on topic.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I still think its useless and it doesn't add representation so why have it.

Stop thinking “Why have it”. Start thinking “Why not have it”. So, why not have it?

Feminist/SJW: WE WANT FEMALE PCs!

Feminist/SJW: WHEN DO WE WANT IT! RIGHT NOW!

dude dudebroshooter -dev: Why?

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.

*Sigh*

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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..?

 AdeptSister wrote:
*Sigh*

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..?

No. Thats ridiculous.

 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.

nomotog wrote:

 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."

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 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.