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.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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".

 Bromsy wrote:

 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).

I'm not sure if this off topic and/or NSFW but:


Please Japan. never change.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

He did not need to lie.

Women were regarded under the authority of their husband and they were excluded from voting or anything else on a larger scale.

On the other hand, they ruled the household and all that belonged to it and were highly respected for doing so.

There simply were much more defined roles back then - men were warriors and politicians, women were queens at home.

Casually hitting on viking women? Nope. Have fun paying a fine.

So, effectively the men ruled in name only, whilst their wives told them what to do

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, effectively the men ruled in name only, whilst their wives told them what to do

Reminds me of my mom.

Or reminds me of this famous quote.

"Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."

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.

So what has all this history talk lead us to about women in games?

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hate games with blank slates.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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.

nomotog wrote:
So what has all this history talk lead us to about women in games?

Unicorn magic!

Seriously, though, it's a reason for the main portrayal of men and women in video games related to that period of time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hate games with blank slates.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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?

 Asherian Command wrote:
I want a character.

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:
She is called Jeanne of Arc in french

No, she is called Jeanne d'Arc.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Asherian Command wrote:
I want a character.

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:
She is called Jeanne of Arc in french

No, she is called Jeanne d'Arc.

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hate games with blank slates.

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hate games with blank slates.

I prefer them. Ninety nine percent of the time, they're better than other games.

Debatable. I would hate to see a blank slate horror game.

Because those games are all about dis-empowerment.

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.