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.

 Melissia wrote:


What the hell? Ain't nothing "corrupt" about asking companies to provide a product I want to buy, and asserting "corruption" just because your tastes are different is frankly hypocritical.

Not to mention completely circular. If the market doesn't adhere to those tastes it's niche, and not mainstream enough, but point out that expanding the audience will make games more mainstream and we get complaints about how the market is a corrupt scheme.

The market is the market. If anything is corrupting it at the moment, its the publishing industry that runs of self fulfilling prophecy market analysis, not consumers asking for more variety.

Look at Disney the past few years. Tangled and Frozen both stand out as excellent films that attempted to answer the accusations of sexism directed at Disney in the 90's. I'm failing to see how adjusting their storytelling to be less sexist has ruined their market.

Excellent and highly profitable. Frozen is one of the most successful movies in history, and the most successful animated film of all time.

Just trying to unpack Kali's thinking here. This reply was to Asherian:

Kali wrote:What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?

Kali wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:[It] just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)

I think that's the only reason at all to demand that the visual portrayal of women in games be changed.

In this statement is Kali saying that Ivy's design making Asherian uncomfortable is 'the only reason to demand the portrayal of women to be changed'?

This reply was to AdeptSister:

Kali wrote: As I've said before, it's not about "defending titillation," (frankly I disagree that this is the way most women in games are portrayed) it's a matter of lacking a rational basis to critique that element. Simply stating that it makes you uncomfortable and that because of that you're not interested in it does not warrant reform.

In this statement is Kali saying saying that a design making you uncomfortable and putting you off is not a 'rational basis' to critique it?

Are these two statements not in direct opposition to each other?
(Also interesting to note that the opinion he doesn't care about is the one coming from a female username).

He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.

 Melissia wrote:
He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.

Yeah thats when I started to think. Maybe he is just a troll. Because more successful the better game are released. The more people. the more views and different criticisms of the game that will change how games are made.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too, and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt. Try to work that in to your analysis. I don't know if I want to try to figure it out, myself.

Yeah thats when I started to think. Maybe he is just a troll. Because more successful the better game are released. The more people. the more views and different criticisms of the game that will change how games are made.

I'd like to believe that he's a troll. Unfortunately I think this may not actually be the case.

I don't see any reason to suggest he's being dishonest about his beliefs.

So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.

I mean they were sexist, but I kind of miss them.

I don't really miss them, they were awkward at best, stupid at worst, and in all cases, arbitrarily limited what kinds of characters I could successfully play, especially in higher-difficulty games. The game telling me "if you play a female fighter she won't be as good as a male fighter" is stupid and an unnecessary addition to gameplay that adds nothing of value to the game-- and, in fact, only takes away from it.

Though I could get in a rant about the stupidity of DnD's "Strength" and "Dexterity" stats, which really should be swapped when it comes to to-hit rolls for melee and ranged weapons (bows take much, MUCH more strength to wield than a sword, even a greatsword).

nomotog wrote:
So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.

I mean they were sexist, but I kind of miss them.

I don't know about Arcanum, but in DnD they would just be pointless.If you want to play a woman who is strong, put your points into strength. If you don't, put them into something else. Easy peasy.

Actually, in 1st ed DnD, men had a higher strength cap (18/00) than women (18/50).

No, there was no other thing that balanced this out. Male characters flat out had more potential than female characters in strength, and equal potential in every other aspect.

I always saw sex based modifiers as limiting. If someone wants to create a woman fighter with lower strength, they can easily do it without having to have a built in penalty. Why make the penalty mandatory? What does it add to a fantasy game that is about destroying limitations?

The only argument I can see is "realism" argument that I talked about earlier. I think that even falls flat as PCs are usually exceptional.

The realism argument is a failure anyway, given that we're talking usually about fantasy games, where the laws of nature are different than the real world.

For example, Strength vs Dexterity. In the real world, you need to be physically stronger to wield a bow than to wield a sword, while you need to be more dexterous to wield a wield a sword than to wield a bow. In DnD, the opposite is true.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

nomotog wrote:
So I noticed a thread talking about D&D and I remind me of something. Gender modifiers. They were a thing for awhile. Arcanum used them and I recall back in D&D3.5 there were debates about if male characters should get a + 2 to str well female characters get + 2 to dex.

I mean they were sexist, but I kind of miss them.

I don't know about Arcanum, but in DnD they would just be pointless.If you want to play a woman who is strong, put your points into strength. If you don't, put them into something else. Easy peasy.

Arcanum had female characters losing a point of Str to gain a point of Con. (Unless you took the tomboy trait.) It was kind of the games way of forcing the player to conform to the settings sexist gender norms. I can't make a judgment about it being good or bad because of nistalga.

I always try to never let nostalgia get in the way of criticizing an old game's faults, myself. I love Total Annihilation and STILL say it's better than any RTS Blizzard has ever produced in the entire history of the company, but I'm still willing to admit it lacks some important things like an attack-move command (Though there were many mods that added it in, to say nothing of the total conversions, which put Starcrafts' mod scene to shame).

I am not really all that good at blocking out my nostalgic feelings. I can admit that giving women a -1 to str and a +1 to con is sexist. (On many levels in fact.) I don't think I can admit it's a bad thing though. I played it in middle school and everyone is stupid in middle school. I thought it was just so realistic and cool. (Again I was in middle school.)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?

'top selling games of 2013'

Female video game characters exist, but they aren't being bought in large quantities unless they are Lara Croft or Ellen Page.

I don't know why, I don't even have a theory why. Lack of advertisement? Insufficient female audience? Uninterested male audience? All of the above? Something else?

I'm still doing my Damsel in Distress in video games from 2010-2013 count, but I might expand it to a gender playable character count as well. God help me.

And do you really want to bring up GG, considering the whack-a-mole that happened?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618226.page

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?

'top selling games of 2013'

Female video game characters exist, but they aren't being bought in large quantities unless they are Lara Croft or Ellen Page.

I don't know why, I don't even have a theory why. Lack of advertisement? Insufficient female audience? Uninterested male audience? All of the above? Something else?

I'm still doing my Damsel in Distress in video games from 2010-2013 count, but I might expand it to a gender playable character count as well. God help me.

And do you really want to bring up GG, considering the whack-a-mole that happened?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618226.page

Yeah I saw that I laughed really hard I actually got involved in another thread and I am now talking with people in the industry. Alot of people have delusions about GG

Anyway. I think there is a problem with that games don't seem to cater to girls. it has been made into a boy only thing. Girls think it is only for guys. Its actually kind of sad.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
'top selling games of 2013'

Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.

Well, there is a large difference between "not catering" and "actively alienating." Most of the complaints I have seen is the later.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Alot of people have delusions about GG

Especially the GG activists themselves. Anyway, back on topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
'top selling games of 2013'

Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.

Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...

 Asherian Command wrote:
Yeah I saw that I laughed really hard

I'll admit, I laughed too

 Melissia wrote:
huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.
Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...

I agree completely with everything you said, but please stop using the word 'whom'. All of the 'whoms' in the above paragraph should be 'whos', as they refer to the subject rather than the object of your sentences.

Who and Whom in American English are interchangeable. I will continue to use them as I feel appropriate.

No. In American English and informal spoken English 'who' is considered an acceptable substitute for 'whom'. However, the reverse is not true (one cannot substitute 'whom' for 'who') - it is like repeatedly saying 'him cooked', 'her showered', or indeed 'whom say'.

Cause really. An argument over the use of 'whom' is a worthwhile discussion ever.

I know that I am being nit-picky, but I hate to think of the more grammatically pedantic misogynists out there who will see perfectly well thought out opinions on the web, such as those of Melissia, and fail to take them seriously because of their clunky phrasing.

They are out there, these dark mirrors of myself. I've met them; I go to university in jolly old England.

Crystal-Maze wrote:
No. In American English and informal spoken English 'who' is considered an acceptable substitute for 'whom'. However, the reverse is not true (one cannot substitute 'whom' for 'who') - it is like repeatedly saying 'him cooked', 'her showered', or indeed 'whom say'.

Still not going to do it. Don't care. In fact, if you continue, I'll explicitly do it MORE just to annoy you.

If a misogynist would dismiss my posts because of a minor, irrelevant quibble in grammar (which isn't even accurate to American English, only to British English), then that misogynist can go screw themselves.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Alot of people have delusions about GG

Especially the GG activists themselves. Anyway, back on topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
'top selling games of 2013'

Yeah. Many video games means even 2% of them represent a huge numbers. Still, having only 2% means having very tiny proportion. Something those videos failed to address.

Considering we still have producers whom don't hire women to playtest and exclude women in the focus tests for their games, and whom think having a woman's face on the box art will reduce sales even when that character is a vital part of the game, and whom say things like "we can't have a woman protagonist in a relationship with a man, guys don't want to imagine kissing men"... it's not surprising at all that so few get produced. It's more surprising that so many do...

Honestly I don't quite see the point in not hiring an individual for playtesting because they are a women. Also the rest is stupid. Just stupid in general (apologies just stuff like this kinda makes me scratch my head and just confound me to no end)

(Also GG is like some hydra that's charging blindly through the internet. It's got good heads, it's got bad heads but none of them are looking one way and some are chowing down on others. The glories of hoard combat!)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You are representing the status quo? What does that even mean?

It means that I don't see the portrayal of women in games as a problem that merits reform.

I am pretty sure most gamers do not have a problem with more people playing as it means more money for game developers and more social recognition for gaming.

There's no problem with the expansion of the playerbase if that's all that happens, but the point here is that you think it's good to change things in order to get more people playing - I could not disagree more about this.

All of those are pretty extensible in many regards. Skilled labor just require more people wishing to learn and train on this specific kind of job, time is just not an issue, …

They're effectively fixed, since the pool of creative directors is very limited due to legacy costs that don't vanish with an increase in market size or profitability. Furthermore, the character of the industry and its games necessarily changes with this kind of dramatic expansion in consumers, something I have no desire whatsoever to see happen.

But then again, if any game that feature female characters wearing non-sexualized clothes is automatically something that you are not interested in playing, I can see how you would not benefit from it.

That's hardly my point. I don't demand the presence of scantily-clad babes in all games, but I'll be damned if I surrender the chance, simply to assuage the concerns of people who don't even play them.

 Melissia wrote:

 Kali wrote:
I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.

... corrupt?

Referring to capitalism, not your normative impressions. I strongly distrust the market as a good instrument for realizing human fulfillment and I outright deny that capitalism is a sensible or desirable way to structure the economy.

Crystal-Maze wrote:
In this statement is Kali saying that Ivy's design making Asherian uncomfortable is 'the only reason to demand the portrayal of women to be changed'?

As in, "the only reason that people give", with the implication that it's not a serious issue and therefore does not warrant reform.

 Melissia wrote:
He also wants the gaming industry to be unsuccessful, too,

I don't want the industry to fundamentally change in a direction that serves the wholly alien masses and away from the comparatively "niche" population of gamers that actually support it today.

and thinks any opinion other than his is corrupt.

As I said, my use of the word 'corrupt' described the capitalist system, not all opposing value sets.