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.

Ugh, this is reminding me of the "god mode" vs "god mod" debates.

(it's god mode, shut the hell up "godmodder" types, you're wrong, go away)

 Melissia wrote:
Ugh, this is reminding me of the "god mode" vs "god mod" debates.

(it's god mode, shut the hell up "godmodder" types, you're wrong, go away)

Who in his right mind has ever said "god mod"?

Technically, it's not even a mod, but rather a cheat...like, I don't think that typing "IDDQD" qualifies as a "mod".

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Ugh, this is reminding me of the "god mode" vs "god mod" debates.

(it's god mode, shut the hell up "godmodder" types, you're wrong, go away)

Who in his right mind has ever said "god mod"?

Technically, it's not even a mod, but rather a cheat...like, I don't think that typing "IDDQD" qualifies as a "mod".

IDK. . . FA

Wasn't idkfa all weapons?

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Honestly this whole discussion is assuming that humans in general have any intrinsic value at all, boobs or not.

They have an intrinsic value. They are sweet, sweet resource!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Wasn't idkfa all weapons?

Yes it was, but my post was a bad play on words of the acronym IDK as 'I Don't Know'

A very bad play, as if I have to explain it, it means it failed

iddqd was god mode. And if you put idkfa as a cheat into Mechwarrior 2 you instantly ejected from your 'Mech and got the message "This ain't Doom!".

And thus ends another edition of 3am trivia with HBMC.

What does HBMC mean anyway?

Heavy Bleeping Machine Clown?

Huge Bowel Movement Crisis?

Hateful Bloody Murderous Commissar?

His Balls Must Chafe

Humping Bears May Celebrate

Useless, the lot of you. The only two interesting attempts I've ever heard were:

Half-Bear Man-Child
Horny Bitches Making Cheese


It stands for Half Brother of Marneus Calgar, and a modicum of searching would have found you that answer.

Funny, the result I got from searching for HBMC was Hydraulic Body Motion Control, but I wasn't aware you worked for Nissan.


Anyway, more on topic, noticed that there was a much better representation of female leaders in Civ: Beyond Earth, from what I can tell in the videos. Hoping it's selectable-- I remember in Civ2, you picked male or female, and it used the name of a prominent leader of the appropriate gender afterwards, when customizing your nation. A pity the later games didn't follow that formula.

I have no problems with how women are represented in video games.excuse me while I go play world of tanks.

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, the result I got from searching for HBMC was Hydraulic Body Motion Control, but I wasn't aware you worked for Nissan.


Anyway, more on topic, noticed that there was a much better representation of female leaders in Civ: Beyond Earth, from what I can tell in the videos. Hoping it's selectable-- I remember in Civ2, you picked male or female, and it used the name of a prominent leader of the appropriate gender afterwards, when customizing your nation. A pity the later games didn't follow that formula.

To be fair, Civ IV had historical leads and a female president of America, for example, would have made no sense at all.

I fail to see that as a relevant objection, given that Civ is anything but historical.

Call to power (a civ 2 spinoff) used Susan B. Anthony for the female US leader. Civ doesn't always use presidents. Some times it just uses important figures like Gandhi. Also civ 5 has a lot of female leaders to it. A lot I never heard of before. it is a nice learning experience.

 Melissia wrote:
I fail to see that as a relevant objection

No doubt about that.

CIV IV uses historical leaders. If you want that to be different, mod it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
CIV IV uses historical figures

Fixed that for you.

Not all of its examples are national leaders.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
CIV IV uses historical figures

Fixed that for you.

Not all of its examples are national leaders.

Yarrrr, 'tis be correct!

This may ramble a bit...

My biggest problem with women in video games (as characters, that is) is that all of them are designed to appeal to men on some level, either as a romance interest or as a sort of McGuffin that triggers are often-socially-induced chauvanist/chivalrous programming. None of them... rather, almost none of them... are designed to appeal as people in general. You, the male player (designers assume all players are male), are intended to be either attracted to any female character you are presented with (on some level), or absolutely repulsed by them (and those you are intended to be repulsed by will be depicted as outside societal norms of beauty). There's no middle ground of "If she were real, I'd love to hang out with her and drink beer and watch movies, without the thought of romantic entanglements". There's no "she's a great friend, nothing more, and I want nothing more from her" design to characters. Unless they get the Little Sister archetype, which I mention further below.

They're, almost without fail, designed to be visually-pleasing, even if placed into attire that literally no one in their right minds would wear in that situation. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a nice chainmail bikini. I certainly do on an aesthetic level but, let's be honest, it's because it's cheesecake and I am a red-blooded, heterosexual American man. I'm not made of stone, for Chrissake.

A lot of them are designed to be endearingly annoying, too. Especially if they're posited as younger-than-the-protagonist. Vanille from FF13 is an example of such a character. This character archetype is intended to be your little sister, Player One, and so as much as she might piss you off with her antics, you will go to the mat sticking up for her against any outside threat (whether that's a person or a laser-breathing mecha-dragon-god-thing). Again, this is an archetype specifically designed to appeal to ingrained social mores.

They're also most-often designed to one extreme or another. Either they're hard-as-nails, totally-competent badasses that would rather kill and eat a man than give him the time of day (Lara Croft being one such example), or their names might as well be Damsel N. Distress. Though this has begun slowly changing somewhat in recent years, games in which female characters have some sort of nuances to their personalities are still few and far between... and even in the games where such nuance is present, the characters are often presented as sexual objects, either through a "mini-game" of gift-buying, dialogue options and side-quests to attain, or simply as part of narrative structure (just like an 80s action movie, Hero Mainguy will always go to bed with Female Love Interest right before the Big Fight... this is typically the 60 minute mark of an 80s action flick)... and, roughly half the time, FLI will go on to get captured and/or killed during the Big Fight, so that HMG has yet another reason to kill Evil Guy. It's a trope unto itself.

And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.

We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.

We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.

(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)

The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.

That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.

Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.


... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.

It is frustrating when media is blatant in its manipulation of its audience.

I'd just call that good storytelling. They made you identify with the character and put you into his shoes with his morality (or lack thereof). You suspended your disbelief to the point where you took actions that made sense for the character, even if they wouldn't make sense for you.

 Psienesis wrote:


And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.

We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.

We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.

(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)

The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.

That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.

Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.


... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.

Ehem...what you just described is perfect game / story design. It heavily got you involved you into the game, it makes you care for the protagonists and gave you an enjoyable experience. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

It's a very skillful exploiting of established feelings in your audience, but to what end. They use and exploit these feelings, but don't like challenge them or even question them. What kind of message are they trying to send.

Aren't you questioning them now though?

I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?

I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.

 Compel wrote:
Aren't you questioning them now though?

I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?

I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.

There is no moral choice involved. It's all required by the game and the game never addresses it at all. The game basically ends right after it happens. I never really pondered it in the game. The game didn't raise questions or thoughts with me. All I had was a vague feeling of wrongness. It was well I was reflecting on that feeling that I found my problem with the games message. People are bad and they should be bad. I kind of don't know if the game was intending to deliver this message or if it was an accident.

 Compel wrote:
Aren't you questioning them now though?

I've not played the game, but from the sounds of it, the game might very well point out, 'you have just screwed the entire planet' potentially. If it doesn't, then they've missed the trick.
Is there an option for you not to save her by any chance?

I mean, to be honest, not every game can be Spec Ops: The Line, but it's good that the games like Spec Ops can be made and mainstream now.

I don't know, to be honest, but I don't think so. That "map" begins with you killing a dude who's been told to walk you out of the hospital and send you on your way.

 Psienesis wrote:
This may ramble a bit...

My biggest problem with women in video games (as characters, that is) is that all of them are designed to appeal to men on some level, either as a romance interest or as a sort of McGuffin that triggers are often-socially-induced chauvanist/chivalrous programming. None of them... rather, almost none of them... are designed to appeal as people in general. You, the male player (designers assume all players are male), are intended to be either attracted to any female character you are presented with (on some level), or absolutely repulsed by them (and those you are intended to be repulsed by will be depicted as outside societal norms of beauty). There's no middle ground of "If she were real, I'd love to hang out with her and drink beer and watch movies, without the thought of romantic entanglements". There's no "she's a great friend, nothing more, and I want nothing more from her" design to characters. Unless they get the Little Sister archetype, which I mention further below.

They're, almost without fail, designed to be visually-pleasing, even if placed into attire that literally no one in their right minds would wear in that situation. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a nice chainmail bikini. I certainly do on an aesthetic level but, let's be honest, it's because it's cheesecake and I am a red-blooded, heterosexual American man. I'm not made of stone, for Chrissake.

A lot of them are designed to be endearingly annoying, too. Especially if they're posited as younger-than-the-protagonist. Vanille from FF13 is an example of such a character. This character archetype is intended to be your little sister, Player One, and so as much as she might piss you off with her antics, you will go to the mat sticking up for her against any outside threat (whether that's a person or a laser-breathing mecha-dragon-god-thing). Again, this is an archetype specifically designed to appeal to ingrained social mores.

They're also most-often designed to one extreme or another. Either they're hard-as-nails, totally-competent badasses that would rather kill and eat a man than give him the time of day (Lara Croft being one such example), or their names might as well be Damsel N. Distress. Though this has begun slowly changing somewhat in recent years, games in which female characters have some sort of nuances to their personalities are still few and far between... and even in the games where such nuance is present, the characters are often presented as sexual objects, either through a "mini-game" of gift-buying, dialogue options and side-quests to attain, or simply as part of narrative structure (just like an 80s action movie, Hero Mainguy will always go to bed with Female Love Interest right before the Big Fight... this is typically the 60 minute mark of an 80s action flick)... and, roughly half the time, FLI will go on to get captured and/or killed during the Big Fight, so that HMG has yet another reason to kill Evil Guy. It's a trope unto itself.

And then there's characters like Ellie from The Last of Us. Let me first state that I absolutely *love* the game and think it was one of the best-written video games to come out in recent years, and would gladly play an 80-hour shooter of Ellie hunting in the snow... but I also absolutely *hate* how perfectly that game pushed my patriarchal/chivalrous-chauvinist buttons.

We are firmly planted into Joel's shoes within the first 15 minutes of the game. He's a blue-collar Everyman in Small Town America. He's a single parent and the young father (seriously, he's not even 30 yet in the intro) of a twelve year old girl. We, the player, are coerced through the Voice Acting and the dialog to very quickly be in the mindset that Joel is overworked, tired, and utterly devoted to his daughter, who is uber-cute, smart and witty, and absolutely in need of Strong Protector Type.

We're given the exact same thing in Ellie which, to me in both cases, absolutely and automatically engaged by chivalrous/chauvinist tendencies. I couldn't help it. I was born and raised in the South, and was raised with the idea that it is a man's job to protect women and children. Regardless of whether or not they need it, require it, want it, or even welcome it... such concerns are besides the point because, since you're the man, you are the one best-suited for that role.

(Some TLoU spoilers ahead...)

The last stage of that game, going through the hospital to "rescue" Ellie, on my first playthrough, had me in an absolute rage. Why? Because here these people were (all soldiers, all male) who were going to hurt Ellie. So I... absolutely brutally destroyed them. Seriously. I went through that level as if I was the g-d Juggernaut, bish. I did not stop. I just gunned and grenaded people down in droves, and those who didn't die to bullets I broke their necks with my bare hands.

That doctor at the table? I shot him and his assistant the second I came into the room.

Why did I do this? Absolutely, utterly selfish reasons. I (and Joel, because this is the way the game is written) was not willing to sacrifice the father/daughter relationship with Ellie for the potential good of all mankind. I/Joel doesn't even tell Ellie this at the end of the game, instead feeding her a lie that she might believe, for awhile (but it is suggested that she doesn't) because the lie assuages my/Joel's guilt over having done what he just did.


... and I hate that Naughty Dog had so well-pegged the male gamer as the chivalrous/chauvinist type that makes that scene so damned effective at putting the player in Joel's shoes and evoking that same rage-fueled rampage.

Yeah those are called Generic NPC's

How is a character that's boring unengaging in any way remotely supposed to make me engage or care for this character. You basically described boring unremarkable people.

So a parent expressing parental behaviour is chauvinistic.

And if Ellie was designed as a generic NPC, would you have given a single wooden nickel about her?