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:
It's technically a brick that shoots bullets.

Tacticool assault bricks?

nomotog wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.

Gay people can have kids.

That is very true. Mason is one of the few characters who actually had some kind of relationship alluded to in the game though. No one else really has.

 carlos13th wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.

Gay people can have kids.

That is very true. Mason is one of the few characters who actually had some kind of relationship alluded to in the game though. No one else really has.

You don't have to be in a relationship to be gay. That is kind of the short way to say there is more then one way to paint a character as heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or whatever. Lots of games manage to tell us a lot about a character with small bits of information. I don't know if this counts with CoD though. It has been a long time since I have picked up CoD, but I recall the games being very spartan and very narrowly focused on war.

Just the point is that there is more to sexuality then dating and relationships.

I never said you have to be in a relationship to be gay. Most COD characters dont have their relationships or personal thoughts of feelings broached in any way shape or form. We never get to see anything about the characters personalities, sexualities or anything else in the COD games.

As I said any one of them could have been gay for all we know.

Regardless, because of the immaturity of the producers who say things like "we can't have a female protagonist kiss her boyfriend, that would make the male players uncomfortable!" (something producers actually said regarding Remember Me)... it's hard to believe that they aren't straight.

 Melissia wrote:
Regardless, because of the immaturity of the producers who say things like "we can't have a female protagonist kiss her boyfriend, that would make the male players uncomfortable!" (something producers actually said regarding Remember Me)... it's hard to believe that they aren't straight.

Cant really argue with that.

Also what a ridiculous thing for the producers of remember me to say.

It wasn't the final producer.

Here's quotes from the interview they gave, regarding them trying to find publishers:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/publishers-said-you-cant-have-a-female-character-says-remember-me-dev/1100-6405550/

"We had some that said, 'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that,'"

[...]

"We wanted to be able to tease on Nilin's private life, and that means for instance, at one point, we wanted a scene where she was kissing a guy," Morris added. "We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.'"

It's just society moving on from the whole perceived role that a guy must be the dominant one. He has to ask the woman out, possibly pay for the meal but also initiate the kiss or whatever. Oddly enough doing some of these things and believing guys to often be the aggressor is just dumb. Sometimes women can be dominant or the aggressor just as men can be more submissive or the damsel in distress in a sense.

As far as my problem with men being perceived in games to get this thread back on topic i'd say not all men like the steroid and growth hormone induced super man which towers over all other men at 20 feet tall.

I'm more bummed how gaming changed. Now it's all about freaking black ops bad *ss super soldiers. Most RTS games have died off so much so i wonder if the whole genre is dead (which is a terrible loss). Also most of these games complained about for being so male centric don't even appeal to me anyway and often don't appeal to the female gamers. That said just because i dislike where most games are now doesn't mean i can't enjoy the games i like. I don't suggest others change to suit me, my goals and my interests. I just play what i like.

Also yeah i'd say often as far as character development goes most male protagonists in games are very pathetic as characters. For instance describe to me what character depth exists for the playable characters in games like 'call of duty: modern warfare 2'. There's no back story much of the time. In fact i remember hearing the character doesn't even have a face on the model. Yeah it's that bad.

I'm sure RTS will bounce back eventually. Genres tend to experience ups and downs. Just look at the space sims, which are just now rising like a phoenix from the ashes with Elite and Star Citizen. Or turn-based strategy with X-Com and Shadowrun Returns.
It's just old-fashioned established industry wisdom discouraging development of anything that isn't somewhat close to a recent success. Publishers generally shy away from risky experiments, instead preferring the idea of sequels or clones, so it usually takes at least one hit until the beancounters acknowledge there's potential and greenlight the respective projects. It's just a matter of time until said hit shows up, but it takes cash and people willing to take a risk. The industry generally only rewards results, not ideas, and this hinders creativity.

The genre pretty much lived and died with Command & Conquer, but in time they'll either reinvigorate that franchise or (more likely) a competitor will arise. Even if it's just a sequel to one of the other older titles. I'd certainly be interested in another Dune or Warcraft. Let's not forget that StarCraft is going to receive one more campaign, though.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I can give myself a mohawk and not many would care. If I change my gender or skin pigmentation, then that would cause quite a stir; I imagine the first reaction of most of my acquaintances would be "who the feth are you, and how do you know where I live?!"
Geralt is an established character; he has physical traits that make him recognizable. His hair isn't really one of them.

Generally, appearance changes in a game's character customisation are applied retroactively. The gang in Saint's Row isn't suddenly shocked by the fact that you've customised the hell out of their Boss either, simply because the game will treat the character as if they always looked that way.
And I assume that Geralt's hairstyle, much like his other traits, were described in one of the novels at some point.

Besides, if you wanted you could've even made that a part of the plot. Polymorph spells exist in that world.
Or even better: Have the players build their own character in this established setting ... thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.

SirSertile wrote:Also, good guys always use pistols or an assault rifle while all bad guys use ak-47s
This is a horrible issue.

Isn't this more an issue of the bad guys usually being Russians, Chinese, Cubans or North Koreans etc, rather than of a nationality where western firearms are common? Fairly sure there's some sort of national typecasting going on in gaming.

That said, I was positively surprised by how C&C Generals or BF2 and BF3 went about depicting China and Russia. More shades of grey rather than black and white, just like with the real world.

Melissia wrote:" 'We wanted to be able to tease on Nilin's private life, and that means for instance, at one point, we wanted a scene where she was kissing a guy," Morris added. "We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.' "

Yeah, that sounds as if "we" is the studio and "people" is the publisher or an investor.
Would've been surprised if that would have come from the inside, given how they struggled to maintain their vision.

 Lynata wrote:
thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.

Sometime, you do not want to write your own character and story, you just want to enjoy a well-written character and story that someone else made. And sometimes, the story really calls for a specific character. For instance, American McGee's Alice was all about Alice Liddell becoming insane after her whole family perished when her house burned down, and her escaping from the asylum she is interned in by going to a Wonderland that is now tainted by her madness. That story really would not work anymore if you replaced Alice by some random Doomguy clone, or by anything else than, well, Alice. It is about games where the interactive aspect is only gameplay-wise, but the story is preset. You are really enjoying the story the same way you would be enjoying watching a movie or reading a book.

 Lynata wrote:
What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters?

Nothing that couldn't also exist in a character I made, and usually much, MUCH less effort put in to the character than I would put in to mine.

 Lynata wrote:
... thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.

Well, thinking about it; as much of a fan of character customisation as I am, some of my favourite games have been 'pre-set protagonist' games.
I think, in some games, it's about creating your own story (with in a frame work), and for those games customisation should be basically mandatory (although Planescape Torment remains a wonderful exception). However, other games, are about experiencing/participating in someone else's story, in which case customisation is not really necessary, and even adds less than in the former type of game.

When crafting your own story, being able to say what the played character looks like enriches the experience, and plays well into the whole idea of this being 'yours'. Your Choices, Your Character, Your Story. Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.

At least; this is what came to mind when I saw the question. There is certainly more to it than that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

Tell this to Quake III, the science fiction shooter that gave us Xearo:

Oorb:

and Lucy:


Okay, that game was not really high in realism, but seriously, pretending only the overused doomguy clone is interesting? That is ridiculous.

Keel and Huntress deserve their own game! Dammit iD be cool again just once!

I am sorry, but Lucy, Xaero, Oorb and Klesk come first .

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Lotet wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.

Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?

Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.

But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

The vast majority of soldiers are fairly skinny. Generally around 180-200 pounds, 5'6" to 6'0" tall. You know, falling within the range of human averages because they are people drawn from average backgrounds, in average towns, from average families with average hobbies, interests and past-times.

Many NCOs, of the E5 rank and higher, are actually kind of fat... mainly because they're older and the body doesn't naturally support being ripped as you age (not without extensive gym work and specified nutrition... neither of which a military lifestyle actually provides for particularly well, as meals tend to be high-starch, high-sodium and time is rarely available to live in a gym). This isn't to say that it's impossible or that it doesn't happen, but in such cases genetics and race/ethnic background tend to be significant determining factors (some individuals, and some ethnic groups, will gain muscle mass and definition faster/more easily than others). Even the "buff" soldiers tend to be more "defined" than being just huge piles of muscle.

The concept that the average grunt, or even a particularly exceptional grunt, is Bigguy McLargehuge is so far from realism that it's laughable.

Also, being Bigguy McLargehuge makes you a bigger target, which is bad in a firefight. Always remember this important combat tip from our pal, Murphy: Try to look unimportant, the enemy may be low on ammo.

Playing and interesting well crafted story and character is just as interesting and powerful as playing your own.

Actually its often more powerful and engaging than slotting a generic custom character into a game. I think both approaches have their merits and appeal in different ways.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Lotet wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.

Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?

Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.

But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

The vast majority of soldiers are fairly skinny. Generally around 180-200 pounds, 5'6" to 6'0" tall. You know, falling within the range of human averages because they are people drawn from average backgrounds, in average towns, from average families with average hobbies, interests and past-times.

Many NCOs, of the E5 rank and higher, are actually kind of fat... mainly because they're older and the body doesn't naturally support being ripped as you age (not without extensive gym work and specified nutrition... neither of which a military lifestyle actually provides for particularly well, as meals tend to be high-starch, high-sodium and time is rarely available to live in a gym). This isn't to say that it's impossible or that it doesn't happen, but in such cases genetics and race/ethnic background tend to be significant determining factors (some individuals, and some ethnic groups, will gain muscle mass and definition faster/more easily than others). Even the "buff" soldiers tend to be more "defined" than being just huge piles of muscle.

The concept that the average grunt, or even a particularly exceptional grunt, is Bigguy McLargehuge is so far from realism that it's laughable.

Also, being Bigguy McLargehuge makes you a bigger target, which is bad in a firefight. Always remember this important combat tip from our pal, Murphy: Try to look unimportant, the enemy may be low on ammo.

Madness! Their testosterone obviously protects them from harm! Haven't you ever wondered why all those gruff and grizzly main characters have regenerating health? It's the testosterone man! And that boob plate armor? The reason it works for females is because of the magical power of femininity Sorry couldn't help but joke here.

Fantasy armor gains an exponential increase to its Distraction/Preposterous Attire ACmodifier the less it covers.

If you (male or female) walk into battle in nothing more than a thong and, maybe, some boots?

+80 Distraction/Preposterous Attire mod right there.

A thong? Please, that's way too much.

Have them charge in to battle wearing nothing but warpaint, in the tradition of many, many warriors of yore.

Well, yes, but game designers are still leery about that AO rating... and they'd really prefer if "Free Willie" was remembered as a whale.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Sometime, you do not want to write your own character and story, you just want to enjoy a well-written character and story that someone else made. And sometimes, the story really calls for a specific character. For instance, American McGee's Alice was all about Alice Liddell becoming insane after her whole family perished when her house burned down, and her escaping from the asylum she is interned in by going to a Wonderland that is now tainted by her madness. That story really would not work anymore if you replaced Alice by some random Doomguy clone, or by anything else than, well, Alice. It is about games where the interactive aspect is only gameplay-wise, but the story is preset. You are really enjoying the story the same way you would be enjoying watching a movie or reading a book.

I still can't quite follow that thought. Granted, in the case of an Alice game there is probably a pre-attached image for how the character should look like, but if we limit it solely to a game's own story, what difference is there supposed to be between one that has a fixed character and one that lets you alter him? For example, excepting the aforementioned preconception (which is debatable, anyways, given that American McGee's version is a pretty warped variant of the original fairytale), how would it have affected the game if Alice was a black girl, or a young boy? You could still have the exact same narration, the exact same challenges, the exact same background and outcome.

I have yet to see a single game where I really had the thought of the player character absolutely having to look "that" way instead of any other possible options. And don't get me wrong - Deus Ex HR for example is one of my favourite games, yet I struggle to see how customisation could have possibly impacted it negatively. What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age? These games are all a similarly "cinematic" experience, yet only the latter two have customisation. What's the difference between them?
Or are we talking about different games?

Pendix wrote:Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.

I suppose it's really just a matter of preferences, as I'd prefer to just have the option in case I don't like whatever the devs came up with. I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again. For the people who prefer pregenerated characters, there's always the option of just running with whatever template the designers present as the default, right?

Still, thanks for the thoughts, you two.

 Lynata wrote:
. . .I have yet to see a single game where I really had the thought of the player character absolutely having to look "that" way instead of any other possible options. And don't get me wrong - Deus Ex HR for example is one of my favourite games, yet I struggle to see how customisation could have possibly impacted it negatively. What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age? These games are all a similarly "cinematic" experience, yet only the latter two have customisation. What's the difference between them?
Or are we talking about different games?

Pendix wrote:Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.

I suppose it's really just a matter of preferences, as I'd prefer to just have the option in case I don't like whatever the devs came up with. I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again. For the people who prefer pregenerated characters, there's always the option of just running with whatever template the designers present as the default, right?

Still, thanks for the thoughts, you two.

Thank you for posing the question. I hadn't given much thought to character customisation in this context before.

I certainly think that there is less customisation than there could be, but I can definitely see places where it doesn't belong. Or rather, does not add as much, as it does elsewhere.

 Lynata wrote:
. . . What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

Lets take a look at these two. Deus Ex HR could certainly have benefited from /some/ additional customisation (different outfits/hairstyles perhaps), particularly since there was a choice system in the game. Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is a story with very little narrative agency given to the player. Consider if you gave Lara customisable outfits, a pretty mild type of customisation right? But if they had implemented it they would have had to relinquish the 'clothes getting more damaged as the game goes on' thing they did. Or they would need to exponentially increase the effort to make all the outfits undergo the same effect. Would that be worth it? For some players; certainly, but for the Devs? I don't know.

It's that cost-benefit analysis that I think is at the heart of it. And if we think of the developers as storytellers (which, I imagine, is how many of them see themselves), everytime they yield a tool or an option to the player, it becomes a tool they can no longer use, or can no longer use in the same way. It's very interesting this tension between creator and audience that games can create, it must be one of the unique things about games as a medium.

You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.

It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.

 Lynata wrote:
For example, excepting the aforementioned preconception (which is debatable, anyways, given that American McGee's version is a pretty warped variant of the original fairytale), how would it have affected the game if Alice was a black girl, or a young boy? You could still have the exact same narration, the exact same challenges, the exact same background and outcome.

McGee's version is quite faithful to the original one, as far as I can tell. Granted, she had changed because of her trauma, but that is the whole concept of the game.
Nothing in the game's story make sense without the original books to explain who are the different characters, so you cannot really remove it. If you do remove it, even while keeping that same character, it does not make any sense anymore.

 Lynata wrote:
What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

I have not played any of those game, so I cannot tell.

 Lynata wrote:
I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again.

Well, never underestimate human nature! You could have a customization tool that only allows for boring stereotypes . Pretty easy to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, yes, but game designers are still leery about that AO rating... and they'd really prefer if "Free Willie" was remembered as a whale.

Well, Kirikou the video game does have a main character with a free willie. And you will get to see naked human breasts too! Shock and horror.
(The intro is a scene from the movie where Kirikou talk to his mother from insider her womb, and then he decide to get born. And therefore go out of her. )

Pendix wrote:Lets take a look at these two. Deus Ex HR could certainly have benefited from /some/ additional customisation (different outfits/hairstyles perhaps), particularly since there was a choice system in the game. Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is a story with very little narrative agency given to the player. Consider if you gave Lara customisable outfits, a pretty mild type of customisation right? But if they had implemented it they would have had to relinquish the 'clothes getting more damaged as the game goes on' thing they did. Or they would need to exponentially increase the effort to make all the outfits undergo the same effect. Would that be worth it? For some players; certainly, but for the Devs? I don't know.

Budget restrictions I could understand, same as setting-based limitations. I'm chiefly opposing the "but story!" argument that some posters have made in the past.

I'n terms of character customisation, if clothing is a problem because of issues with scaling it to altered body shapes, you could limit it to the face, as well as basics such as gender (requires only a second set) and skin colour (no effect on clothes). This is how it works in Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and I think in most games that allow you to customise a character's appearance. Full body customisation a la APB is unfortunately still pretty rare.
That being said, technology to have clothes adapt to body shapes is possible, as some games have proven - it really does come down to whether or not a developer thinks it's worth it. But let's just say I may not agree with the prioritisation that some studios make when it comes to a game's budget.

(by the way, you can actually buy a variety of alternate outfits for Lara as DLC)

Pendix wrote:It's that cost-benefit analysis that I think is at the heart of it. And if we think of the developers as storytellers (which, I imagine, is how many of them see themselves), everytime they yield a tool or an option to the player, it becomes a tool they can no longer use, or can no longer use in the same way.

Isn't it the other way around, though? In many games, character customisation and other assets often use the same rules and basics used by the designers themselves, just adapted/streamlined into an easier and more appealing form for the consumer - basically, you need to invest into a new interface, but (barring cases where a studio will model NPCs from the ground up) the sliders people use to change a character's looks have the same effect as the devs' tools.

Games such as NWN, Civilization or Star Trek Online intentionally open up parts of its innards to allow other people to use these tools to build new things, and it always results in the game receiving a boost to longevity, because new stuff means people may play a product more. Look at the modding scene for Fallout 3 and Skyrim, or how the vast repository of adventure modules, equipment and script tweaks kept NWN1 alive for more than a decade.

This is deviating a bit from just character customisation, but I feel it's connected in a way as you brought up developers supposedly being better off barring people from "messing" with their game.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.

I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2.
Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.

Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:McGee's version is quite faithful to the original one, as far as I can tell. Granted, she had changed because of her trauma, but that is the whole concept of the game.

Oh, that wasn't referring to the look of Alice, but the entire game, which seems to be quite grimdark as opposed to the colourful childrens' tale. If you change that - the entire appearance of the world - why not have a black Alice? Or an Allen? At this point it really shouldn't matter anymore. The narrative would remain the same either way, the rest is just perception.

 Lynata wrote:
setting-based limitations

Quite frankly, especially when it comes to "historical" settings, these are pretty much exclusively laziness, and I don't respect it.

Melissia wrote:Quite frankly, especially when it comes to "historical" settings, these are pretty much exclusively laziness, and I don't respect it.

For the most part I'd agree here, but I can see very specific roles where "excessive" customisation could break with a game's immersion. A modern soldier with long hair, a female detective in the 60s, or a black US soldier in the same unit as white ones during WW1.

In some few cases, an alternative solution could be to treat specific assets of character customisation a "secret" within the game's universe, such as playing a crossplaying female soldier in the American Civil War, or acknowledge the character being different with a few lines of dialogue justifying them as an exception, such as a black knight in medieval Europe.

 Lynata wrote:
Oh, that wasn't referring to the look of Alice, but the entire game, which seems to be quite grimdark as opposed to the colourful childrens' tale.

Well, the original children tale is actually quite frightening from time to time, if I recall correctly. But you are missing the point. The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories. So, you could have an Allen if you explained Alice went through a sex change surgery, or a black Alice if you explained she did an inverted Michael Jackson, but both would feel very very weird and forced.

I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

 Melissia wrote:
I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.